Board Thread:Theories and Speculation/@comment-45510280-20200416210937/@comment-1207741-20200428200911

Ninja Of War wrote: Or we could accept it as an inconsistency/exception to what was previously shown. 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.

Ninja Of War wrote: So I don't see how @Squinty is "cherry-picking" as you say. 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.

Ninja Of War wrote: It was never a discussion on what is or isn't acceptable. 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.