>>104862629>She literally threw a CD out of a car, because she hated the music. But, knowing how you are dull as a rock, you'll probably call that a one-off joke.Because that’s exactly what it is. She doesn’t even do it in a particularly strung out way, just an “I don’t give a shit” way.
>The citation isn't needed, again, you don't get to throw out what doesn't help your argument. I reserve the right to not accept Dust as a mountain just because you believe it is one. The burden is one you to provide real proof
>We never needed elaboration as to why she and Dipper are such good friends.I never said we did. I’m saying that your rationalization that Wendy just wants to be a child again was constructed as an attempt to explain it. Which is true
>And that last point isn't even a point.No, it was a conclusion summarizing the rest of it
>You haven’t ...I refuted the ones you mad
>All you did was ...I asked you to provide proof of thses aspects existence, either through intent or manifestation. You failed to prove they were intended by the author, and pointed to bunch of poential traits never actually definitively manifested themselves
>Seriously, understanding stories, through your eyes, must be so empty and boring.Only the ones that are empty and boring. The good ones, that actually make use of their characters bits quirks, and hidden elements are just as good as ever.
I can understand a desire to have Wendy be a better, more fleshed out character, believe me, as well as see the most obvious angles from which to develop her. But you have fooled yourself into thinking that because these angles exist, so too must this obvious development, despite the fact that it was neither written into the show nor even created by the original writers and just not implemented, and that anyone who doesn’t see it is lying.
You are clearly too wrapped up in your own delusion to ever be convinced, and there is no point in continuing this conversation any longer.
