Talk:How the 'A' Stole Christmas/@comment-25547603-20141201002412

There are people I know that watch PLL and think Mona is never been A. Not because it's their theory, but because "she worked for the one in the ret coat in 2x25, she was a helper".

Do you think that if we weren't on this wikia and a lot on twitter, we would be confused like them? In this case, Mona herself said in 3x24 that A stole the game from her. But the "Mona is the original A" was only tweeted and never explicitly said in the show.

Maybe it's because of what the writers tweet that we get an idea of the show. I mean, the show should make sense even without their tweets. If someone decides to watch PLL in 20 years and doesn't read the tweets, should still be able in theory to understand the story.

So my question is: Should we forget about what the writers say? I think we should make theories only on what we see and not relying on what they say.

Someone today wrote here that Marlene claimed during Season 2 that Mona wasn't A, and then *boom* Unmasked.

I realized only now that the writers can't be trusted at all. Before I used to consider valid what they were saying, but they could all be lies