Subscribed :eyes:

About point one: I thought KNM's point here was that EP5 and EP6 cannot be the truth of Rokkenjima.

About point two: Rosa could have made connections. Even Krauss said Kuwadorian Beatrice is obviously the mistress of Kinzo when Rosa told about the meeting. Rosa even revealed she talk to Kumasawa when she was in trouble.

About point 3: I agree some explanations are not good, or refined. But you are a bit picky about some.
The messy room can be explained because they wanted to find an object (as a pretext).
The closed room ring can be explained with Nanjo's help.
EP3 9th Twilight: It's unnoticed by maaany readers: Kanon lead a blind Jessica to the parlor, Battler and Eva reached the room a bit later... So, why else would Battler call Eva a murderer?
EP5: I annoy everyone if I say Erika was hearing Battler's breath. This Twilight can be explained if the people leave the room before Battler returned.

About point 4: Ange was among the people after Tohya "see" his family. The magic ending hints towards a magic presentation of the events because Yukari remembers that Bernkastel repeated the death of Battler in red. It's KNM's interpretation of the events. If he want to represent his own view on the story he had to be a bit self-righteous.

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

About point one: I thought KNM's point here was that EP5 and EP6 cannot be the truth of Rokkenjima.

That's part of it. But the premise of Rosatrice is that the reds must be taken rigidly, and not open to interpretation like with the official solution. So he must explain away Erika being able to say she was the 18th human in red. And that was his explanation:

But in reality, she IS the 18th human on the island BUT she died before the family even noticed that someone had washed up on the beach. Therefore, there are only 17 people, because the 18th one is already dead and therefore plays no role in any of the other games and specifically not in the game that presents the truth about what really happened on the island.

That's how meta-Battler kills Meta-Erika. That's how both their statements can be stated in red, yet Erika is the one who loses. That’s why Erika’s red statement is in the form of an introduction. She asked to be welcomed as the 18th person, but Battler says that even if she would join the group, there would still be 17 people, because Erika died before she could join the family.

Since this explanation fails, Rosatrice loses a lot of its appeal since it can't keep the reds rigid.

About point two: Rosa could have made connections. Even Krauss said Kuwadorian Beatrice is obviously the mistress of Kinzo when Rosa told about the meeting. Rosa even revealed she talk to Kumasawa when she was in trouble.

That's a bit misleading: Rosa said that before Beatrice's death. Rosa only told Will that she told Genji. There's no reason to believe she told anyone else. Why would Genji tell Rosa about Yasu's death?

The messy room can be explained because they wanted to find an object (as a pretext).

Why would George take that pretext? With the official solution, it makes sense because Shannon is preserving the illusion of the witch. Rosatrice characterizes George as not caring about the illusion. Hence why Rosatrice explains it as the result of a fight.

The closed room ring can be explained with Nanjo's help.
EP3 9th Twilight: It's unnoticed by maaany readers: Kanon lead a blind Jessica to the parlor, Battler and Eva reached the room a bit later... So, why else would Battler call Eva a murderer?
EP5: I annoy everyone if I say Erika was hearing Battler's breath. This Twilight can be explained if the people leave the room before Battler returned.

I'm not sure how these plug up holes in Rosatrice, can you explain?

About point 4: Ange was among the people after Tohya "see" his family. The magic ending hints towards a magic presentation of the events because Yukari remembers that Bernkastel repeated the death of Battler in red. It's KNM's interpretation of the events. If he want to represent his own view on the story he had to be a bit self-righteous.

But he's not even self-righteous, here. That would imply he had a solid stance on what the story was. He doesn't. His argument against Ange doesn't even have anything to do with the magic ending. It's again, the result of him insisting on seeing the reds rigidly.

Originally posted by Tamagon:

So he must explain away Erika being able to say she was the 18th human in red. And that was his explanation:
[...]
Since this explanation fails, Rosatrice loses a lot of its appeal since it can't keep the reds rigid.

Well, he anticipated that part because it was one of the main arguments against Shkannon. I don't agree on his point and it's partly the fan translation's fault. There's enough to argue against the official explanation and maybe Rosatrice.
I can see why there is a confusion between people and humans. In Ep2 2nd Twilight Beatrice excluded Jessica (dead) from the room so she is not included in the 'group'.

That's a bit misleading: Rosa said that before Beatrice's death. Rosa only told Will that she told Genji. There's no reason to believe she told anyone else. Why would Genji tell Rosa about Yasu's death?

I mentioned it because Rosa could tell in a side note she had trouble when she returned, anyway, Rosa would've changed a bit after that meeting. Because Kumasawa was caring for Kuwadorian Beatrice, she would've noticed sooner or later the Beatrice is dead. It doesn't need Genji.

The messy room can be explained because they wanted to find an object (as a pretext).

Why would George take that pretext?

To kill them in a (closed) room?

I'm not sure how these plug up holes in Rosatrice, can you explain?

I was making a neutral statement how Skannon could be not involved.

But he's not even self-righteous, here. That would imply he had a solid stance on what the story was. He doesn't. His argument against Ange doesn't even have anything to do with the magic ending. It's again, the result of him insisting on seeing the reds rigidly.

You know he believe (yes, this) it, right? This is a stance of belief because he doesn't know better and the story actually doesn't show. A catbox, you can say.

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

Well, he anticipated that part because it was one of the main arguments against Shkannon. I don't agree on his point and it's partly the fan translation's fault. There's enough to argue against the official explanation and maybe Rosatrice.

It's mostly KNM's fault. "Human" is consistently used to describe something living, even in the old TL. Otherwise, Kinzo would be counted as a human. It's a mistake he made because he hyper-focused on Battler vs Erika's reds.

This is a serious flaw with Rosatrice, because it hinges itself on the reds being taken literally and not being played with. This isn't something to be brushed off as a small disagreement like you're doing. To use an analogy: it's like buying a phone and realizing its broken and can't turn on. You can still use it as a paperweight, but that's not why you bought it.

I can see why there is a confusion between people and humans. In Ep2 2nd Twilight Beatrice excluded Jessica (dead) from the room so she is not included in the 'group'.

You refuted your own point. "Group" =! "Human"

I mentioned it because Rosa could tell in a side note she had trouble when she returned, anyway, Rosa would've changed a bit after that meeting. Because Kumasawa was caring for Kuwadorian Beatrice, she would've noticed sooner or later the Beatrice is dead.

Yes, that's all about Beatrice. How does this lead to Rosa knowing about Yasuda's death?

It doesn't need Genji.

Why're you wording this as a hypothetical? We know Genji was involved, Rosa told that to Will.

To kill them in a (closed) room?

You've forgotten why people are killed in closed rooms in this story. It's to give the illusion of a witch, so we're back to what I said earlier: Rosatrice characterizes George as not caring about the illusion. Hence why Rosatrice explains it as the result of a fight.

I was making a neutral statement how Skannon could be not involved.

It was more than that, considering you specifically said this:

The closed room ring can be explained with Nanjo's help.

I still would like to hear how, btw.

Anyway, this thread is specifically for Rosatrice. Those aren't even criticisms KNM makes of the official solution, this is just you trying to derail.

This is a stance of belief because he doesn't know better and the story actually doesn't show. A catbox, you can say.

You're misunderstanding the catbox analogy. It's to represent competing interpretations. KNM doesn't even give an interpretation of Prime Ange's death, he just says it happens and it moves on.

Originally posted by Tamagon:

It's mostly KNM's fault. "Human" is consistently used to describe something living, even in the old TL. Otherwise, Kinzo would be counted as a human. It's a mistake he made because he hyper-focused on Battler vs Erika's reds.

This is a serious flaw with Rosatrice, because it hinges itself on the reds being taken literally and not being played with. This isn't something to be brushed off as a small disagreement like you're doing. To use an analogy: it's like buying a phone and realizing its broken and can't turn on. You can still use it as a paperweight, but that's not why you bought it.

[...]
You refuted your own point. "Group" =! "Human"

Hard to say if it's ever a fallacy because there's no good proofs to show this. Turn's 2nd Twilight reds are showing that the term "human" can be also applied to a "dead human".

I just don't agree on his argument with Erika's introduction because it was about the human count, not about what is living and what is dead. That was only my opinion, not to pinpoint against you or KNM.

Yes, that's all about Beatrice. How does this lead to Rosa knowing about Yasuda's death?

Lol, I already said I am neutral. But I am willing to explain what he said in his videos. KNM's explanation about Yasu is she was the personification of Rosa's guilt. Rosa never killed Yasu, she wanted to degrade herself to a worthless orphaned servant - furniture.

Why're you wording this as a hypothetical? We know Genji was involved, Rosa told that to Will.

Ok, now I see your problem. You wanted to know HOW Rosa was knowing about the baby (you called it Yasu). Kumasawa, Genji or Kinzo are the possible sources how Rosa would know about the baby. But the baby wasn't a "physical" replacement for the real baby (Lion)

You've forgotten why people are killed in closed rooms in this story. It's to give the illusion of a witch, so we're back to what I said earlier: Rosatrice characterizes George as not caring about the illusion. Hence why Rosatrice explains it as the result of a fight.

Okok, you see through my rethorical statement.

"The closed room ring can be explained with Nanjo's help."

Virgillia said Nanjo checked the corpses. Who of the group received the key from Genji is unknown but I can imagine Nanjo couldv'e pretented to find a master key when he ckecked Genji's pockets. The other rooms are peanuts after this.

Anyway, this thread is specifically for Rosatrice. Those aren't even criticisms KNM makes of the official solution, this is just you trying to derail.

It doesn't mean I couldn't upgrade KNM's explanation with my idea.

You're misunderstanding the catbox analogy. It's to represent competing interpretations. KNM doesn't even give an interpretation of Prime Ange's death, he just says it happens and it moves on.

This might be the case because.... Battler/Tohya doesn't even know what happened to his sister. The skyscrapter jump was probably in the news and the results are "unknown". Twilight of the Golden Witch could be his final advice and parting gift in hope Ange would read it and find peace because Tohya didn't actively contacted her.

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

Hard to say if it's ever a fallacy because there's no good proofs to show this. Turn's 2nd Twilight reds are showing that the term "human" can be also applied to a "dead human".

No it doesn't:

When Jessica's corpse was discovered, only Battler, George, Maria, Rosa, Genji, Gohda, Shannon, Kumasawa, and Nanjo were in Jessica's room. Whoops, the corpse of Jessica is also included. Therefore, both in the case involving Jessica's room and the one involving this servant room, no humans exist that you were not aware of. No one is hiding!

Jessica's corpse wasn't explicitly called a human.

KNM's explanation about Yasu is she was the personification of Rosa's guilt. Rosa never killed Yasu, she wanted to degrade herself to a worthless orphaned servant - furniture.

Yes, that's what I said in my OP.

Ok, now I see your problem. You wanted to know HOW Rosa was knowing about the baby (you called it Yasu). Kumasawa, Genji or Kinzo are the possible sources how Rosa would know about the baby. But the baby wasn't a "physical" replacement for the real baby (Lion)

How would Kinzo know about the baby if it died? Why would Kumasawa or Genji tell Rosa?

Virgillia said Nanjo checked the corpses. Who of the group received the key from Genji is unknown but I can imagine Nanjo couldv'e pretented to find a master key when he ckecked Genji's pockets. The other rooms are peanuts after this.

Reread my OP: But the red says the keys were found alongside the corpses, so Shannon was dead before the closed room was broken. There's no possibility for Shannon to have died in between the closed room being broken and the keys being found.

It doesn't mean I couldn't upgrade KNM's explanation with my idea.

Those critiques you mentioned also apply to Rosatrice though. You weren't updating Rosatrice, you were just derailing.

This might be the case because.... Battler/Tohya doesn't even know what happened to his sister. The skyscrapter jump was probably in the news and the results are "unknown". Twilight of the Golden Witch could be his final advice and parting gift in hope Ange would read it and find peace because Tohya didn't actively contacted her.

Rosatrice says Battler died in 1986 and Ikuko doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Tamagon:

Jessica's corpse wasn't explicitly called a human.

That's why Beatrice didn't say "the corpse of" in red. A dead Jessica is in the room. However, at the same time a dead Jessica doesn't exist in the room. Oh I wonder...

KNM's explanation about Yasu is she was the personification of Rosa's guilt. Rosa never killed Yasu, she wanted to degrade herself to a worthless orphaned servant - furniture.

Yes, that's what I said in my OP.

Yeah, so why did you ask how Rosa knew about Yasu's death?

How would Kinzo know about the baby if it died? Why would Kumasawa or Genji tell Rosa?

Kinzo just asked Genji about the [real] baby, or Genji reported this to his master.
Rosa told Genji about the death of the Kuwadorian Beatrice, she could've asked about the specific realtionship of her and Kinzo. Same for Kumasawa (she is not that important but I felt it's wotrth mentioning). After the servant also fell off the cliff Kinzo became more mad than before, he might have mentioned some phrases Rosa could understand what they meant.

Reread my OP: But the red says the keys were found alongside the corpses, so Shannon was dead before the closed room was broken. There's no possibility for Shannon to have died in between the closed room being broken and the keys being found.

There no red that say that the key was found along side the corpses. If you want to believe Virgillia for 100% it's your interpretation. Which is silly because she definitely lie in the official explanation anyway.
The meta inspection of the 1st Twilight happened after they retreived every key. Rosa and Kyrie didn't stay with the relatives so there is enough time to return to finish Shannon off for real.

You weren't updating Rosatrice, you were just derailing.

What's the exact counterargument if you want to disprove a culprit theory, then? Whenever a crime is possible without Shkannon it's might be possible Rosatrice can work.

Rosatrice says Battler died in 1986 and Ikuko doesn't exist.

(from Rosatrice) Battler might have been reborn as a fictional or meta character, Ikuko is a "invisible" character. As he said, it's "inexplicable" to explain the meta word. The Meta world is purely fiction that can reflect on the reality and shown to the reader. However we, in reality, cannot experience a meta dimension.

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

That's why Beatrice didn't say "the corpse of" in red. A dead Jessica is in the room. However, at the same time a dead Jessica doesn't exist in the room. Oh I wonder...

Uh, okay? Either way, that red isn't explicitly calling a corpse a human.

Yeah, so why did you ask how Rosa knew about Yasu's death?

Because KNM implies she did:

And then, in a matter of months, a baby was put into Natsuhi's care. Lion, the child of Kinzo and the Kuwadorian Beatrice who had given birth to it a short time before Rosa killed her. And as fate has it, this baby, Beatrice's child, ALSO falls down a cliff and dies. Both mother and child have died because they fell down a cliff. Now I don't think his can be emphasized enough: of all kinds of ways that people can die an accidental death, the baby dies by falling down a cliff, just like Beatrice II did which was witnessed (and in her mind also caused) by Rosa. The death of the baby Lion occurred in the same year as the death of Beatrice II, meaning that Rosa was the same age and therefore still living in the mansion when the baby fell to his death, since Rosa was still a child back then.

I don't see the point of bringing up Rosa's age in relation to Lion's death if she didn't know about it. Not to mention the progression of the Yasu character wouldn't make sense if Rosa didn't know about the baby's existence.

Rosa told Genji about the death of the Kuwadorian Beatrice, she could've asked about the specific realtionship of her and Kinzo. Same for Kumasawa (she is not that important but I felt it's wotrth mentioning).

Why would either of them tell Rosa and bring more pain to her?

After the servant also fell off the cliff Kinzo became more mad than before, he might have mentioned some phrases Rosa could understand what they meant.

The baby's existence was a surprise to the family, so Kinzo's ramblings likely had nothing to do with that.

There no red that say that the key was found along side the corpses.

Yes there is: The individual keys were found inside envelopes alongside the corpses!

If you want to believe Virgillia for 100% it's your interpretation. Which is silly because she definitely lie in the official explanation anyway.

She lies at times in the official solutions, but she isn't outright dishonest about the crime scene like she'd have to be for Rosatrice to work. Even the "Shannon/Kanon is dead" stuff is true from the perspective of Beato's gameboard. Every fantasy character in that scene would have to be intentionally steering Battler in the wrong direction, even though they want Battler to solve the mystery. That's an interpretation you're free to take, if you want.

What's the exact counterargument if you want to disprove a culprit theory, then? Whenever a crime is possible without Shkannon it's might be possible Rosatrice can work.

Interpretations of fiction can't be proven or disproven, they can only be judged on how much they fit the evidence and how coherent they are.

(from Rosatrice) Battler might have been reborn as a fictional or meta character, Ikuko is a "invisible" character. As he said, it's "inexplicable" to explain the meta word. The Meta world is purely fiction that can reflect on the reality and shown to the reader. However we, in reality, cannot experience a meta dimension.

Sure. What relevance does that have to do with Prime Ange, if Tohya doesn't actually exist and is just a Meta being?

Originally posted by Tamagon:

Uh, okay? Either way, that red isn't explicitly calling a corpse a human.

That was the easiest way to show that human corpses are in the English text. After a bit of searching I could find what you've denied:

…………人間６人の死体を遥々ここに運び込んで、こんな凝ったデコレーションをした。

Unless you want to be especially picky that Beatrice didn't created that 人間 "rule" I don't see why 人間 is exclusive for living humans.

For my part it's the following "ruleset", it's enough to work with the human/person logic:
Person/People (name) "exist(s)", dead person/people (name) "do(es)n't exist"
Human (name) "exists", dead human/corpse (name) "exist"
1 Human equals extactly 1 body

I don't see the point of bringing up Rosa's age in relation to Lion's death if she didn't know about it. Not to mention the progression of the Yasu character wouldn't make sense if Rosa didn't know about the baby's existence.

I already said " I agree some explanations are not good, or refined", therefore I can only speculate. Maybe he had something in mind, or nothing or forgot, but he couldn't completely skip the Lion character and maybe it wasn't that important to explain it in much detail you deserve. To me, the cliff Beatrice, the cliff baby and the cliff servant are just unspoken facts nobody shouldn't or didn't want to bring up anymore after a long time. Rosa and Natsuhi and even Genji were carriying those burdens the whole time.

Why would either of them tell Rosa and bring more pain to her?

Kumasawa is "untactful" sometimes, it could fit her character. Genji is direct and we don't know exactly what extras Rosa and Genji were talking about...

The baby's existence was a surprise to the family, so Kinzo's ramblings likely had nothing to do with that.

It's only a speculation. To certain people the baby wasn't a secret.

Yes there is: The individual keys were found inside envelopes alongside the corpses!

My my, I understand what you are meaning. Sorry, but I was unequivocally writing about the master keys which are not inside the envelopes.

She lies at times in the official solutions, but she isn't outright dishonest about the crime scene like she'd have to be for Rosatrice to work. Even the "Shannon/Kanon is dead" stuff is true from the perspective of Beato's gameboard. Every fantasy character in that scene would have to be intentionally steering Battler in the wrong direction, even though they want Battler to solve the mystery. That's an interpretation you're free to take, if you want.

Yes, we want to talk about Rosatrice.

Interpretations of fiction can't be proven or disproven, they can only be judged on how much they fit the evidence and how coherent they are.

Yo, it's an informal eristical discussion about Rosatrice. Everyone judges differently, I don't even believe that Eva killed that many in Banquet because ambigious "evidences" can be accounted to Shkannon. There's a reason why KNM created Rosatrice.

Sure. What relevance does that have to do with Prime Ange, if Tohya doesn't actually exist and is just a Meta being?

It's not hard to tell... Ange's recollection, which is, no, should be the basis of Prime Ange is part of Battler's recollection in EP5. It appears alongside various "screens" when Battler was reading the past games. Which is my main point why the"Prime Ange" we read about isn't necessarely the true Ange we don't see. I don't care if KNM tell she is already dead. Imo we just read a "story" of Ange, her true whereabouts and status are unknown because the author (or in Rosatrice variant: near-death Battler) know nothing about her (or doesn't live anymore).

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

That was the easiest way to show that human corpses are in the English text.

But it doesn't explicitly ID a corpse as human.

…………人間６人の死体を遥々ここに運び込んで、こんな凝ったデコレーションをした。

You left out how that line is translated in English:

` ............they carried six human corpses all the way over here, and made these elaborate decorations."`

That obviously disproves your point, as 死体/corpse is used to modify 人間/human. Erika isn't doing that in her 18th human red.

Kumasawa is "untactful" sometimes, it could fit her character. Genji is direct and we don't know exactly what extras Rosa and Genji were talking about...

Not an explanation. You're just rephrasing "Kumasawa/Genji told her"

My my, I understand what you are meaning. Sorry, but I was unequivocally writing about the master keys which are not inside the envelopes.

Missing the point. The red, by saying the keys were found alongside the corpses, is also saying that these people were dead by the time the keys were found.

Yes, we want to talk about Rosatrice.

Then don't bring up the official solution.

Yo, it's an informal eristical discussion about Rosatrice. Everyone judges differently, I don't even believe that Eva killed that many in Banquet because ambigious "evidences" can be accounted to Shkannon. There's a reason why KNM created Rosatrice.

I know everyone judges differently. This is a meaningless statement.

It's not hard to tell... Ange's recollection, which is, no, should be the basis of Prime Ange is part of Battler's recollection in EP5. It appears alongside various "screens" when Battler was reading the past games. Which is my main point why the"Prime Ange" we read about isn't necessarely the true Ange we don't see. I don't care if KNM tell she is already dead. Imo we just read a "story" of Ange, her true whereabouts and status are unknown because the author (or in Rosatrice variant: near-death Battler) know nothing about her (or doesn't live anymore).

Ange's perspective being unreliable =! Ange being dead. A lot of people agree with the former but the latter is pretty unpopular, since it obviously destroys the story. If you're fine with that interpretation, then there's nothing further to say on this point. You're basically tying the noose around Rosatrice's neck for me.

Originally posted by Tamagon:

But it doesn't explicitly ID a corpse as human.
[...]
You left out how that line is translated in English:
[...]
That obviously disproves your point, as 死体/corpse is used to modify 人間/human. Erika isn't doing that in her 18th human red.

I wanted to show that the vocabulary '人間' was used in a different context, there was no need to prove a point because I never tried to do that (this should answer your last sentence). Let me say this: you wanted to show the opposite and there was absolutely nothing about 'modified' words in your opening post as you claimed something else.

Not an explanation. You're just rephrasing "Kumasawa/Genji told her"

Ok ok. That's a bit silly as you think it would bring pain to her. I can't discuss a circular reasoning of yours. If you think Rosa cannot know about the baby then put it in your essay, I don't care.

Missing the point. The red, by saying the keys were found alongside the corpses, is also saying that these people were dead by the time the keys were found.

I don't see any fallacy in my logic because there is no red truth that can hurt it.

Then don't bring up the official solution.

What's your problem? If you want to analyse an alt-theory you have to look into it if it can be true or not. And you need to compare Rosatrice with the official solution.

I know everyone judges differently. This is a meaningless statement.

I responded to your statement. Did you think yours was a productive one? I don't think so.

Ange's perspective being unreliable =! Ange being dead. A lot of people agree with the former but the latter is pretty unpopular, since it obviously destroys the story. If you're fine with that interpretation, then there's nothing further to say on this point. You're basically tying the noose around Rosatrice's neck for me.

I am telling what I can see, Ange's journey is just fantasy. It rhymes!
If you think it destroys the story you surely have enough evidences for you analysis. I can't see them because you basically put a single question about Ange's death in your opening post, thinking it's enough to show KNM's mistake. I can only say the Part 4 is a sloppy and could've been expanded because it's not "ELEGANT".

So what else can be used to explain Ange's percpective (fantasy or not)?
- forger: Someone was writing a forgery about Ange
- author: Someone was writing a book about Ange
- public interest: (official) media, maybe a documentary or report
based on
- legacy: Ange wrote a diary or something before she dissapeared
- witnesses: everyone who lived, worked or studied with her
- public opinion
- speculations
- fantasy (based on the Legend of the Golden Witch)
- theories

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

I wanted to show that the vocabulary '人間' was used in a different context, there was no need to prove a point because I never tried to do that (this should answer your last sentence).

It being a different context means its irrelevant. Erika doesn't call herself a "human corpse" in her introduction.

Let me say this: you wanted to show the opposite and there was absolutely nothing about 'modified' words in your opening post as you claimed something else.

I assumed anyone who read all of Umineko would have competent enough English skills to know what modifier words[academicguides.waldenu.edu] are. You've proven me wrong, so I've edited my post to cater to your demographic.

That's a bit silly as you think it would bring pain to her. I can't discuss a circular reasoning of yours.

Rosatrice is predicted upon Rosa being motivated by pain and guilt. That's not me using circular reasoning but following the logic of the theory. So again, why would they tell her?

I don't see any fallacy in my logic because there is no red truth that can hurt it.

If your English skills are this poor, then there's nothing left to say. We can just leave this point be and let other readers judge.

What's your problem? If you want to analyse an alt-theory you have to look into it if it can be true or not. And you need to compare Rosatrice with the official solution.

And I showed why your comparison is bad:

She lies at times in the official solutions, but she isn't outright dishonest about the crime scene like she'd have to be for Rosatrice to work. Even the "Shannon/Kanon is dead" stuff is true from the perspective of Beato's gameboard. Every fantasy character in that scene would have to be intentionally steering Battler in the wrong direction, even though they want Battler to solve the mystery. That's an interpretation you're free to take, if you want.

And instead of engaging with that you acted passive-aggressive about it:

Yes, we want to talk about Rosatrice.

So no, no discussing comparisons with you.

I am telling what I can see, Ange's journey is just fantasy. It rhymes!
If you think it destroys the story you surely have enough evidences for you analysis. I can't see them because you basically put a single question about Ange's death in your opening post, thinking it's enough to show KNM's mistake. I can only say the Part 4 is a sloppy and could've been expanded because it's not "ELEGANT".

So what else can be used to explain Ange's percpective (fantasy or not)?
- forger: Someone was writing a forgery about Ange
- author: Someone was writing a book about Ange
- public interest: (official) media, maybe a documentary or report
based on
- legacy: Ange wrote a diary or something before she dissapeared
- witnesses: everyone who lived, worked or studied with her
- public opinion
- speculations
- fantasy (based on the Legend of the Golden Witch)
- theories

I don't care about what you see, I care about what KNM sees. And he sees Ange to be dead, with Eva and Battler dying in 1986. That's why he explains Ange through counter-factual timelines and trickery instead of all the scenarios you're giving. Its self-evident that his stance on Ange's world destroys the story since even you can't help but heavily modify it.

Originally posted by Tamagon:

It being a different context means its irrelevant. Erika doesn't call herself a "human corpse" in her introduction.

Well, wasn't the word choice your first issue? Why did you even brought Kinzo into this context if it was all about Erika's introduction.

I assumed anyone who read all of Umineko would have competent enough English skills to know what modifier words[academicguides.waldenu.edu] are. You've proven me wrong, so I've edited my post to cater to your demographic..

Ok ok, I got it. You don't agree with me. I only showed your claim 人間= living human was questionable because it can be used differently.

Rosatrice is predicted upon Rosa being motivated by pain and guilt. That's not me using circular reasoning but following the logic of the theory. So again, why would they tell her?

They can.

If your English skills are this poor, then there's nothing left to say. We can just leave this point be and let other readers judge.

It's now popular to call an ESL out. Was that controversity technique taught in your English classes? I wonder what's your real goal of your video analysis.

And I showed why your comparison is bad: [...]

I argue about why Virgillia wasn't completely truthful. It didn't really matter if it's the official explanation or Rosatrice explanation. It was weird as you said it's an interpretation, so I simply answered "we are talking about Rosatrice". I don't know why are like that because I was talking about the trick of the 1st Twilight which can be explained without Shkannon. Speaking of comparision, why are you even displeased by his love trial explanation, then?

I don't care about what you see, I care about what KNM sees. And he sees Ange to be dead, with Eva and Battler dying in 1986. That's why he explains Ange through counter-factual timelines and trickery instead of all the scenarios you're giving. Its self-evident that his stance on Ange's world destroys the story since even you can't help but heavily modify it.

Oh man, can't you even fill the gaps by youself? That analyis about Rosatrice will be an analysis of your personal opinion because you couldn't grasp it with your imigination. You are only rejecting it, there is no reflection at all.

Originally posted by Eisenerz:

Well, wasn't the word choice your first issue? Why did you even brought Kinzo into this context if it was all about Erika's introduction.

Ok ok, I got it. You don't agree with me. I only showed your claim 人間= living human was questionable because it can be used differently.

Erika's line and the line about Kinzo = Doesn't use "corpse"
The line you cited = Uses "corpse"

Thus your counter-argument fails.

They can.

Not an answer.

It's now popular to call an ESL out. Was that controversity technique taught in your English classes? I wonder what's your real goal of your video analysis.

If you don't wanna be called out for bad English, then don't discuss complex works of literature with English speakers. Sorry if that statement is too "controversity".

Speaking of comparision, why are you even displeased by his love trial explanation, then?

Already explained why in my OP.

Oh man, can't you even fill the gaps by youself? That analyis about Rosatrice will be an analysis of your personal opinion because you couldn't grasp it with your imigination. You are only rejecting it, there is no reflection at all.

Again, his beliefs on Ange are mainly the result of him insisting on seeing the reds rigidly. "Filling these gaps" means not seeing the reds rigidly, which then leads to throwing out the whole theory because its built around rigid reds.