playtime – A few points.
1. Never refer to yourself in the third person. You say I “proved the OP’s point” when you yourself are the OP. I know you probably didn’t mean it this way but referring to yourself in the third person can come across as a bit self-centred.
2. Actually the point disproves itself, and that is what I was showing. Saying “we just don’t know” opens itself up to infinite possibilities and so to assume any one of them because “we just don’t know” is pointless and logically incorrect as 3 will show.
3. There is a little thing in mathematics called “probability”. It means that out of the infinite “we just don’t know”s we can say that some are more likely than others. This is always contextual, I.e. given the information we have at hand we can say that, for example, it is unlikely that anyone who posts on the CR is a Zen Buddhist. Of course “we just don’t know” for sure (in an anonymous environment anyone could be anyone or, indeed, anything) but it is highly improbable. Although almost everyone here in the CR is anonymous it is quite easy to get a fairly good idea of people’s character, background etc. In other words we don’t know but we can guess quite accurately.
4. In your story gufa, if Henry is on the chat room to ease his loneliness presumably he has made his life-story known to others on that chat room (otherwise the object of the exercise is defeated) making it highly unlikely that the people there “just don’t know”. In other words, you cannot simply make a crude representation of a story and put it in front of us and say “here, look at this because it shows I’m right” when in fact all it really shows is that you wrote a story.