[quote=@LeeRoy]
[b]*Gasps*[/b] You mean to tell me that the things that Melon complains about the most, are the acts that he himself commits?  
[/quote]

I only complain about illogical actions LeeRoy. Nothing the Mech has done has been unbelievable or even particularly complicated. The only argument Doc has is that somehow by smashing a rock down on top of armour the lens underneath should be destroyed. I've explained pretty clearly that the armour is harder than the rock and the impact would be deflected away. Rather than counter this Doc used a flawed example and then gave up entirely. But still somehow expects me to be convinced? I have every right to dictate how the Mechs is affected. I chose for the raised right hand side lens in the reference picture to be damaged because it made the most logical sense.  

Also I'm not entirely sure you know what circular reasoning actually means Doc. So to clarify, it means starting an argument with the conclusion, or rather, using the conclusion as evidence. I'm going to relay my two points again so you can understand. 

1. Shields were historically held at an angle to deflect the shock of blows away from vital areas, the same concept applies to the armour of my Mech and all armour in general. This is evidence for the conclusion that the lens would not be broken. There is nothing circular about this reasoning, learn the term before using it as a cheap argument technique. 

Now an example of circular reasoning

The lens would not be broken by the rock therefore the rock can't break the lens. 

5. I did not use the word lens in my post because it had no bearing on the writing, which is artistic as much as it is practical. I also fail to mention wiring, electronics, micro-chips, joints and all manner of other details which are taken for granted for the sake of enjoyable reading. However, as we are specifically discussing the ins and outs of the Optical system, explaining that the lens is front facing and covered in armour is now important. Explain to me, pray, how this is 'circular reasoning'.