>>2993591That's not a source dude. That's you mouthing off with a bunch of claims. You need to back those claims up with quotes or hard numbers.
>Then what is this the post about 3.33's apparent success? I never said it was successful. Something being made for a purpose does not imply that it was successful in achieving this purpose.
>It does, you can't refer to a fallacy and then think you've made an argument.I never implied I made an argument. In order to even make an argument there would be a prerequisite of there being an argument to respond to in the first place. Which there wasn't. There was however a logical fallacy, hence me taking the time to point out this logical fallacy, which you have now conveniently labelled as the nonexistent "fallacy fallacy". Go ahead, try and find any serious debater who considers "fallacy fallacy" to be a thing.
>We have evidence and proof showing that Anno is hostile against Rei,Which shows personal bias, yes. But that doesn't really prove any wide spanning conspiracy.
>and that Rei's character has been bastardized.Which is unfortunately unknown as to if it's intentional or by accident.
>We have also proof that Anno's favorites have been spared thisNot really, but if you want to make that argument, again, personal bias. And nothing proves that it's intentional either.
>but have been given the opposite treatment.I'd say no actually, their characters are also fucking godawful in Rebuild.
>In other words, we have successfully proved that Anno and his closest have rewritten EVA precisely in the manner "us folk" seem to think.You haven't. You've laid down a series of (subjective) claims that you've failed to source. That's it.
