>>33356162>Nobody that says "Ash is Red" is implying he's literally the exact same character from the video gamesExcept this guy
>>33355585You can't read implications on the internet and on a single-sentenced post. If you state "Red is Ash" with no follow-up, additional info, or clarification, then you are wrong. Now, if that anon were to repliedto his post or even re-worded what he meant, then people wouldn't be arguing with his post or your "logic".
I'm not the guy that's arguing with everyone else. I'm just saying, if you say "Apples are Oranges" but MEANT to say "Apples are fruits like Oranges", what you typed is still wrong, whether what you mean to say is correct.
You can't say you implied something in a sentence that holds no implication. I agree, it's not confusing or difficult at all, but you will be corrected, whether you meant to imply something that should have been stated as fact.
>>33356223People get the canons mixed up all the time. There is no implication in "Red is Ash." That is an incorrect statement, there isn't any implication behind that post.
