Yes it does and apparently I really need to explain this to you word by word:
1) Tenguyama Hitetsu, a Wano swordsmith, confirms he made Sandai Kitetsu, which is a sword Zoro has been using since Loguetown.
2) That same Tenguyama Hitetsu confirms that Wado Ichimonji, which is another sword Zoro has been using since he was a child and was given to him by his teacher, was made by the same Wano craftsman who made Enma, the sword he just received this chapter and a sword that was previously wielded by Oden Kozuki, and important figure from Wano.
3) The name of that craftsman is Shimotsuki Kozaburo, a name shared with a former powerful Wano family and Zoro's home town of Shimotsuki Village.
4) Zoro and Momo bring up the Snatch-phrase again, a phrase characteristic to Wano, which Zoro confirms is something he learned from the old men in his home town (Shimotsuki Village).
All of this comes from this chapter alone and it can objectively be stated these draw connections between Zoro and Wano. Why are you wasting your time even making this senseless posts if you're not going to even bother checking facts that were provided last week?
I didn't say that you said they didn't look alike, now did I? I just pointed out the irony of you shooting down a theory and then applying an aspect it of it for your own thin interpretation.
This is you in your previous post (remember?):
And please don’t bring up that “Ryuma looks like Zoro” thing when YOU yourself shit on someone else’s theory that Zoro was related to Ryuma when they used that same reasoning
Which implies that I shot down someone's theory because Zoro didn't look like Ryuuma, otherwise the above statement makes absolutely no sense as why mentioning it then? That would mean you disallow me using common elements from the story in my own reasonings purely because someone else used them in his reasonings and I disagreed with his interpretations of them because he intentionally ignored basic facts that invalidate his interpretations. That is messed up.
In the end the entire premise of this comment of yours was utter nonsense to begin with as our interpretations were vastly different, not in the least because he ignored the facts and I didn't. What's more what I said in that thread is in line with what I said in this thread. This irony you speak of is just a feeble excuse you used to cause an argument, but which is void of any sensibility or logic.
So, congrats as in an attempt to counter my last comment, you contradicted your own earlier comment and inadvertently confirmed mine. That's quite the achievement.
The troll had no factor into what I pointed out at all.
In this thread, in your previous post, you brought up a post I made in the thread of a troll who intentionally makes-up bogus reasonings that conflict with undeniable, basic facts from the story just to spam the forums and annoy people. You used that post of mine, which was in line with everything I said here, from a thread like that as an argument?
What you are saying comes down to that apparently context and credibility are not important at all and that you are allowed to distort and twist everything as you see fit. And that means anything that comes out of your mouth is highly questionable.
So yeah, the troll part is quite important. That you don't even understand that, makes the credibility you had even lower than it already was. Case and point: every mentioning from your mouth of Zoro or his swords is ironic, to use your own word, merely because I mentioned them first. That's the kind of messed up consequences that originate from the 'logic' you tried to apply here.
What you need to do is point where this connects concretely to Zoro. You can assume it's Zoro all you want, but there are no tangible threads between them as of right now.
Have I already said in this post to read my previous post(s) again? This is what I previously said specifically about that part:
Granted, it doesn't explicitly say Zoro. But face it, of all the possible candidates Zoro is by far the most likely one.
It's funny how you ignored that part the first time around and then reply on it with a comment I already addressed from the get-go. Also, don't pretend that this is the only thing I said as it's an additional factor to the facts we already know, not in the least to the facts we learned from this chapter. That's why I told you to go read it, but you seem to be hell-bent on ignoring everything we learned from this chapter. There are multiple, very tangible threads, but you intentionally ignored them all and I didn't thought it was necessary to list them all in detail as I would think people would remember what happened in this chapter.
At no point does he specify that it would be a subplot during this arc.
No, he didn't guarantee for a 100% that this would be the case, but you know that your argument here is incredibly weak and is merely you nitpicking. As I said before this is an additional factor to already established facts and that providing an alternative interpretation, which is what you imply, not only has less elements going for it, it would make several of the things we learned make no sense.
For example Oda introduced the Shimotsuki clan. One of the members of this clan made two of Zoro's swords. That member fled several decades ago from Wano and Zoro originates from a village called Shimotsuki village where he learned from his elders a phrase that comes from Wano. Attributing all of that to a mere 'coincidence' is laughable. This even reaches a point that you should be disproving, not me proving it and so far that mostly comes down to you pretending all of this didn't appear in the story.
Stop padding your replies please, you're saying nothing here. I didn't ignore anything about Minamato, I pointed out that what you're talking about has no concrete connection to Zoro, something you have yet to address despite the lengthy diatribe.
You have been saying nothing from the start and yes you completely ignored the most important part. Yeah, between Minamato and Zoro on a micro-level there isn't any particular connection, but when you read the part after it that very well changes, especially when you combine it with the facts we already know. You nitpicking on Minamoto was pointless and genuine 'padding' and I simply pointed that out. So to use a phrase you used before and mess it up like you're so fond of: it's ironic you say I'm doing padding when it's almost everything you did so far yourself.
Uh huh that's cute, so where's the connection to Zoro? Cause all this wording and there's still nothing.
You know what's coming: read the previous posts, read the chapter and re-read the entire series for that matter.
Conclusion:
You decided to start a senseless argument for some reason where you ignored stated facts, some of which directly came from the most recent chapter. Then rip a post of mine from another thread out of its context and interpret it in a messed up way that was highly convenient for you. Only after I started pressuring you, you began using more valid ways of reasoning (albeit very limited), but about points I already brought up myself earlier (thus making them redundant). What's more you then suddenly employ skepticism on a level that makes it impossible to make any kind of prediction/theory as those are inherently based on assumptions, which is stupendous. According to you, you're not allowed to say anything unless it actually is confirmed in the story, which makes making theories/predictions pointless.
When you so haphazardly change your way of reasoning when it suits you, it becomes obvious how biased you are and it's inevitable then that you're going to start contradicting yourself. At this rate, within 2-3 posts, you might actually reach the point you should have had in your first post. If you would visually represent this argument as a running competition, you would finally reach the starting line after having erratically moved into every possible direction except the one you had to.