Lucidstuck II

>For the sake of clarity, to call us "ancients" because we exist before your time would be no different from saying "because f(x)=x+1 will always have higher numbers than f(x) it can therefore be considered to be after." this is a fallacious statement because both timelines are infinite and therefore are simultaneously before and after each other, even if ours just so happened to beget yours. the nature of beings from two different universes doesn't imply we are in any way gods or flawless. it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Seconding this.

(The math checks out AND it's a nice bit of philosophical fodder :)

[I really don't see what's good about this command. For one, I don't believe that the logic used to challenge the name of ancient ones is logically sound. Us existing in a different universe is irrelevant because we have been around in this universe since around the start of time, to guide the 'elders' UE talks about. Since we were around in ancient times, calling us ancient ones is not unjustified. If something was around before the wheel was invented, and just jumped forward in time, the thing would still be prehystoric.
[UE might be mistaken in thinking we're the same entity that guided the elders, but there is no need for us to try and correct it on that. If UE thinks we're more experienced than we are, we should let it do that. You might point out the posibility of us going back in time, but we have nothing to support that and if it were an option for us we wouldn't want to inform UE of it.]
More importantly, even if UE was completely in the wrong in labeling us 'ancient ones', there is no benefit in it for us to go into a semantics argument to correct it. UE could refer to us as Clarence and it would make no difference.
[Heck, this whole elders and existing before time bit may be a trap laid for us by UE, just to see if we'll go along with stuff it's bullshitting.]]