Current Events Oda completely lost the plot at the end of Egghead
- Thread starter dirtyLarry
- Start date
- Tags haterbois again proving their stupidity haterbois are not reading the story oda's angels acting up oda's virgins salty people outside of the forum hate people like you stop coping logiko the church of haterbois winter is comming noobs you guys will never have correct theories zorotard
Hey, fair enough, all of that sounds reasonable.
So how is any of this commensurate with chalking Saturn's actions up to stupidity or a simple human error? Is that really enough of an explanation for him to not use his 'Mass Paralysis' ability at any point, after using it the one time? What compels him to not instantly freeze half of the Straw Hats when he comes across them, and skewer Robin? (Mind you, she's one of the only people (currently the only one as far as the story is concerned) who can read the road poneglyps and allow someone to reach One Piece.) Why doesn't he just freeze anyone in place at any point after?
Are we meant to just assume he can't use it twice in a row? Or that he can't use it in full Zoan form? That it doesn't work on someone like Luffy, any of the Giants, or Emeth? There's no hint as to any of those possible explanations at the very least.
Is it really just stupidity/error on Saturn's part? Or could it be that Oda needed Saturn to have that particular ability because he wanted to force in a very specific moment, wherein Sanji and Franky were not able to help despite being 3 metres away, so that Kuma could come in and have his moment? And maybe the reason for why he conveniently didn't use the ability at any time again after that is because it's just too game-breaking?
So how is any of this commensurate with chalking Saturn's actions up to stupidity or a simple human error? Is that really enough of an explanation for him to not use his 'Mass Paralysis' ability at any point, after using it the one time? What compels him to not instantly freeze half of the Straw Hats when he comes across them, and skewer Robin? (Mind you, she's one of the only people (currently the only one as far as the story is concerned) who can read the road poneglyps and allow someone to reach One Piece.) Why doesn't he just freeze anyone in place at any point after?
Are we meant to just assume he can't use it twice in a row? Or that he can't use it in full Zoan form? That it doesn't work on someone like Luffy, any of the Giants, or Emeth? There's no hint as to any of those possible explanations at the very least.
Is it really just stupidity/error on Saturn's part? Or could it be that Oda needed Saturn to have that particular ability because he wanted to force in a very specific moment, wherein Sanji and Franky were not able to help despite being 3 metres away, so that Kuma could come in and have his moment? And maybe the reason for why he conveniently didn't use the ability at any time again after that is because it's just too game-breaking?
You saw two angry Carrot fans, I saw 300 mate, what are you even talking about ?
Not the Carrot fan of my branch. You met the Anti-Jinbe Carrot fans. There was a shiism that I participated in. I refused to create any hate against Jinbe. In fact, I specifically created content and analysis to explain why Carrot and Jinbe were complementary in the narration of Whole cake and maybe.. One Piece, so not the Carrot fans I know mate :)
Again, you met a few angry fans and considered that it was a generality. It is not. Most Carrot fans are subborn, yes. But they are harmless.
Well.. as long as there is no character poll on the line.
When I see the behaviors here, I'm not surprised yes. SOme behaviors here are not worthy of a One Piece fanbase.
Nah, they have the same problem as here. Systemic problem.
Not the Carrot fan of my branch. You met the Anti-Jinbe Carrot fans. There was a shiism that I participated in. I refused to create any hate against Jinbe. In fact, I specifically created content and analysis to explain why Carrot and Jinbe were complementary in the narration of Whole cake and maybe.. One Piece, so not the Carrot fans I know mate :)
Again, you met a few angry fans and considered that it was a generality. It is not. Most Carrot fans are subborn, yes. But they are harmless.
Well.. as long as there is no character poll on the line.
When I see the behaviors here, I'm not surprised yes. SOme behaviors here are not worthy of a One Piece fanbase.
Nah, they have the same problem as here. Systemic problem.
Last edited:
Really? Then how come Carrot didnt become a SH or had something big? You kept saying Oda was clearly planning for her to be a SH or had something big, going as far as to make up story telling tools along with insulting people. Constantly going on about how everyone must hate Carrot and is seriously biased to not see the clear story.
What happened? She came nowhere close to joining and was written out the story just like that. You yourself started claiming Oda changed his mind or doesn't understand Carrot as a character, because you refused to accept that your all-knowing analysis was wrong.
Sounds like a hater to me.
What happened? She came nowhere close to joining and was written out the story just like that. You yourself started claiming Oda changed his mind or doesn't understand Carrot as a character, because you refused to accept that your all-knowing analysis was wrong.
Sounds like a hater to me.
People focus too much on strawman arguments like "it's too toonish" "not serious" when that was the soul of Luffy's fighting style at some point, the bigger issues lies elsewhere, some unexplainable exceptions to his devil fruit no one can explain.
- How does he run so fast out of energy being an awakened mythical zoan?
- Secondly, if no other mythical zoan can replicate some of the abilities similar to Luffy (as in affecting other people/objects channeling df powers through them), why should Luffy be the only exception to that rule
The toon shit arguments is whatever, it's not important, these are far more important questions. No one can explain why Luffy is the exception to these, Egghead didn't provide anything in that regard.
- How does he run so fast out of energy being an awakened mythical zoan?
- Secondly, if no other mythical zoan can replicate some of the abilities similar to Luffy (as in affecting other people/objects channeling df powers through them), why should Luffy be the only exception to that rule
The toon shit arguments is whatever, it's not important, these are far more important questions. No one can explain why Luffy is the exception to these, Egghead didn't provide anything in that regard.
Like all the people who are reminding me of this (be careful because she still has a chance) you are confusing a fundamental thing:
A theory is not an analysis
I made both in case of Carrot. My theory was supported by my analysis. Let's take a metaphor:
Do you see this birdhouse ?
Very sweet, right ? If you had to make a description of this bird house, you would say that it is composed of 6, maybe more small rooms, roofs and a little stair, right ?
And if someone asks you "what will happen with this bird house ?", you would say that there are high chances that birds take nest in one of those chambers, right ?
But, you wouldn't say directly that this birdhouse is not real, right ?
Well that's the same thing here :
> One Piece is the photography of this birdhouse
> My analysis of Carrot's path is the description of the birdhouse
> My theory is the fact of saying that a bird will come to nest in the house
The Carrot theory and the analysis of the story of Carrot are two separate things, but to make a Carrot theory, I need to stand on a description of the analysis of her story.
An analysis is a description of what makes the story what it is. For example, a point of the analysis of Carrot is that Carrot was created to be a symbolic bridge between the concept of night and the concept of the day or between the sun and the moon. Said assertion can be created by observing various parameters in :
- Carrot's characterization
- Carrot's story
- Carrot's personnality
- Carrot's design
A theory is not that.
A theory is the model created to support an hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis was : "Carrot will be on the Sunny after wano and Join the group". This was completed by a reasonning and a form of point distribution system to see which character was the closest to join the group and if Carrot really had the potential to join.
My reasonning and methodology was SOMEWHAT correct (even if it wasn't perfect)
BUT
My hypothesis was proven false.
Therefore my theory was proven false.
BUT
My analysis of the story of Carrot is STILL correct. Just like your description of this birdhouse would still be correct, even if a bird never comes to nest in.
That's why I keep telling people that despite being proven false, it doesn't change much. Carrot still has a potential and something somewhere happened that is not logical (unless, Oda prepares something for her at the moment, and if so.. it's gonna be big)
A theory is not an analysis
I made both in case of Carrot. My theory was supported by my analysis. Let's take a metaphor:
Do you see this birdhouse ?
Very sweet, right ? If you had to make a description of this bird house, you would say that it is composed of 6, maybe more small rooms, roofs and a little stair, right ?
And if someone asks you "what will happen with this bird house ?", you would say that there are high chances that birds take nest in one of those chambers, right ?
But, you wouldn't say directly that this birdhouse is not real, right ?
Well that's the same thing here :
> One Piece is the photography of this birdhouse
> My analysis of Carrot's path is the description of the birdhouse
> My theory is the fact of saying that a bird will come to nest in the house
The Carrot theory and the analysis of the story of Carrot are two separate things, but to make a Carrot theory, I need to stand on a description of the analysis of her story.
An analysis is a description of what makes the story what it is. For example, a point of the analysis of Carrot is that Carrot was created to be a symbolic bridge between the concept of night and the concept of the day or between the sun and the moon. Said assertion can be created by observing various parameters in :
- Carrot's characterization
- Carrot's story
- Carrot's personnality
- Carrot's design
A theory is not that.
A theory is the model created to support an hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis was : "Carrot will be on the Sunny after wano and Join the group". This was completed by a reasonning and a form of point distribution system to see which character was the closest to join the group and if Carrot really had the potential to join.
My reasonning and methodology was SOMEWHAT correct (even if it wasn't perfect)
BUT
My hypothesis was proven false.
Therefore my theory was proven false.
BUT
My analysis of the story of Carrot is STILL correct. Just like your description of this birdhouse would still be correct, even if a bird never comes to nest in.
That's why I keep telling people that despite being proven false, it doesn't change much. Carrot still has a potential and something somewhere happened that is not logical (unless, Oda prepares something for her at the moment, and if so.. it's gonna be big)
Last edited:
Like all the people who are reminding me of this (be careful because she still has a chance) you are confusing a fundamental thing:
A theory is not an analysis
I made both in case of Carrot. My theory was supported by my analysis. Let's take a metaphor:
Do you see this birdhouse ?
Very sweet, right ? If you had to make a description of this bird house, you would say that it is composed of 6, maybe more small rooms, roofs and a little stair, right ?
And if someone asks you "what will happen with this bird house ?", you would say that there are high chances that birds take nest in one of those chambers, right ?
But, you wouldn't say directly that this birdhouse is not real, right ?
Well that's the same thing here :
One Piece is the photography of this birdhouse
My analysis of Carrot's path is the description of the birdhouse
My theory is the fact of saying that a bird will come to nest in the house
The Carrot theory and the analysis of the story of Carrot are two separate things, but to make a Carrot theory, I need to stand on a description of the analysis of her story.
An analysis is a description of what makes the story what it is. For example, a point of the analysis of Carrot is that Carrot was created to be a symbolic bridge between the concept of night and the concept of the day or between the sun and the moon. Said assertion can be created by observing various parameters in :
- Carrot's characterization
- Carrot's story
- Carrot's personnality
- Carrot's design
A theory is not that.
A theory is the model created to support an hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis was : "Carrot will be on the Sunny after wano and Join the group". This was completed by a reasonning and a form of point distribution system to see which character was the closest to join the group and if Carrot really had the potential to join.
My reasonning and methodology was SOMEWHAT correct (even if it wasn't perfect)
BUT
My hypothesis was proven false.
Therefore my theory was proven false.
BUT
My analysis of the story of Carrot is STILL correct. Just like your description of this birdhouse would still be correct, even if a bird never comes to nest in.
That's why I keep telling people that despite being proven false, it doesn't change much. Carrot still has a potential and something somewhere happened that is not logical (unless, Oda prepares something for her at the moment, and if so.. it's gonna be big)
A theory is not an analysis
I made both in case of Carrot. My theory was supported by my analysis. Let's take a metaphor:
Do you see this birdhouse ?
Very sweet, right ? If you had to make a description of this bird house, you would say that it is composed of 6, maybe more small rooms, roofs and a little stair, right ?
And if someone asks you "what will happen with this bird house ?", you would say that there are high chances that birds take nest in one of those chambers, right ?
But, you wouldn't say directly that this birdhouse is not real, right ?
Well that's the same thing here :
One Piece is the photography of this birdhouse
My analysis of Carrot's path is the description of the birdhouse
My theory is the fact of saying that a bird will come to nest in the house
The Carrot theory and the analysis of the story of Carrot are two separate things, but to make a Carrot theory, I need to stand on a description of the analysis of her story.
An analysis is a description of what makes the story what it is. For example, a point of the analysis of Carrot is that Carrot was created to be a symbolic bridge between the concept of night and the concept of the day or between the sun and the moon. Said assertion can be created by observing various parameters in :
- Carrot's characterization
- Carrot's story
- Carrot's personnality
- Carrot's design
A theory is not that.
A theory is the model created to support an hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis was : "Carrot will be on the Sunny after wano and Join the group". This was completed by a reasonning and a form of point distribution system to see which character was the closest to join the group and if Carrot really had the potential to join.
My reasonning and methodology was SOMEWHAT correct (even if it wasn't perfect)
BUT
My hypothesis was proven false.
Therefore my theory was proven false.
BUT
My analysis of the story of Carrot is STILL correct. Just like your description of this birdhouse would still be correct, even if a bird never comes to nest in.
That's why I keep telling people that despite being proven false, it doesn't change much. Carrot still has a potential and something somewhere happened that is not logical (unless, Oda prepares something for her at the moment, and if so.. it's gonna be big)
You're either a great troll or simply think of yourself as way smarter than you actually are.
Like seriously, what's up with all those ridiculously long and weird monologues when all that is being discussed here is a shonen (!) manga?