Search results

Well, it wasn't me. S&W are exalted by being recognized, not by being expert. I consider debunking S&W no more iconoclastic than calling into question Dr. Phil's expertise on relationships. Much as with Pluto's planetary status, the brontosaurus, and the oft-misunderstood "the exception proves...

The presence of goodwill may mean an "excuse" isn't needed. If the nicest person I know snaps at me, I assume something is bothering them, not that they've turned evil. Admittedly, I would never have seen the Anakin-becoming-Darth-Vader thing coming using that rule.

Just out of curiosity, is it against forum rules to make sexist defenses of mass rape? I don't want to point any fingers or accuse anyone specifically, but it would be helpful if you clarified for me the board policies on this specific topic.

They're named after their founder, a legendary hunter, 99th of his line.

"... not even in the face of Armageddon."

I value being able to believe someone is acting out of goodwill.

I can't give you XP, but let me link some unflattering commentary on S&W I demur to retype myself: The Elements of Style - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It wasn't a sentence. A preposition modifies a phrase, and there is no phrase for it to modify. EDIT: Wikipedia explaining why I am right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom#Rules_for_determining_who_vs._whom_in_traditional_usage

By whom? Not by me. :) I first read it cover to cover about 19 years ago, and I had to memorize it for AP English Comp. But it's a short book with a very clear focus. That is a real rule. But it can protentially conflict with another rule. The book is by who wrote it. You wouldn't say "by...

Technically correct according to whom? "I am he" is technically correct.

Not only is it possible... but a simulation is by definition abtract! Otherwise it would be reality.

Those aren't different definitions. As he clearly spells out in the article, he considers Trick Strike to be dissociated, and re-associating it means house-ruling the ability every time it is used. He does not claim it is now and forever dissociated. Not by my reading of the article, or even...

Well, since you asked, no. Not in the slightest. Hit points can represent a lot of things, but in all cases, "I am low on hit points," is equivalent to, "I can't take much more of being attacked or I will die." In all cases, having lost hit points is equivalent to having been somewhat injured...

Strunk & White is good for most formal writing, but is somewhat dated, and is not comprehensive. In this case, the implied phrases could be, among others (assuming singular masculine): - The hypocrisy is by him. - The hypocrisy is of his doing. - The hypocrisy is his. - He has committed...

If you don't like comic relief, you might want to stick with LOTOR. The Hobbit is a little... comic relief-y.

That's not really a satisfying explanation from an in-game perspective. Joe the Hero: Wow, Ziggy, that was amazing! Can you do it again? Ziggy the Rogue: Uh, no. Joe the Hero: Why not? Ziggy the Rogue: I've, uh... exhausted my physical and mental resources. Joe the Hero: You mean you're tired...

Maureen Birnbaum, crossed with Princess Vespa and Cohen the Barbarian. I like it.

I was initially inclined to disagree with the position, as summarized in the OP, but after reading the article in its entirety, I think I agree more than I disagree. Clearly, 4e abstractly the entirety of combat to a greater degree than 3e abstracts even some individual attacks; even "shifted"...

I tend to be of a generous mind when it comes to IP, but if there's doubt in my mind about whether I should allow something, I would probably send a C&D. It doesn't actually cost me anything but a stamp or a quick email, nor does it injure the person receiving it. And if I actually had to take...

"By who" is correct. In this case, who is standing in for the subject of the sentence. "By whom" would be correct if I was saying Hypocrisy was standing uncomfortably close to someone. Umbran: Duly noted. I missed the warning upthread.