Pixie Trix Comix & Hiveworks Community

Gotoh wrote:

Cortez wrote:Regardless, you can't ignore that Teddy himself stated that the boys never hit him.

Which is why I said their statements contradict each other.

It'd be like someone bragging that they torched some other guy's house, but the alleged victim says it never happened. They both can't be telling the truth, 'cuz either it happened or it didn't.

One of them is said aloud, and one is an inner thought. If they contradict, you might say that what was said aloud was a boast, although the situation doesn't make it seem like boasting. It is hard to see how you can come up with a plausible alternative for an inner thought. Or you can say that they don't contradict except that you are choosing to interpret "pounded" in a way that makes them contradict. Since the simplest resolution is clearly to interpret "pounded" in some other way than hitting, Occam's razor demands that we do so.

FuzzyFace wrote:It is hard to see how you can come up with a plausible alternative for an inner thought. Or you can say that they don't contradict except that you are choosing to interpret "pounded" in a way that makes them contradict.

Since the simplest resolution is clearly to interpret "pounded" in some other way than hitting, Occam's razor demands that we do so.

Except the context in which it was used doesn't make any other interpretation seem plausible.

You say Teddi has no reason to lie, but neither does the jock since he was talking with his friends about an event they were a part of. So if they didn't actually pound him (as in, hitting), wouldn't one of them correct him by saying, "no, we didn't"?

so if all of them didn't see "pounding" as actual hitting, would there be a reason for any of them to say "no, we didn't hit him"?

you have decided to assume that pounding HAS TO mean "actual hitting"

Gotoh wrote:

Cortez wrote:Regardless, you can't ignore that Teddy himself stated that the boys never hit him.

Which is why I said their statements contradict each other.

It'd be like someone bragging that they torched some other guy's house, but the alleged victim says it never happened. They both can't be telling the truth, 'cuz either it happened or it didn't.

DaveZero1 explained it.

Gotoh wrote:

Cortez wrote:Nah, that's just your poor excuse. Especially since no siblings act this way.

Dexter and his sister, Didi, say "hi". So do Ross and his sister, Monica. Or Doug and Judith Funny, who didn't get along with each other 'til Disney took over the series and aged them up. Or how 'bout Linus Van Pelt and his sister, Lucy?

So yes, you're determined to take a comical situation seriously.

Cortez wrote:You realize that people have been arrested for abusing their siblings in real life, right?

What abuse? Name one thing Gabrielle's done to Naomi that she can be arrested for.

Drugging her (for the purpose of publicly humiliating her)? None of the examples you give rise to the level of malice Gabrielle has shown.

tau neutrino wrote:DaveZero1 explained it.

Which means I had it right, because it confirms that they hit him.

tau neutrino wrote:Drugging her (for the purpose of publicly humiliating her)? None of the examples you give rise to the level of malice Gabrielle has shown.

That's your idea of "malice"?

And yes, the examples I mentioned have done worse than anything Gabrielle's done to Naomi.

• Didi, for example, repeatedly barges into Dexter's lab and trashes his inventions for sh*ts 'n giggles. Which is why he's declared his lab off limits to her, yet she still does it anyway.

• Ross tricked his sister into thinking she had a phonecall from her boyfriend, so Monica revealed she had misplaced her diaphragm; not knowing it was their mother on the other end of the line. It ends with Ross doing a troll dance, while his sister chucked fruit at him.

• And do I need to bring up the stunt Nina pulled by highjacking her sister's body to go on a date with her sister's boyfriend? Which was premeditated, on Nina's part.

If you honestly sitcom siblings don't behave that way, you haven't watched enough of 'em.

And in this thread we discuss... mostly other things.

I had my own theory concerning the "pounding" thing, but, hm, DaveZero1's explanation kind of nixes it: Continuity error. Though, even then it's a bit peculiar that Teddy does not seem to think what the jocks did to him was "hitting".