IcyCool said:
Shadowdweller said:
So ... anybody have an actual argument, or is this enough for you?
[crickets] ... [/crickets]
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Infiniti2000 said:
Tell me how I'm not supposed to take the accusation that I have an agenda as an insult.
First, you
clearly have an agenda. You outright stated that every attack a rogue takes could get sneak attack damage, and it still wouldn't be unbalanced. Making the rogue that much more powerful is the very definition of an agenda, and it explains why you're perfectly happy with
grease granting unlimited sneak attack. I was making that observation, albeit clearly too subtly for you.
Second, only an idiot would consider "having an agenda" to be a negative,
per se.
Everybody has an agenda. (And yes, I'm flat-out calling you an idiot. And I'm being unfair to idiots everywhere in doing so.)
Infiniti2000 said:
You've successfully diverted attention from the debate at hand to you. We didn't do it. We just took your bait.
Yes ... never mind that I've presented arguments point-by-point, waiting --
begging -- for someone to engage. (Thanee did, anyway. Somehow miraculously avoiding my obvious desire to "divert the argument.")
But I can understand your "taking the bait." You're quite the mouth-breather.
Infiniti2000 said:
You've successfully caused all of the people who disagree with you and refuse to accept your billigerence to depart.
No, (almost) all of the people who disagree with me have chosen not to engage in a losing argument. (Thanee, the exception, didn't lose, simply by virtue of saying, "It doesn't matter what the rules are, even
if you're right, because I like mine better.") Many of them have, since they have no argument, decided to stick around and play the hypocrite, trying to drive me off with insults and distractions. But I
am a lawyer, and I'll keep asking:
Do any of you have an actual
rules argument to present?
I
know you don't, so you have a nice day, miss.