Talk:Arie Family/@comment-26484417-20160405071834/@comment-26484417-20160406233759

There is no point in evaluating a scenario that has been crafted around an assumption that "SIU grew lazy" (you can use different words if you prefer), while it ignores information included in the story. Your use of this scenario suggests either that you still cannot see the issue (I can only recommend to re-examine my previous comment and the discussed content to rectify that), or that you're—consciously or not—trying to push your assumption.

The second paragraph is really nothing but assumptions and suppositions, but I have to ask: Do you think SIU actually draws the names of all these techniques? I would expect that he knows how to use Photoshop fonts.

In any case, how can you claim it's based on the information from the story and a pinch of logic when you cannot defend it by relying on either, and your scenario outright ignores content while promoting an assumption? Now, I'm not saying that my interpretation is assumption-free, that's basically impossible at this point, but I accounted for the available information before turning to fill in the gaps with reasonable assumptions.

Your interpretation may turn out to be accurate despite its lower probability (= introduces more assumptions, ignores certain pieces of information), but it doesn't deserve the confidence embodied by the article on this page. Especially when there is an alternative that accounts for more if not all pieces of information and introduces fewer assumptions, and which incidentally entails lesser risk of misinformation (i.e., lack of information is not an information => unlisted techniques aren't necessarily unrelated).

"Yes, I did mention that ... although there are exceptions to every rule." So there are rules that you promote and—presumably—enforce, but that you can ignore when convenient? Disappointing... Oh well, then never mind.

As for the last remark, my bad, it must have been a different Demotivator.