That's just twisting the words. And no, it does not go against what I believe.DNA wrote: No, it states that there are two events that create a plot-hole. And it still goes against what you believe.
But unlike the others, the journal doesn't state that it must affect the plot like you believe. It also states that the plot hole is based on common usage, which cannot be objectively defined.I've been using your own source.
I'm not twisting things at all. I'm saying that if I were straight up, completely wrong about it being a plothole, then it that wouldn't affect anything else. And it's simply not a matter of objectively right or wrong.So now you are twisting things to be able to be "kinda right" instead of flat-out wrong. Why can't you simply admit that you were wrong?
The journal says nothing about fans coming up with their own explanations. As I already pointed out, if a fan coming up with an explanation would render something not a plothole, then it would be impossible for plotholes to exist, because you can make up whatever explanation you want.It's barely inconsistent. It can be easily explained like I told you, plot-holes cannot be explained, your own source says that.
But none of those explanations are provided by the story, which is necessary to avoid a plothole.Gohan is able to transform into Super Saiyan in GT, in Battle of the Gods he is shown to be able to transform despite the fact that he can also tap into the 'Ultimate' state. Now the reason for why did he choose to transform into Super Saiyan in GT is unexplained, this does not create any conflict, inconsistency of plot-hole, at best it shows a poor choice, but like I've shown you, there can be many explanations for why did he transform into Super Saiyan.
I'm not trying to twist anything here. It is an inconsistency in the plot. A hole in the story. A plot hole.Like I've said before, no matter how much you try to twist words and citations, Gohan transforming into Super Saiyan in GT is not a plot-hole.








