Mind you, What I am stating isn't even nessisarily an ending.
How is a journey where in the middle of it they go "Ohh right, all this journey until now? Didn't happen... All those touching moments? forget them"
You're arguing from ignorance here since you refuse to watch the thing you're critiquing.
No... You just have no idea what we are talking about. As a refresher here is my opening post:
Mind you, you could probably skip most of it due to a development that occurs later that flips the board.
Which I am dead sure is reversed... but someone only told me that as a way to make me never watch Jojo.
So I don't know what this development REALLY is... I don't even know if it is reversed.
Your response WASN'T in defending Jojo itself at first but rather that the IDEA of just entirely retconning the series wasn't a pretense worthy of skipping ahead and IN FACT is a perfectly legitimate and thoughtful tactic.
I also provided an example where a completely unrelated event (so not connected to the story and not influenced by the story) were to eliminate the entire story from the original works. Which you expressed as perfectly valid and good storytelling.
Of which my argument is that it is bad storytelling to counter yours that simply invalidating the story is a good strategy.
As well as arguing that one could skip a story that has been completely invalidated. While you argued that skipping a story just because it is completely invalidated, non-canon, and untrue is ridiculous because the story contained is still entertaining.
-(which some to think of it the answer REALLY should be: To each their own. There are people who skip episodes of a series just because they are boring filler. Then again your argument is skipping at ALL is ridiculous and mine is that you COULD skip it...)
---
THAT was the argument. I cannot argue for Jojo's case because I don't know it and expressed that the situation might be different since I only know this third party and they only told me this to kill my interest in watching the series.
At least that was what I was arguing. As well as how I interpreted what your arguments were.