Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-16461120-20160405223613/@comment-26066818-20161004140326

I'm going to try one more time...

The question here is "Was Pietro an Avenger?"

Your argument, Argument 1, was that he was because the director said so. The board rejected that argument months ago by popular consensus. It was ruled not a valid argument.

Since then, the guidebook has been released. Now there is a new argument, Argument 2, saying Pietro was an Avenger because the guidebook said so. Thus far, people find the guidebook a more persuasive official source than the director, and now the consensus seems to be that Pietro is an Avenger, because of Argument 2.

You came back to this thread ("As I said months ago...") saying, essentially, "See? Argument 1 was right!"

That's not what happened. Argument 2 is acceptable to people. Argument 1 is still not acceptable to people. Argument 1 does not become acceptable simply because Argument 2 reaches the same conclusion. No one is putting words in your mouth. No one is saying you said anything about the guidebook. In fact, that's our point...you're still talking about the old, moot argument that was dismissed instead of the new, viable argument people are accepting.

Understand?