Who broke Little Chicago?

[Bad Alias]

I'm open to any other explanation.

Nah. I think that's the best explanation I've seen (or at least gets to the core of it). Just hadn't seen it before.

when someone sits there and attacks your logical argument trying to squirm their way into the tiniest flaws  it's not moving the goal posts to rebuff their bits, it's a conversation apparently, not the conversation I enjoy having, but one seen here often enough I feel the need to prepare for it with almost any simple statement I make.. with other correlations. I.e. counter argue. However, Morris was kind enough to slam dunk it for me, after which farther rallying of points felt entirely unnecessary.
*Rebuttal, that's the word I was looking for, not moving goal posts, making rebuttals.

But you didn't "make" the argument that "everyone" would notice until several exchanges in. You still haven't, even if we include Morris's contribution. "Everyone" consists of what Grayson said on the page and what you think Mike would have said. When the premise of the theory is that the wreck was an illusion caused by beings, Harry and Lash, able to control what Harry hears and sees, one line from one character without more isn't a "slam dunk" argument that it didn't happen. Especially given what we know about how these things can work from SmF. If the hit and run came up enough from other characters who witnessed the damage to the Beetle, I'd be willing to say it wasn't illusion. (Which it might have. I don't recall if/how it was dealt with throughout the rest of the book). I think it came up 4 or 5 times in SmF before Harry had to confront it. When he did, it basically crippled him.

Honestly, I don't think the whole illusion part is really necessary to explain why Lash didn't object the first time he tried to use but did the second time. Just the Lash was in league with a time travel Harry part of the theory is enough. A future Harry should know enough about Lash to be able to communicate with her without tipping his hand to PG Harry. (And if your initial argument had been that enough people would have noticed that it wasn't a hit and run and did in fact interact with Harry on that basis to the point that the weight and cognitive dissonance of any illusions would come crashing down, this paragraph would have been my response. Instead, you focused on Mike and the good working order of the Beetle being what would bring it all down, and I replied to that. That Mike would have something to repair on the Beetle isn't a tiny flaw in the logic that Mike wouldn't have anything to repair on the Beetle. It's the entirety of the logic).

[The_Sibelis]

What are you talking about confront it??
Yea, that's how rebuttals work, someone adds on to a previous statement in reply..
Pretty sure that one character isn't under any illusion himself there, and Murphy was there, and idk if he had a partner offhand but, nobody batted an eye to his statement either so. Believe what thy will bub.

[Bad Alias]

What are you talking about confront it??

Harry had to confront that Mab had removed all memories of fire magic from his mind to prevent him from being tracked by the Summer Court.

Yea, that's how rebuttals work, someone adds on to a previous statement in reply..

No, that's not a rebuttal. It is a reply. The reply could be a clarification of an original ambiguous statement or a correction of the initially incomplete or incorrect original statement. But what you did wasn't to add to a previous statement. It was to suggest a completely different argument.

You shifted the goalposts. "Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."

You said police do reconstructions and the Beetle wouldn't have enough damage to justify a hit and run. I rebutted both points.

Then you said Mike would have nothing to fix. I rebutted that point.

Then you said "everyone" would notice. You left unspoken the part that everyone involved, except Mike who I demonstrated would have no reason to, would confront Harry about why he was talking nonsense. There are only two people who would be in a position to do so. Officer Grayson and Murphy. Grayson did not confront Harry, but did, according to Harry, confirm that it was a hit and run. I don't recall exactly what Murphy did in that scene and throughout the remainder of the book. Making your argument would require going through the book, or a better memory of it than I have, and pointing to all the times Lash would have to make Harry see/hear/say/feel something that's not what's on the page. It's probably a pretty solid argument (I hold pretty consistently there are almost no conclusive arguments in regards to the DF) if the hit and run stuff comes up when Murphy's around later in the book. But the argument has not yet been made. Just the premise stated.

Here's a list of illusions that have been demonstrated as necessary for the theory that TT Harry time traveled into Harry's head to prevent LC from killing Harry.
1. The initial illusion that Harry was hit by a car.
2. Grayson's statement.
3-x. ?

A rebuttal to Mike not having something to fix would be Mike having something to fix.

Pretty sure that one character isn't under any illusion himself there.

The claim would be that Harry is under an illusion as to a single statement. Not that the entity in Harry's head is causing an illusion in Grayson's head.

Believe what thy will bub.

I believe that outside of the surface story, none us know what was going on in PG with any reasonable degree of certainty.

[The_Sibelis]

Harry had to confront that Mab had removed all memories of fire magic from his mind to prevent him from being tracked by the Summer Court.
No, that's not a rebuttal. It is a reply. The reply could be a clarification of an original

I see know difference, this is a nit picking, funny how I complain about something and then it mysteriously comes out of the woodwork..

ambiguous statement or a correction of the initially incomplete or incorrect original statement. But what you did wasn't to add to a previous statement. It was to suggest a completely different argument.

what? That it would be noticed was the original argument, the who is the expounding upon the original premise of who might else notice it is a rebuttal.

You shifted the goalposts. "Moving the goalposts is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded."

and I didn't demand any greater evidence, I provided more, that wasn't a claim they made, it was dismissing my evidence, they did that, not me... 🧐 Why am I being accosted?

You said police do reconstructions and the Beetle wouldn't have enough damage to justify a hit and run. I rebutted both points.

and I replied with answers. Now we're getting it.

Then you said Mike would have nothing to fix. I rebutted that point.

no, I said Mike would know the difference. And indeed, he would, greyson did and he's not even a car damage expert.

[/quote]Then you said "everyone" would notice. You left unspoken the part that everyone involved, except Mike who I demonstrated would have no reason to, would confront Harry about why he was talking nonsense.[/quote] no, you Said he wouldn't recognize the difference, that's wrong.

There are only two people who would be in a position to do so. Officer Grayson and Murphy. Grayson did not confront Harry, but did, according to Harry, confirm that it was a hit and run.

I see absolutely know difference. A confrontation implies there's something there to challenge, just like here, there's not.

I don't recall exactly what Murphy did in that scene and throughout the remainder of the book. Making your argument would require going through the book, or a better memory of it than I have, and pointing to all the times Lash would have to make Harry see/hear/say/feel something that's not what's on the page.

why in earth would anyone need to do that? It's one scene..

It's probably a pretty solid argument (I hold pretty consistently there are almost no conclusive arguments in regards to the DF) if the hit and run stuff comes up when Murphy's around later in the book. But the argument has not yet been made. Just the premise stated.

what?

Here's a list of illusions that have been demonstrated as necessary for the theory that TT Harry time traveled into Harry's head to prevent LC from killing Harry.
1. The initial illusion that Harry was hit by a car.
2. Grayson's statement.
3-x. ?

A rebuttal to Mike not having something to fix would be Mike having something to fix.
The claim would be that Harry is under an illusion as to a single statement. Not that the entity in Harry's head is causing an illusion in Grayson's head.
I believe that outside of the surface story, none us know what was going on in PG with any reasonable degree of certainty.

none of that made any sense to me what so ever in the context of it wasn't an illusion...?

[Bad Alias]

Then you said Mike would have nothing to fix.

no, I said Mike would know the difference.

So he takes it to Mike, who asks, fix what?

How is this not saying Mike has nothing to fix?

none of that made any sense to me what so ever in the context of it wasn't an illusion...?

Because all your arguments are based on the premise that you're correct so you don't need to address the merits of Foxed's theory.

[The_Sibelis]

How is this not saying Mike has nothing to fix?

because I said

The damage itself is different than say, a chlorofiend slamming your hood. That's why Mike asks what happened, it's not damaged in a way he'd suspect.

this first and quite clearly.

Because all your arguments are based on the premise that you're correct so you don't need to address the merits of Foxed's theory.

I already did this, just like above what's being said is obviously being ignored in favor of what you think you wanted to hear in order to keep your illusion of an illusion. Far easier if I'm the one being argumentative for the sake of... What? This isn't a big thing, and I've already stacked the evidence against it. That doesn't unmake your theory... But on the other hand I don't see any legs to stand on for it being an illusion and for it to continue to work as an idea you have to ignore obvious evidence.. don't get mad cause I pointed it out.
So uh, where's your evidence then? It's an illusion too?