Talk:Enryu/@comment-26854521-20160715091728/@comment-26484417-20160715141534

@Rachellover: And is there a suggestion that Enryu was a Ranker already prior to becoming the #1 Ranker? Otherwise the point you raise there shouldn't matter. As for admitting that I made a mistake, I already did that. It's in the 3rd paragraph of the comment you were replying to, it must have slipped your attention while you were working on the ad hominem. Were you perhaps hoping that the mistake--about something mentioned within but with no impact on the original theory--has a cascade effect and invalidates the original theory as well?

I state that because it does have more emphasised meaning, and this isn't in question. The question is whether it was intended by SIU, or whether it's inconsequential; you assume it's inconsequential, I assume it's intended. I suppose you may have simply ignored it before, but I have elaborated on the different meanings at this point, therefore you no longer have the option of simply ignoring it as "mere nickname" without making an assumption that it's just a "mere nickname". You could also be in denial, but that doesn't seem likely since you already acknowledge the distinction (one way or the other) thorough our discussion.

It's true, I may dislike the wording, but--since I cannot analyse the grammar structure (I did mention this before as well)--my only option is to rely on it. Since you find my reliance thereon disappointing, surely you have analysed and can demonstrate that the structure of the wording above is incorrect, misleading, or at least questionable. If you have done this, then please enlighten me (seriously, I would like to know), otherwise it's only ad passiones fallacy.

Moving on, your explanation was done exclusively via your conclusion, that isn't convincing and it happens to be a logical fallacy in its own right. As I've mentioned before, only one half of the contrast is well defined, while the other one isn't currently defined at all. If you focus only on one half of the contrast, then you basically deny the contrast. Yes, I realise that it's in Korean, but--if you read it in Korean--you should be presented with precisely the opposite situation to what you describe. You encounter a word that you know has stronger emphasis on the concept than the word that is commonly used. That is unless SIU commonly uses the more emphasises word to denote something with lesser emphasis (e.g., mere nickname), in which case you'd ignore it. In other words, we may know what 이명 means in ToG universe, but we don't really know what 별명 means in ToG universe (Korean's should, though). This is why I said that we should find out whether and how SIU uses it outside of this article. Really, considering the nature and cherry picking of building blocks for some of your theories, it's probably a good thing that you sometime fail with your explanations.

PS: I assume the question doesn't require my answer since you already answered it yourself, huh? In any case, I wonder where you get that confidence. First, even the most generic online dictionaries usually contain this information nowadays. Second, what makes you think I only looked into online dictionaries? I do have offline dictionaries as well; they are readily available for those who are interested.