Talk:Season 5/@comment-24.235.150.210-20160319154559/@comment-15589301-20160320005414

I'm really split to be perfectly honest.

On one hand that hint referring to Child seems like something that they would do. It makes more sense as an erb hint considering that it is more clever than their being 'a child'

On the other hand, I question whether he wanted to essentially confirm a character like that. I have an idea that they would want to keep hints vague, meaning all the ways that people can look at them, will lead to multiple different conclusions. I.e wheaties being for any sportstar, and the B v P ft. B2 board. In that regard, I feel that it could simply be saying that a child is rapping. While I'm on that note, an adult playing the child is kinda irrelevant to that considering the actual character is still a child; therefore a man as Ash or Tut, or whoever it could be, would still work.

Alternatively, I would also suggest that Ramsay not having any real hints would mean that we could count it as being less likley (not too unlikely however). Indeed, we have to remember that Pete has a growing beard, and while I would point others to Van Gogh's beard in comparison, it is possible that it is being grown, and then perhaps dyed, to look more like a realistic darwin, or hell, someone else. Those two together make Ash v Darwin possibility hinted at; with both characters, while with Child v Ramsay, we don't necessarily have that.