Is Gosho Writing Good? (Chekhov Confesses, Gosho held Prisoner in basement)

[sstimson]

Also, sometimes you don't have your facts straight in ways that can be proven by simply looking up the facts. This hurts your rep.

Case in point:

Spoiler: From the SD board

Another Idea. Back when Kir's Dad was killed, and Camel asking a BO member to leave, Funny thought, What if the BO member Camel ask to leave was the BOSS? In the background, not mentioned since, And being told to leave,means he knew it was a trap. Could Camel unknowingly have meet the BOSS?

No. I do not think in this case that could be Vermouth.

It happened two years ago in Japan (Chapter 607 Page 8)

A year ago Vermouth if Sharon was in America, New York (Chapter 350 Page 16)

And current Dc time just a few weeks before the party Vermouth Arrives (Chapter 239 Page 10); (Chapter 242 Page 17)

It seem to me that Vermouth Home base was in the USA and makes it very unlikely to be Vermouth who Camel saw. Nor is it Pisco. That why it might be the BOSS. He has age, Sound like he was to be part of the meeting where KIR dad Died, and is not a seen member of the BO. A member in the shadows and none of the current members we know about. Nor could it be Bourbon, if chek is right about there being a bourbon and when they joined. Not Rye as Akai flash backs clearly show him as himself and Camel would have know. Who is left? I really think there is a good chance that the Boss was a part of the Party case where Pisco was killed (Gin might have got the order in person), and BOSS was suppose to show up where camel made his mistake. Think this was a old guy sits down where likely only BO member are. Again if not vermouth who is likely in USA at this time, then who could it be?

Then I will add to my point

And I will start with the Golden Apple case in New York, One Year ago
And as Dctp sees fit to say buy vol 36 and before, I will be using Manga Reader as my source
Chapter 350 Page 16

Spoiler:

My point is that these panels should show that as of one year ago according to both Ran and Sharon, Sharon has not retired and is CURRENTLY (Note not past or was) America's Star Actress. That part is from Ran. Sharon says "No problem. I told them it is a part of filming"

So as of one year ago, she was in America as a star actress. Note as much of a fan as Ran is, I am sure of two things.
1) Ran would know if Sharon had retired. And Ran clearly uses the word "IS" as in currently. If that is true at one year, it is also true at two years ago.
2) It seems to me Ran can not believe she is actually meeting Sharon. If Sharon had come to Japan before, Ran would know and would have begged her dad to take her to met Sharon. As this seem to be the first time that Ran has meet Sharon, we can be sure that that event did not happen before now.

Also I am sure we can use Yukiko as a witness to Sharon where abouts. If Sharon had come to Japan, she would know about it and have brought her son to meet her. As Shinichi, while not a Fan, seem to know nothing about her, we can again be sure that did not happen.

Also there is the Media. They are kinds of media called paparazzi. They go where they are not wanted and they know ever person who leaves or enters a Star's home. Even if Sharon left her home in disguise, some of the paparazzi would have follow her as they might believe it was her in disguise and followed to get the story. Note that the general public are watching as Sharon removes her disguise and none show surprise meaning it is likely general knowledge that she can do that.

All the above should show that my statement, of which you are either claiming that I don't have my facts straight, or maybe I am crazy, does indeed have a very good chance of being correct. I believe I have shown evidence that Sharon was very unlikely to have come to Japan before Chris made an appearance.

But let me ask anyway using what there is can you prove the reverse? Do you have a smoking gun to prove otherwise?
Is there anything else currently availability to prove my case?

one more note: I find it interesting that my critics instead of giving reasons why there is no chance any of my idea could be correct have started to use ad hominem arguments against me. If you are so sure of your ideas, then why these kind of attacks on me?


by the way the examples were not at any time to suggest that my critics are hitler, flat earthers, or people that Noah tried to warm. Also they were not to claim I am Noah. There were meant to show that the Majority is not always right, and that the minority can be right. Something the evidence to support a view like the flat earthers in the end fells flat when the so called Fact is disproved. Those examples are in not way an ad hominem attack on my critics. They were meant to be nothing more then examples where most of the people were wrong.

[Abs.]

To put it succinctly because it seems you still do not understand:

You are confusing

- Akai's planned meeting with Gin

with

- Kir's meeting with Ethan Hondou

[sstimson]

To put it succinctly because it seems you still do not understand:

You are confusing - Akai's planned meeting with Gin with - Kir's meeting with Ethan Hondou

From Logical Fallacy

The Fallacy Fallacy
As I mentioned near the beginning of this article, just because someone invokes an unsound argument for a conclusion, that does not necessarily mean the conclusion is false. A conclusion may happen to be true even if an argument used to support is is not sound. I may argue, for example, Obama is a Democrat because the sky is blue – an obvious non-sequitur. But the conclusion, Obama is a Democrat, is still true.

Related to this, and common in the comments sections of blogs, is the position that because some random person on the internet is unable to defend a position well, that the position is therefore false. All that has really been demonstrated is that the one person in question cannot adequately defend their position.

This is especially relevant when the question is highly scientific, technical, or requires specialized knowledge. A non-expert likely does not have the knowledge at their fingertips to counter an elaborate, but unscientific, argument against an accepted science. “If you (a lay person) cannot explain to me,â€

[Abs.]

Also, sometimes you don't have your facts straight in ways that can be proven by simply looking up the facts. This hurts your rep.

[sstimson]

Any Classes on how to prove the normally unprovable

yes I know this argument is a logical fallacy as far as vermouth is concern but with what we got can it be proven eitherway

Logical fallacy I guilty of Ad ignorantiam
The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. It is therefore possible, they argue, that the brain may be capable of transmitting signals at a distance.

[someone somewhere]

Just in case anyone is interested in knowing what a good debate in DCTP looks like...

http://forum.dctp.ws/viewtopic.php?t=161.msg21713

Both sides came up with good arguments, points and evidences that are coherently put together. The debate between Kyuuketsuki and Chekhov (with a few other people bringing up new points/findings) started in the previous page and despite the long posts, they stayed on topic. Nobody gets hurt in the end

I don't think the DCTP community requires everyone to dedicate that level of detailed research and bulletproof argument-crafting skill to comment on the forum. However, clear presentation of ideas and a basic level of tact would certainly help. The latter is especially important when refuting other people’s argument.

[Akonyl]

To put it succinctly because it seems you still do not understand:

You are confusing - Akai's planned meeting with Gin with - Kir's meeting with Ethan Hondou

From Logical Fallacy

The Fallacy Fallacy
blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla

you can't just "invoke the fallacy fallacy" in a situation like this. This discussion is about theories, which are based on sets of logical inferences. If those inferences are bad, then your theory is bad, regardless of whether or not your end conclusion happens to be right by some stroke of luck.

Let's say I decide to make a theory with the end conclusion: "Conan is actually an alien." People see this and ask why, and I say "People that can turn into children? Only aliens could do such a thing." Then let's say a year from now, Gosho gets high and makes an issue where it turns out Shinichi actually came from Krypton, however points out that Ai, who also turned into a child, is still actually human. Even though all of my inferences about only aliens being able to turn into children were proven false, was my theory still sound because my "insane crack theory" dice-roll landed on the right side? No, not at all.

All the fallacy fallacy states is that an end result is not invalidated by a bad proof/theory. Just because there aren't any fully sensible theories why Goro, Ayumi, Genta, or Kogoro aren't Anokata doesn't mean one of them isn't Anokata. That doesn't mean that any of the theories out there that end up being right are "good theories" though.

And considering that nobody 100% knows the true end conclusion, they're going to trust a theory which has good points (and iirc, has successfully predicted the appearance of a character with a certain name) over a theory which makes points based on bad information.

[sstimson]

I believe you are using a Straw Man
A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw manâ€

[leokiko]

Fun fact:

What kyuuketsuki said years ago(talking about Akai's death):

"So at that range, the blank would still kill him (or at least still injure him). Even if he DID survive... there would be a severe burn on his forehead. But if we see him later with that, fine."

[mangaluva]

Uh, sstimson... comparing a perfectly logical assertation that people will trust the explanation that makes sense over the one that doesn't to GODWIN'S LAW? You also seem to vastly misunderstand the nature of Godwin's Law. The Law is that the longer an argument goes on, the more likely that someone will compare their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis. Many forums have rules which end a thread the second that Godwin's Law, or a specific corollary, are invoked.

By the way, unnecessarily explaining different types of fallacy does not constitute a counter-argument. Just so ya know.

[sstimson]

Godwin's law hun

this is what that page says about that

The term “poisoning the wellâ€

[Suutashi]

[quote="sstimson"]
Godwin's law hun

this is what that page says about that

The term “poisoning the wellâ€

[sstimson]

I am saying three things

1) A disclaimer and a reason why believing  what I did not say is a logical fallacy
2) A short list of some of the Fallacies I see in Chekhov ideas
3) Another disclaimer about my self and trying to better in the future

[Abs.]

What's the logical fallacy called where Person A is arguing Point A and Person B says that Person A is wrong because Point Z is a logical fallacy?

[A.E.]

Ignoratio elenchi?