No prob.
Cool.
I'll keep this going though I think we're leaving the main point, but whatever.
My definition of passive is broader and yours and this should explain the miscommunication. For me, passive play would be more about keeping my opponent outside of close range and just keep them out so you'll be in the life/stock/score lead. Think of like you're just waiting for someone to come to you and then just push them back.
OK than. I'll try to use this instead, but I'm sure I'll mess up somewhere, let's see where it goes.
The point of a reductio ad absurdum (reduce to absurdity) is to take one person's logical premise and show how flawed it is by taking it to it's extreme conclusion (like saying gay marriage should be legal only for another person to say that you should allow robosexual marriage as well). That's what I did.
OK. Thanks for explaining that.
I still disagree with the notion that fewer is better. My point with the whole time vs stock is that in time you need to get a good number of KOs (of course, you can win with fewer than the other guys, but more always helps) where stock you don't have to and often people win with little fighting. I say this because I've seen players who do well in stock by using a run away tactic and do bad in time as a result. I also see player who play time tend to be better at getting KOs.
I won't go into your points as they're dependent on our interpretation and usage of passive and aggressive.
Would you rather I rephrase them?
Actually, I was looking at it from a FFA view. Let's say we have three characters fighting against each other, completely ingnoring you. One person gets knocked out off the squabble. This is when you come in to do steal the K.O. by dealing the finishing blow. For example, Mario gets knocked out to outside of the stage. Fox, who was watching, runs over to the edge and then uses his DAir to spike Mario to steal the other players' K.O.
First, I say the 1v1 things because it's hard to get chase players with more people. The example I made happens fewer (in part because no one thinks about it) and usually someone just gets in your way.
Still, from your example at least, it is more of if it happens rather than when it happens. As I said above, players tend to get in your way. If Mario is hit to the side that is away from you, other players may block you from getting to him. What your saying can work, but you gotta hope and pray. Easier said than done kind of thing. Kind of flows into the next point.
This is what I do in every fighting game, including Smash, as I mentioned earlier (moreso implied). It's an element not unique to Smash.
Your right, and adapting is true in every videogame, but Smash is unique in the flow. The thing I've notice is that going with the flow is how you do well. This isn't just adapting to the situation but something more. I have thought about writing a big thing on this to kick off a blog. For now, I'll just say that the fight in Smash always changes. The score changes, items spawn, stages move, players do things and even the damage which effects how attacks hurt you. There are a lot of moving elements here and Smash can be a complex system. It's more how you roll with it than anything else. Hope I made sense.
Not much of a debate or anything, but feel free to respond.
EDIT:Never really said this, but in all of this, I'm not saying that Stock is bad or Time is better, just that it is different as well as observations that I've made.
But yeah, Bowser is Project M is pretty good.. but he's still low tier in Project M IMO. 
