Quote Originally Posted by lampost View Post
1. Prior acts for sure taint people for good or for bad, that should seem simple enough. A prior recent act clearly makes more of a difference. I'm not here to discuss what happened years ago. The now is that we have a so called ethical kd (bb) siding with a non ethical kd (pyro) who were recently caught in the act. So we can scrap the morality on that front.
OK this is better. What you are describing is a process called "attenuation" that is the more distant something is, the less weight it may be given. You come down clearly on the side that prior acts taint and taint permanently (which seems to argue counter to your concept of attenuation, so I have no idea how your logically work that out, but OK). You were doing alright until the last sentence where you just suddenly whip out an unsupported conclusory statement that contradicts a centerpiece of your own argument. No, we can't scrap morality! Its at the center of what you are trying to argue! If morality is immaterial, then the character of pyro has no bearing! ACK! Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater! Simply terrible! Go back and revise this again. But chin up! This is a MUCH better effort this time.


2. Points are simple. Emeriti does something serious but small, offers reparations and benefits which seem to put BB at a big advantage. Gold, fake hostile, additional acres...you name it, I realy dont see what more calculations are needed. Instead we have the response which is completely disproportionate. I think some of your friends even admit to this. They just say it deserves a disproportionate response for one reason or another. Emeriti deserves to be beat up. They deserve have there CF broken with BB and then GB'd. There is no hurricane here and one does not need to be Shakespeare. Just simple logic.
If it is serious, then it can't be small. Don't self contradict. Perhaps better to say, "Emeriti transgressed, but in a minor way". This is also a conclusory statement as to magnitude which is sent to mask as fact. It is simply unsupported opinion as to magnitude. Poor lead-off choice. You then follow it up with another unsupported conclusory statement which merely parrot's ASF's arguments. Another conclusory statement as to magnitude of response. An assumption regarding the stance of unnamed posters. A contradictory statement, it can't be disproportionate if its deserved.

Sadly, its not simple logic. There is no logic here yet..... but you ARE getting a little better..... Keep trying!