#1. The subclass chart was titled “subclasses (active characters)”.
No, it was not. Here it is for everyone to see:
That designation means it’s a breakdown of the subclasses of all active characters. That isn’t what it showed. Instead it was a breakdown of all active characters with a subclass.
I read it as the later (there is no
distribution of something which does not exist so it obviously meant the distribution of subclasses which are active and not of all characters even if they had no subclass), many others read it as the later, it's one reasonable interpretation of that title to read it as the later (and I'd argue it's the more reasonable interpretation in fact) and most importantly YOU KNEW TWO DAYS AGO THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT AND NEVER SAID A WORD HERE.
That you're claiming there is only one way to read that is false. There are two ways to read it, you read it one way, some others read it another way, you got a clarification on how to read it, and you're stubbornly still acting like you had to be right and there is no other option.
#2. Before he even claimed that’s what that particular chart meant I had already deduced that was what it meant.
So you knew all along what it meant. This whole thread is bizzare! What the heck are you even arguing anymore if many knew it right away from the title (even if you did not) and even you knew it after thinking about it for a bit?
He didn’t correct my understanding on it, I called out the chart for what it was and he validated my understanding.
No dude, that is not what happened. But if that's what you need to tell yourself to sleep better at night, fair enough. The rest of us all saw what happened, it's copied for everyone to see to this thread.
I think we're done now. This conversation has been "invaluable".
