Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-24993958-20160721222431/@comment-25396609-20160730155730

You actually started it, after last month's contest. Other people have been making an ongoing attempt to prove you are wrong, and you accuse us of arguing in circles by refusing our arguments with things like 'because we don't know what the writers were thinking' even though that exact logic is required for your argument to hold ground. It is required for your argument to work, because the surnames of these characters naturally fulfill the CNR, while you are finding obscure, unlikely, and downright elastic ways their first names can fulfill it; even though Occam is clearly in effect.

'the answer which requires the least assumptions is usually correct'

Your argument requires that we assume first name must be used to fulfill the CNR (which has never been stated) and that the writers took into account the existance of space rocks or ghost ships when naming characters.

The opposing argument requires no assumptions, 'the surname ember is directly and naturally associated with the colors red and orange'

-

Now, since i'm fairly sure you're going to find a way to justify ignoring this argument in some imaginary technicality, i am doing trying to explain basic logic to you. Have fun being incapable of admitting when other people are right.