Talk:Enryu/@comment-26854521-20160715091728/@comment-26484417-20160715170310

@Rachellover: No.1 The question of mine was rhetorical. As you said, what you provided were merely assumptions that would support why Enryu killed the Guardian already as a Ranker. The actual information, however, doesn’t support this without them. Not to mention that these assumptions aren't as clearly supportive as you make them out to be; for instance, you say that people would be curious about the Guardian murder if Enryu were still climbing, but what’s to say that this didn’t happen? And it’s very similar for other assumptions you brought up. This doesn't make the theory less likely, it only makes it rely on more assumptions, but I explained this before as well.

I already phrased my theory, including the variation where I replace “sobriquet” with “nickname” for your sake. This was rather lazy attempt on your side, but '''it appears we have once again reached the point where you abandon the discussion and only try to offend and otherwise discourage the person who disagrees with you. A reasonable stopping point.''' (EDIT: Thank you for proving I was right about this.)

No.2 He did. As for why that matters, that’s what the discussion--the one that deviated from the original theory--was all about.

No.3 Not sure what you mean, we do have a reference for this source. The second point is interesting, are you saying that we should prioritise assumptions over information we were given only because it’s somewhat strenuously phrased?

Hmm, this isn't the first time you bring up something akin to “I really wouldn't try to read too much into it” about something that challenges your position on something, but it sounds like a convenient method; maybe we should all start using it. By the way, since you openly admit to overlooking the inconvenient, you aren’t really in a position where you can criticise another for doings this even if the accusation happened to be true.

Moreover, if I look at the text, it suggest what I have theorised. It’s true that--if you insert additional assumption or two--it can suggest the very opposite, but that is something I have already addressed before; in fact, I believe it was among the first things I addressed. Speaking of, you say that the text above suggests otherwise, but then your theory mainly relies on external assumptions instead of the information above; it sends a rather mixed message.

No.4 Believe me, the feeling is mutual. The difference is that while I serve explanations and ways to confirm / disprove it, you serve assumptions. Even if those assumptions turn out to be correct in the end, they are only assumptions at this point and basically all of them are based on your own views so they aren't exactly objective either.

I already told you that the word itself holds stronger emphasis; it’s one of the things on which basically all dictionaries agree (the rest didn’t cover it at all). My assumption here is that the emphasised meaning matters, not that the word has stronger emphasis.

Finally, I don’t know if your remark about “all possible translations and synonyms” was supposed to be a Straw Man fallacy, or something worse. However, it appears that you’re not really against the idea that the correct synonym and translation matter, you simply refuse that it was done properly this time. I’m sure this opinion would be welcome in translating circles.

PS: As mentioned at the end of no.1, this will be my stopping. Thank you for the discussion.