You know though it probably ian't an ice climber his logic makes it so. Why must the system of logic be undermined so easily. Wait, why do I care?
As much as I'd like to see a good argument for it being an Ice Climber, just because an argument is logically sound, does not mean it is valid. You must assess whether or not each statement is true. Both (Ice Climber + Hood = Miscreant + Hood), which we'll call "a", and (Ice Climber - Hood = Miscreant - Hood), which we'll call "b", are unsubstanciated. There is nothing to prove either a or b are true, nor is there anything to prove that (Ice Climber = Miscreant), which we'll call "c" is true.
If a+b then c: If a+b=d, then d is true iff both a and b are true. So, if d then c: This statement is false iff d is true and c is false. i.e. if a+b then c is a true statement, as are if (not a)+b then (not c), if a+(not b) then (not c), and if (not a)+(not b) then (not c). However, this still leaves the validity of all of the parts of the statement in question.
Considering that the revealing comic is drawing ever nearer, I think that we should give one more shot at guessing the miscreant's identity. List whoever you think the miscreant is going to be and we will see if any of our guesses were correct.
You know, I'm gonna think outside the box here, instead of thinking Ocarina of Time or Link's Adventure, I'm gonna go Wind Waker on this one. There were four sages mentioned on it --Makar, Medli, Fado, and Laruto--so it could be possible either on of them could be the Miscreant.
Not really a valid question. Black text is the default if nothing is specified, but red text is voluntary and deliberate. So I can only assume there to be a reason you chose to go against the norm. Usually colored or otherwise altered text is used for emphatic purposes, but if you use red exclusively, it looks more like you just want your posts to stand out somehow. If this is the case, having a unique avatar is usually more effective.
Comments
Yes, so many people have become victims of the bad pun monster. luckily in most cases the effects wear off in ten to twelve posts.
As much as I'd like to see a good argument for it being an Ice Climber, just because an argument is logically sound, does not mean it is valid. You must assess whether or not each statement is true. Both (Ice Climber + Hood = Miscreant + Hood), which we'll call "a", and (Ice Climber - Hood = Miscreant - Hood), which we'll call "b", are unsubstanciated. There is nothing to prove either a or b are true, nor is there anything to prove that (Ice Climber = Miscreant), which we'll call "c" is true.
If a+b then c: If a+b=d, then d is true iff both a and b are true. So, if d then c: This statement is false iff d is true and c is false. i.e. if a+b then c is a true statement, as are if (not a)+b then (not c), if a+(not b) then (not c), and if (not a)+(not b) then (not c). However, this still leaves the validity of all of the parts of the statement in question.
1. Kabuto
I'm gonna go with Nes.
Why black text?
Unless... Gasp! You're The Miscreant!