WWJ I: A New Saga, A New Beginning... Or Is IT!?!?!? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Feanor of the Peredhil · 10-04-2005, 07:48 AM

[QUOTE=malkatoj]Fea, again, I have a question about your reasoning. QUOTE]

I have a large amount of trouble explaining my reasoning. The phantom once told me that I should simply give up trying to compete with his logic. I told him that I understood his logic, I just preferred my own. I assure you... my reasoning makes perfect sense to me, but it probably won't to anyone else.

I chose malka because I could. Because he's outspoken, so I was choosing slightly less than randomly, but still without a true suspicion. There is always more to go on with people who talk, whether the "facts" are true or false. I chose with no particular excuse in mind, because if I provide a focus for my suspicions, the individual focus can be easily refuted. If I provide a broader spectrum, the person must work harder to provide examples of innocence. Analyzing said examples, it's generally pretty easy to figure out what's going through their heads. Make sense? And what you've said about "those who defend"... you're exactly right. I want to know who is agreeing with whom. I want to see who puts forth the first opinion, and who bandwagons, versus who genuinely agrees.

Which is why, malkatoj, I think we should lynch you.

10-04-2005, 07:48 AM	#11
Feanor of the Peredhil La Belle Dame sans Merci Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: perpetual uncertainty Posts: 5,517	[QUOTE=malkatoj]Fea, again, I have a question about your reasoning. QUOTE] I have a large amount of trouble explaining my reasoning. The phantom once told me that I should simply give up trying to compete with his logic. I told him that I understood his logic, I just preferred my own. I assure you... my reasoning makes perfect sense to me, but it probably won't to anyone else. I chose malka because I could. Because he's outspoken, so I was choosing slightly less than randomly, but still without a true suspicion. There is always more to go on with people who talk, whether the "facts" are true or false. I chose with no particular excuse in mind, because if I provide a focus for my suspicions, the individual focus can be easily refuted. If I provide a broader spectrum, the person must work harder to provide examples of innocence. Analyzing said examples, it's generally pretty easy to figure out what's going through their heads. Make sense? And what you've said about "those who defend"... you're exactly right. I want to know who is agreeing with whom. I want to see who puts forth the first opinion, and who bandwagons, versus who genuinely agrees. Which is why, malkatoj, I think we should lynch you. __________________ peace