Talk:Lilim/@comment-78.20.131.40-20150806102304/@comment-12776-20150820053631

Lifted from talk page.


 * First of all, we known that sometime the translation does wrong (how else we got 2nd revision and such for the profile that isn't in a book yet?).
 * And sometime message is distorted by various reasons during the process of translation, the translator is still a person after all. How they interpret the message has effect on wording, and sometime the message is simply impossible to carries its message across different language (we already went through one in mana/energy case).
 * The important point is that the message seem to be ambiguous but whoever translated it fail to carry the same ambiguous tone. (Say "man eating chicken" pun can mean both man who eat chicken or chicken that eat man. Now the pun can't carry over to Thai. Translate it as "คนกินไก่" or "ไก่กินคน" are both right, but the ambiguity is lost and so the pun just no longer work).
 * If you refuse to believe it, fine, that's your right. I just pointed it out. And since you can't prove that I'm totally wrong about it, my interpretation is still as good as your.
 * Again, we known that the Wanderer can be somewhat unreliable when it come to mamono's behavior and the profile is generalized, individual can be greatly different from the profile.
 * Regardless, believe in what you want. But as long as it's discussion about official setting, the official words has higher priority than your.

And even if he contradict his old statement (writen through perspective of unreliable narrator nonetehless), how can that override his statement? Ever heard of simple concept of retcon? (although I don't think it isn't the case, he already use unreliable narrative heavily from start) Mind you, MGE1 was reelased in 2010, on print material. Q&A words about monsterization come from 2014. So really, at worst you can accuse Kenkou of contradict his older idea, but that doesn't make his newer statement obsolete. Heck MGE1 itself also retcon many idea from web version too.

''You're like the oil company shrieking "but this climate change thing is just a theory, not 1000% fact!" at ONLY the studies that disagree with you.''

Again, I just pointed out that the message is ambiguous and actually descript it with neutral tone (except the part that Kenkou state how "'it isn't written in books' is bullshit." but that's emphasize on fact). You description of shrieking and such is just straw man tactic to paint me like a person with hysteria.