Board Thread:Theories and Speculation/@comment-45510280-20200416210937/@comment-26636534-20200428212350

Snapper2 wrote:

My comment was to Squinty, and he used the word "expand". If he finds something tolerable strictly on the grounds that it goes into greater detail on something from the manga, then the Tsukuyomi/Izumi thing should satisfy that. It can't be an "inconsistency" because there's nothing from the manga that it's inconsistent with beyond individual people's displeasure that it wasn't shown. Again, the anime and novel expand in two different ways with regards to Izumi. So I don't see how not picking a side, is cherry-picking. And the manga shows doubt in Obito's words to Sasuke. That's kinda it, for me at least. I'm neutral to what wasn't shown.

Snapper2 wrote:

He's separating the anime's adaptation of the manga from the anime's expansion upon the manga from the anime's new material, and presumably from the anime's adaptation of particular novels. So rather than taking the entirety of the anime as a single entity, he's breaking it up by acceptability. To me, that's cherry-picking. All-or-nothing for a given media/author is much simpler. I doubt that's what @Squinty is doing. If @Squinty says: I find more validity in a feat if there's more than one source confirming it.Then why not accept that as a POV?

Snapper2 wrote:

Then why do people keep using where information comes from as basis for their arguments? At present count (potentially including duplicates from quotes), "anime" has been used in this thread 74 times, "novel" used 108 times, "filler" 24 times, and "canon" 175 times. A discussion based strictly on the information itself and not where the information comes from would presumably not use these words nearly as much. One user and I are probably to blame for most of that word count. Though, I would add that it was repetitive usage on what we actually meant. But we got to an understanding, which means something good at least.