"Michael Wignall" <wigs@evangelion.com> wrote:
> "Disaster" <disaster@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > "Michael Wignall" <wigs@evangelion.com> wrote:
> > > "Disaster" <disaster@disfanfic.net> wrote:
> > > Of course it is. It's my opinion. It wouldn't hold it if I didn't think
> > > it was right. Whether other people think that it is right or not really
> > > doesn't matter to me, though I predict, based upon the reasoning
> > > above, that most people will find my opinion more credible than
> > > yours.
> >
> > Even though the majority have been commenting in favor of the
> > position that I happen to be holding at the moment?
>
> I don't think so. As far as I can tell only you are holding that
> position.

Yes, the position that everyone is going for and so far only I am holding it,
out of us two anyhow.

> > > > Further, your reasoning is static and incorrect meaning that
> > > > unless you expand you will remain incorrect regardless of the
> > > > evidence you so eagerly like to use.
> > >
> > > Please state clearly, here and now, how I am wrong. I really
> > > would love to hear it. Don't say "refer to other posts" becuase
> > > it is my contention that you have _never_ shown me wrong
> > > in any of those. So now I ask you directly, show your stuff,
> > > becuase if you can't, why don't you save both our times
> > > and quit now.
> >
> > I would have loved to save our time Michael, but that hope
> > was lost after I repeated myself, proving you wrong for the
> > 4th time. At the 6th time I gave up. Since then I have not
> > been wasting my time, just yours!
>
> So my assumption that you in fact have never shown me wrong
> is in fact true? Ok thanks for clearing that up for me.

Hey, if you can't see the obvious then I'll pity you, not help you. :P

> > > As I have pointed out before. "Name", "Title", "Label", are
> > > all simply reference to an "entity". Michael is a reference to
> > > the being that is me. My name is simple a reference to the
> > > being that is me. It could be considered my "title" or my "label".
> > > Again we are just arguing semantics. They are all words for
> > > essentiall the same thing. Identifing the being know as "Rei".
> >
> > Michael, take a look at the entire argument! It requires details
> > to be solved. You want to take the definitions of three words
> > and mix them to make a point. After I have proven their separate
> > meanings you suddenly don't want to use evidence but your
> > own reasoning. Following that logic, all arguments made by
> > myself earlier must have new validation by your own action.
> > Thanks.
>
> My point is that your application of them in this case is completely
> arbitrary. It would make no sense to anyone reading this thread
> down the line if they haven't read this post. I don't see the point
> in creating effectively useless definitions (especially when I don't
> think they are good definitions as it is) when up until this point
> we have gotten by quite easily simply explaining whatever
> we mean when we say "Rei".

Well first we are not making them up! They have already been defined. We are
simply match events/items whatever to the terms. Would never use those terms
with newer people anyhow.
--
Kind regards
Disaster
Disaster's Fan Fiction  - http://www.disfanfic.net
JAE FAQ                     - http://www.evafaq.com
Pen^3's JAE FAQ       - http://faq.pen3.cjb.net