Mini 765 - Welcome to Hambargarville GAME OVER!!

[yellowbunny]

Thank you very much for this post. It really does help me out a lot to hear feedback like this on how I present myself, as that is one of the things I struggle with. I will take what you have said here into careful consideration.

Okay, good.

Now, back to what you said about the case against you not having merit. It breaks down to 3 things:

1. Your inital going awol twice (which I think most people agree is a fairly small part of the case at this point)
2. Your not liking to answer questions (which we addressed in the last post)
3. Your misrepresenting the facts (as we explained before)

As I see the case against you, point 1 is a very weak point. Point 2, considering your meta and the conversation we just had, starts losing some of its teeth. But point 3 remains. Can you give any arguments/justifications for these mistakes? If you want to survive day 1, you ought to address these issues more than you have. (Also please let me know if its not clear to you exactly what I am asking on this point.)

[Wall-E]

What misrepresentations have I failed to retract?

[yellowbunny]

For one, me tunneling on you after you asked for some space. Also I thought I saw someone else say you misposted something, but I cannot find it atm so maybe I am misremembering.

But really, the question is: the logical answer to "why did you say those untrue things?" is "well, i made a mistake". Of course, that is the answer you will say regardless of if its the truth or not. Do you have any sort of argument to sway us to believe that is the truth rather than an excuse?

[Wall-E]

I do not know what you are referring to with this sentence: For one, me tunneling on you after you asked for some space.

Can you clarify?

I have no such argument. I've tried to present my interpretations of the events in the thread as I saw them, based mostly on the logical fallacies of IK and, as a result, any possible scum-connections I noticed to him.

[yellowbunny]

Regarding:
Quote:

Next he throws some suspicion my way and parrots someone else's reasoning, then becomes increasingly "upset" with my failure to address some points, allowing that to be his reason for voting me. Later, he builds a case on me, completing the tunnel.


That's also pretty inaccurate. I wasn't "upset" with your failure to respond. I WAS upset. You have admitted that your behavior at that point wasn't helping the town at all. And seriously, Wall-e...you posted an apology and asked for time to dig your way out, and since then I have really been trying to give you some breathing room to dig your way out of the hole. That HARDLY constitutes tunneling.

You accused me of tunneling on you. I said I didn't think I was, and that after your apology and your asking for more space, I backed off. I asked for you to give examples of how I tunneled you after that point.

I have no such argument. I've tried to present my interpretations of the events in the thread as I saw them, based mostly on the logical fallacies of IK and, as a result, any possible scum-connections I noticed to him.

Fair enough. Considering the three pronged argument I mentioned before, prong 1 is weak, and prong 2 is not as strong imo as it had been (so long as you keep trying to respond well). While I consider prong 3 to be still a real concern, in light of our recent conversations, I don't feel comfortable leaving you at L-2.

unvote

Okay, next question: I've not been putting much stock in your case against IK at this point since I thought you were just provoking him needlessly. Now that I don't think you were doing that to be difficult, and am less convinced you are scum, I am more interested in what you have to say regarding IK. However, the number of posts going back and forth between you two is mindboggling.

Can you write a nice, concise post outlining your case against IK?

@IK: once Wall-e has done so, can you please do your best to refute it? I know you are frusterated w/Wall-e atm, but it will be helpful for the rest of us.

[Wall-E]

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

Here is the problem with what you are doing.

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

I lost the first version of this compilation, and this one is incomplete. Let's start here and see what happens though.

[qwints]

Holy crap, that's a lot of activity.
@those asking about my lurking: I had a huge paper due friday that ate up all my time
this week. I'll try to up my activity level, especially given the recent storm of posts.

unvote

to give me time to evaluate and a bigger post should be coming tomorrow.

[Idiotking]

All right. I'll do this. Fine.

Wall-E, you ask why the evidence you have presented is crappy. That's because the evidence is all quite old, and has been VERY much explained as of late. Do you HONESTLY believe that I am scum merely because I hate RVS? Is that REALLY the only reason you have? I think I like my vote where it is, thanks to this. In my opinion you pretty much have to be scum. Failing that, you're probably the worst townie I've ever seen, other than me.

Attacking my ethics does not invalidate my case. Logical fallacies are largely considered a scumtell here. If you would like to address my case, I'm listening.

Ok... so where is the logical fallacy here? What exactly are you referring to?

Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever.

Vote: Idiotking

Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Another thing. About the RVS thing. Do you NOT acknowledge that it got conversation going?

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Uhuh. Meta defense, dismissiveness and attempts to shift the burden of proof back to me after I neatly placed it in your court.

You didn't place crap in my court. It's been all over you since the beginning. Meta defense. Ok. I don't even know what meta is to the extent you people on this site have taken it. I do what I do as experimentation. Didn't you want to know the reasoning for why I do things? If you didn't, why did you even bother asking? Was it a rhetorical question? Or did you not quote the question?

No, you can't be proud of sparking discussion by becoming suspicious yourself. If it's done consciously, you are misleading and hurting town, and not actually spawning constructive discussion since you're drawing suspicion to the only player you know the alignment of.

This is the beauty of the thing. I know my alignment, I can defend myself. If I'm put under the microscope, it allows everyone to examine both me and the people holding said microscope. We can see flaws in logic, twisting of words, etc. Basically, making yourself a target so you can see who all jumps on you and why. If they don't have a good reason, or don't have a good idea of what they're doing, it'll show, and when it shows, you can react accordingly. SOMEBODY has to start discussion, somebody has to be the initial scapegoat, and I'd rather it be me than a better player.

Granted, I hadn't intended for that to happen from the outset, but I'm not going to complain now that it did.

Here is the problem with what you are doing.

By setting yourself up as a target you are causing the town to hunt you instead of scum. You are predicating this behavior on the idea that the scum are guaranteed to slip up, but they aren't.

My response here would be the exact same response as I had when I responded to this originally. You dismissed it (ironic, considering you called it dismissive).

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

But you, Wall-E. To me, you messed up. You messed up from the very beginning, and haven't made a wonderful effort to recover.

Back up this rhetoric with supporting evidence, please.

He still has not.

Yeah, I have. Recently. Look it up yourself. I've already done enough for you.

Ok, in that case: In 317 you say I messed up bad. Please link that comment to another you have made prior wherein

you state I have messed up and then go on to support said claim with evidence from the thread

, since you claim to already have explained yourself.

Ok... HAVEN'T I ALREADY DONE THIS? LIKE, VERY VERY VERY RECENTLY? Or are you dismissing it? Because that's exactly what you seem to be doing for every one of my significant posts. You say you rely on a sane town to derail you. I honestly question your experience and skill at this game if you think you have to have that to prove you wrong.

Of course they're not guaranteed to slip up. But if the discussion goes on for days and days and days, the odds of a slip up of some sort increases. If they STILL don't slip up, well then, I'm not going to do the town any good by staying alive anyway, simply because I'm not good enough.

"I'm going to do X, something that's guaranteed to hurt to town. The upside is, I could find scum. If/when I fail it will be ok, because doing X is silly and nobody ever would, so I should die."

That's all I can get out of this. It's utter nonsense.

Explain to me how it's utter nonsense. And obviously it didn't hurt the town at all, I'm not the main one under fire here. And for those suspicious of me, not a one is suspicious of the RVS issue.

Wall-E. This entire case is insubstantial and quibbling over trivial issues that don't matter. Not slips that people missed, not elaborate scumhunting. Trivial. Stuff. Doesn't. Matter. I was honestly hoping you'd have something better for me, considering you've been harping on about you're "case" for days now. This is yet another disappointment.




Qwints. Come on, I already told you that excuse isn't enough. You should have already evaluated when you first returned to the thread, but you didn't. I had a huge paper due Friday too (really) but I was online often enough.

[Kreriov]

Hello all, LOTS of reading to do. I made it to IK's post 446 and had to respond immediately, so pardon if I haven't yet made it to more juicy parts or have not commented on much.

Ok... what?

His roleclaiming vanilla means absolutely nothing. At all. Ever. Scum claim vanilla so nobody will counterclaim. Townies with power roles claim vanilla so they don't look like they have power roles. Townies who are vanilla roleclaim power roles so scum will go after them instead of people who REALLY have power roles. Just because you lie in your claim doesn't mean you're automatically scum. But that's not the issue here.

I agree that Wall-E is a good target today. But I don't agree with your reasoning. Is that ALL you have to say about him?

Vanilla Townies should most certainly NOT falsely claim a power role. Just because it has worked once at some time in some game, it is a HORRIBLE idea, ESPECIALLY on Day 1.

Truthfully claiming VT when at L-1 is also a good idea. It probably will not save you from a lynch, but that info that you truthfully claimed before getting lynch, I think, is a bit of data that I think helps sift through posts looking for scum.

[Kreriov]

@Wall-E

From post 512:

I mean, really, the case against me boils down to, "We don't know who else to lynch, and Wall-E is annoying." At least, that's what I'm seeing.

Um, not true. You claimed to quickly. You ignore questions. You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you. You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you. You misrepresent facts.

From Post 503:

I disagree. I have shown tremendous interest in scumhunting. Self-defense is really secondary, don't you think? Not to mention the supposed lack of interest in self-defense on my part has been largely exaggerated.

Your scumhunting seems to be entirely in your own defense. You find scum in whomever is the latest to attack you. And NO, self-defense IS NOT secondary. First, if you do not defend yourself, you make an easy lynch. Second, if you DO defend yourself and still get lynched, it generates more info for the rest of us to judge your attackers. Your right in that you do not show a lack of interest in self-defense. I would rather characterize it as your best defense has been a good offense. You attack and attack and attack and fail to put up much of a defense. It has worked. 22 pages in an you are still here.

Since you seem to focus on actual votes sometimes and sometimes seem to take more interest in what people say, do you think my points are more or less valid because I am voting for Cubarey and not you?

@mod: What is the latest on Cubarey? Has he picked up a prod? Are we getting a rep?

[hambargarz]

Cubarey has not responded to his prods. Currently looking for a replacement (it appears there is a shortage at the moment)

[Hero764]

Wow, a lot of activity today. Here we go:

As for hero I'm not liking him very much right now, not sure why, I've got a lot to process with 3? new pages, but I'm getting bad vibes. Also I don't see how my thoughts on him and noob could mesh, it isn't as though he has picked up where noob left of with the same train of thought and strategy.

Bad vibes? Care to elaborate?

Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

Bad attitude is noted.

One, YOU SHOULD, it would be unwise to ignore my lurking just because I suggested you pressure lurkers.

Why don't you just stop lurking then? Then we wouldn't have a reason to pressure you. If you know you're town, don't suggest we waste effort trying to figure out you are.

Two, I wanted to make sure nobody called my "hypocrit"

Why so cautious?

Three, I'm not lurking intentionally and I think some pressure on myself would certainly draw me into the coversation.

There's plenty to discuss, and it doesn't have to be about you. There's atleast 2 or 3 big cases going on. Why don't you post an analysis of them?

Jase's recent posts have me some bad vibes.

IK: Chill the fuck out. I'm not liking you right now either.

And for the record, no, most of these aren't questions. They shouldn't have to be. People are wondering what you're up to, Wall-E. This involves DEFENDING yourself. You know why you got so many votes on you? Hmm? More votes than I do, more votes than X does, more votes than yellowbunny does, more votes than Jase does, more votes than qwints does, and the list goes on and on? BECAUSE WE AREN'T AS SCUMMY AS YOU. Defend yourself, or die.

This seems like you making yourself seem like an angry townie to try and cover up scuminess. And not everyone shares your opinion on Wall-E being the scummiest.

What what what??? I mean, 20 pages is a bit long for D1, but I still think it's a little early, because some people have lurked for most of the day, and we're still waiting on a replacement...oh, my...FoS: Hero764.

D2 will give us more info, and discussion picks right back up.

Sajin's active lurking is noted.

I disagree. I have shown tremendous interest in scumhunting. Self-defense is really secondary, don't you think? Not to mention the supposed lack of interest in self-defense on my part has been largely exaggerated.

A scum who scumhunts is usually pretty useless. So you have to try and convince that you're not scum, and then your arguments might get more merit. It isn't like your cases have been extraordinary either. I agree IK seems scummy, but you're reasons are great by no means. And I didn't say you didn't defend yourself, I just said that it seems like your defense has no "effort" in it(if you wanna say it like that).

Hero: I meant you'd be hurting the town by cutting off discussion. I'm not going to claim that lynching me would hurt the town, because such a claim would be penultimate WIFOM. For the record, it would.

It doesn't cut off discussion though(except the 72 hour period). IT picks right back up on D2. Am I missing something here?

[Idiotking]

I don't exactly think I can respond to Hero's statement against me without it turning into another WIFOM situation. Hero, how would you say I've been acting scummy, in detail? Or point me to a place where you already have; I may have missed it.

[yellowbunny]

Wall-E wrote:
Post 51 may be Jase trying out the "do something silly and scummy at the beginning then go serious-as-scum" thing.

Idiotking's 53 looks like a mini flip-out.

Then Idiot King distracts from the bit of attention the flip-out granted him by bringing up a RVS policy discussion and baiting people into joining it by taking the unpopular side (pooh on all of you who participated, scum helping their partner distract).

It's the same RVS discussion, in fact, that we've all groaned through in every game ever. Vote: Idiotking


Don't automatically think I'm scum right from the start, as the wording of this post indicates. You have YET to explain why post 53 is a mini-flipout. Has it EVER occurred to you that that's the kind of guy I am? Have the posts since then not convinced you of this?

Wall-e, it would be helpful if you please explained in detail why you feel that post 53 is a "meltdown". Post 53 doesn't seem to be a particularly useful post from IK, and seems to me that its a "silly" post. So I am not sure that I follow your reasoning here.

I am still thinking about your case, and IK's response to it, so I'll probably have more follow up questions.

yellowbunny wrote:
Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

Bad attitude is noted.

1.) I'm not the only person to get annoyed with Wall-e, so I find your calling me out for that one tiny quote to be, well, odd.
2.) My point with comment is that information should flow both ways - its not fair for one person to ask questions and get answers, while the other does not. It inhibits the scum hunting process.

That said, @Wall-e: since we have cleared up that misunderstanding about the questions, and you have given me the answers I wanted now, if you still would like for me to answer this question, I'd be happy to.

IK: Chill the fuck out. I'm not liking you right now either.

Sajin's active lurking is noted.

QFTx2.

[X]

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

Um, not true. You claimed to quickly. You ignore questions. You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you. You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you. You misrepresent facts.

QFT.

Hero: I meant you'd be hurting the town by cutting off discussion. I'm not going to claim that lynching me would hurt the town, because such a claim would be penultimate WIFOM. For the record, it would.

It doesn't cut off discussion though(except the 72 hour period). IT picks right back up on D2. Am I missing something here?

Yes. There's one (or more) NKs each Night. We don't want to let scum eliminate town minds from the discussion, or from the game. That said, I think it's about time for a lynch. We should definitely wait for CUBAREY's replacement, though.

Why should I answer your questions when you don't like answering mine???

Bad attitude is noted.

Like it matters.

[Wall-E]

Kreriov: Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence. I challenge you that the following points will remain rhetoric until you support them with evidence from the thread. At that point, I will defend against you. I won't build your case for you by guessing what you mean. With the obvious exception of point 1, which I agree with you about.

@Wall-E

Point 1: You claimed to quickly.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

I disagree. I have shown tremendous interest in scumhunting. Self-defense is really secondary, don't you think? Not to mention the supposed lack of interest in self-defense on my part has been largely exaggerated.

Your scumhunting seems to be entirely in your own defense.

You find scum in whomever is the latest to attack you. And NO, self-defense IS NOT secondary. First, if you do not defend yourself, you make an easy lynch. Second, if you DO defend yourself and still get lynched, it generates more info for the rest of us to judge your attackers. Your right in that you do not show a lack of interest in self-defense. I would rather characterize it as your best defense has been a good offense.

You attack and attack and attack and fail to put up much of a defense.

It has worked. 22 pages in an you are still here.

The contradiction between the two bolded sentences: Can you clarify this? Am I defending myself by attacking my attackers or not defending myself or ignoring questions or what? You're all over the place in this post making it hard to definitively reply...

Since you seem to focus on actual votes sometimes and sometimes seem to take more interest in what people say, do you think my points are more or less valid because I am voting for Cubarey and not you?

I think that every player puts different degrees of importance behind their votes. I am a bit loose with my vote on D1, and I tighten up later. I have no meta-read on you, if that's what you're asking.

[Wall-E]

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

[Idiotking]

@Wall-E

Point 1: You claimed to quickly.

Point 2: You ignore questions.

Point 3: You seem to randomly attack whomever you can to draw suspicions away from you.

Point 4: You support cases (i.e. YB against Hero) at the drop of a hat in what I think are desperate tries to take suspicion off of you.

Point 5: You misrepresent facts.

Respond to this, then.

[Wall-E]

I have already outlined the requisite form for a case to take in order for me to consider it worthwhile. That is not a case, it's rhetoric. Sorry, but I won't do your job for me. You want me dead, YOU find examples of each of those things and present them.

[Wall-E]

EBWOP: "Sorry, but I won't do your job for me." should read "Sorry, but I won't do anyone else's job for them."

[Idiotking]

Apparently this "rhetoric" stems from prior events. We've already said we're not going to babysit you. And we've pointed out pretty much every time you did those things, when you did them, so it's not like this "rhetoric" is foundationless. You're going to have to do some work, too.

I find it funny, though, that you said I did something that was genuinely anti-town in all possible scenarios, because it would make the town pay attention to me, while you yourself are making the town pay attention to you because you're dismissing everything we have to say as rhetoric. Pot calling the kettle black?

[Wall-E]

The difference is that it would be anti-town for me to build a case against myself.

[X]

Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence.

False. "Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade." - Wikipedia. So most of playing mafia (actively) is rhetoric. But if the definition that you just gave is what you mean by rhetoric, I gotta re-read a few of your posts.

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

I had to read this a couple times, because I couldn't believe that I'm reading this. That's one of the conditions of life: grow, develop, respond to stimuli, reproduce...

Stand by while I explain (most, if not all of) Kreriov's points.

[Idiotking]

Ok... when did I build a case against myself? When did I say, "Oh look, not voting in RVS is scummy! Let's lynch Idiotking!" You're letting the town build an impossibly solid case against you, and you're not even acknowledging that there IS one.


And stop selecting what you're going to answer to. Respond to this:

Apparently this "rhetoric" stems from prior events. We've already said we're not going to babysit you. And we've pointed out pretty much every time you did those things, when you did them, so it's not like this "rhetoric" is foundationless. You're going to have to do some work, too.

And Kreriov's list of points against you.

[Wall-E]

Rhetoric is repeating the talking-points of others without offering supporting evidence.

False. "Rhetoric is the art of using language as a means to persuade." - Wikipedia. So most of playing mafia (actively) is rhetoric. But if the definition that you just gave is what you mean by rhetoric, I gotta re-read a few of your posts.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
A treatise or book discussing this art.
A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.

Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or

intellectually vacuous

: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

The opposite of rhetoric would be argument: A statement coupled with arguments that logically support the statement. Example: Because X, Y and Z, then it follows that Wall-E is scum.

Okay, Wall-E, I don't know if you're getting it. The places where you "saw no question," were still things that most people would have a reaction to. We want to know that reaction...

I rarely react to anything. It's a difference between me and other people. If you have questions, I will answer them.

I had to read this a couple times, because I couldn't believe that I'm reading this. That's one of the conditions of life: grow, develop, respond to stimuli, reproduce...

Stand by while I explain (most, if not all of) Kreriov's points.[/quote]

Did I say I never react to stimuli? Absolutism is almost always a fallacy.