Since it seems that no new information will be available for some time i am adressing a question reagarding teddies.while admit he has contributed to the entertainment value of this whole "discussion" about what went wrong with wm and cm, and has made a few good jokes (btw, how did your proposal play out teddiebroseph?), this whole disput between some of you and this guy is in circles since the very start.while i understand why not giving up on him initially, i can no longer undertstand in this progressed state of the disput.
I want to give an example by one representative quote, that even isolated from the amount of other posts, speaks in my opinion for itself.
T. uh maybe because she is pointing out that the the story is bullshit (as many have done her) .. that it makes no sense that WM would have to beat CM almost to death if that fantasy scenario occurred he could of just disarmed THEREFORE IT MAKES NO SENSE THAT SHE ATTACKED HIM WITH A STEAK KNIFE.
He jumps from the opinion, that wm could have disarmed cm without dealing harm, to the conclusion that since he could have composed himself, it is logical to completely and strictly dismiss the posibility, that cm threatened or attacked wm with a knife.
if i can follow his path of thought that is. Granted it is sometimes confusing how the fuck one could think that one assumption that has not the slightest logical or causal influence to a certain specific of the context, logically dismisses said specific, i think that is his way of thinking. Even a first grader is advancwd enough to dismiss his as logical or even causal necessary sold "arguments" by saying "well, maybe he overreacted".
that leads us to a the posibility that he is a troll and for his sake and his functional niveau as a human, i honestly hope that this is the case, or the posibility that his capability of drawing logical inferences is more than damaged (if the reason therefore is a fundamental neurological deficit or a psychotic like cognition in this context doesn't really matter). In the first case it's clear you can't convince him because he in fact knows he's wrong and plays the game. In the second case it is pretty much obvious, looking at a sample of a giant amount of related posts, that his restrictions, at least regarding this context, are to serious to be adressed or even solved through a forum conversation.
so i Wonder what is your Motivation to even bother disputing with him anymore as he has clearly and without reasonable doubt shown numerous times that he isn't reachable?
no bash or anything, just sincere curiosity.
