Talk:Laelia Furfuracea/@comment-24087318-20140106044922/@comment-4773581-20140106080140

1) That's not what hammerspace is, so no, that's not what I'm saying. Hammerspace, at its most extreme, would let someone store pretty much anything they wanted in what appeared to be a ridiculously small space from the outside. For instance, heavy-duty machinery such as motorized pulleys and generators with which she could do seemingly impossible feats of strength and energy, such as pulling an airship out of the air or shooting a laserbeam (though that one would require additional technology, and Penny somehow did that one by spinning ). Seem familiar? Of course, with the compactability the RWBYverse seems to have, and the advancement that would be implied by Penny being a robot could also mean smaller and more compact versions of the aforementioned heavy-duty technology.

2) As I have repeatedly stated, Penny has thus far been shown to be a unique and special case. Accepted as part of canon and accepted as part of fanon are two completely different things. Penny can be a robot because Monty, the guy who pretty much decides every little aspect about canon, says so. So, unless we get something that heavily implies she's not unique, then we don't accept robots in the fanon, period. And even then it'd probably be a rare thing, meaning that they'd most likely be reviewed under much stricter guidelines than human and faunus OCs.

Cyborgs are more complicated in that pretty much anyone with a prosthetic more advanced than a pegleg or a hook could technically be considered one, and even in those cases if the pegleg/hook in question functioned like any of the weapons seen. But, even then, the issue of the body rejecting the prosthetic would need to be adressed, as thus far it seems unlikely that the RWBYverse would have a way of dealing with that beyond aura's regeneration, and even in that case that would mean constant regeneration for pretty much the rest of the person's life, which would be draining to say the least.

3) I also googled it. Since I've found nothing of the sort, I, and anyone else who hasn't done the extensive research that you claim to have done (and this shouldn't come as a surprise, but there are a lot of people that fit that criteria), would be inclined to believe that. If you want to prove your point, then please do what you're supposed to do when proving something: show some proof. Going purely off of someone's words is unreliable at best, especially over the internet.