Talk:Pocket/@comment-28700158-20160611154023/@comment-26484417-20160611234748

There are assumptions based on nothing that both of us presented at some points in this thread, and then there are assumptions based on information we already possess that--by their nature--supersede the unsupported. Regardless of your willingness to recognise the distinction--considering you had uniquely favoured unsupported assumptions in this thread--, your arguments cannot stand against a counter-argument that is even partially based on known information. However, this distinction appears to be superfluous when the only arguments on behalf of your theory are "it is reasonable", "it is not strange", "it is not necessary", etc.

In any case, I understood your point the first time. Its flaws have been addressed before, and repeating it won't make it any more likely or any less unsupported. Also, the part about "no space for theories" couldn't be further from the truth. Theories--including many interesting theories around this wiki--are commonly based on snippets of information that are known rather than on the purely unknown; that is de facto one of the key factors that make for an interesting as well as good theory. Anyway, it would appear that nothing more is going to come out of this, so I'm going to detach myself.

PS: If you want to look for good theories based on snippets of information at our disposal that one may disagree with but cannot invalidate (yet), then simply look at some lengthier theories about Rachel. Some people have gone an extra mile to look into various interpretations of basically everything she has done, said, or thought since the beginning of the ToG.