Ryushikaze
Deus Admiral Parsimonious, PHD, DDS, MD, JD, OBE
- AKA
- Tim, Ryu
No, you deserve nothing but dismissal. Every "solution" you've suggested makes absolutely no sense. You've resorted to idiotic phrasings like, "Well, there MAY have been another SOLDIER even though every indication is that there wasn't."
WHAT indications that there wasn't? How much do we see of the activities of ShinRa in the Manor in the years after SOLDIER is formed? Nada. What do we know happened there for nearly five years? THE COPY PROJECT. What didn't we see? Those five years. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, a SOLDIER 1ST or two got assigned to guard duty for Hojo's precious specimens at some point. Or maybe Hojo's a kinky fuck and likes pretending he's in SOLDIER. Or maybe any number of other explanations.
No, not an exact quote. But by saying, "one SOLDIER that we know of," you effectively said that.
No. No I fucking didn't. That's a strawman argument. You are one logical fallacy away from three strikes, susan.
As you pointed out, he looks very conspicuous with this, coupled with his spikey blond hair. The fact that he was never given any attention as friend or foe by anyone, much less Shinra, is an oddity that has yet to be explained. It's not a game-destroying-plot-hole by any means, but your half-assed "possible solutions" are, in fact, not possible.
... In Junon, the only time Cloud is canonically near ShinRa Military employees and not engaging them in combat or trying to avoid them during the game, he is not wearing a SOLDIER uniform. In fact, his hair and face are also obscured.
To put it in perspective, I could be saying, "It's possible that there could have been a gold-colored Tsviet who was orchestrating the events of Dirge behind the shadows."
This is a completely idiotic, unsupported statement that deserves no attention. Making up completely new characters, such as your anonymous 2nd SOLDIER of the Copy Experiment, doesn't point out inconsistencies with my logic at all. It does, however, make me wonder how you think any of these are decent arguments.
I see you are unfamiliar with the simple concepts of parsimony and occam's razor.
Yes, it's POSSIBLE that there's a further shadow behind the shadow in DOC, but there is no need to invoke this explanation, and it simply complicates the explanations, thus it is disfavored. In my attempts at explanations, we are faced with a possibly conundrum, so even though I have nothing concrete to support my hypothesis, there is a reason to make the assumption. Further, my explanations are some of the simplest explanations which adequately address the question at hand, and as such, they parsimoniously explain the occurence without need for grandiose but meaningless or exceedinly complex explanations.
If you want to keep trying, I can go all day. I haven't gotten to beat someone about the head with logical principles and fallacies in ages.
Be my chewtoy. I dare you.