Concluding our analysis of the results of our quantitative experiment, we want to point out a common fallacy that has also manifested itself in the case at stake. Unibot has used whatever data he provided and his line of reasoning to infer that the group TBR as a whole is Islamophobic. He failed, then, to consider the alternative; that only certain high-ranking members of TBR involved in target selection are Islamophobic, and not the group overall.
Or you could do your facts correctly, I have already stated that I do not think the entire group is Islamophobic -- that would be silly since I've talked with enough TBRers in confidence to know many of them are frustrated with the private islamophobia of their group's Gen. Staff.
What I have stated is: while people in TBR who -know- of these sentiments are harboring their leaders and don't step forward to criticize them at the very least -- I will harp on the institution itself. So how about you back off about your essay on how I've "failed" to recognize alternatives? Your alternative is my main thought on the matter -- but harping simply on the Gen. Staff will not change anything while it's the troops that are keeping silent -- they know it's wrong and they know the victims of hate on NationStates deserve less silence on the issue.



You realise it's almost impossible to win against your kind of avoid opposition raiding? Yes your timing is impressive but you're essentially playing with yourself.


. Where does it lead? TBR being ultra bad guys, or just bad guys?