Search results

I said repeatedly I think gary is worse. You repeatedly quoted posts of mine where in those posts I say I think Gary is worse. I then directly wrote to you saying that comparing Williams to Gary isn't the point, that Gary was worse relative to Williams but the standard for being "good" isn't...

Here is the link from the first post. That's what triggered Snarf to make this thread. Note the comment I was replying to. If Snarf is accepting of criticism of Williams, I have yet to see it. Every response I've ever seen from him on the topic is either dismissive, or worse.

If you make an object which you're moving out from, attacking, and then ducking back behind, you shouldn't face the issue of the illusion being exposed from return fire. If they can't see you, they can't target you well nor see if you're hit or not. They're not going to try and shoot through a...

Fair point and thanks for asking. Been a rough few weeks. Getting better but yes, short fuse lately. Sorry about that. Will endeavor to lighten the tone.

I am not in any way asking him to hate Williams. I pointed out in the other thread some serious failings of Williams with direct reasons. Snarf then quoted that post by linking to it, then ranted about Revisionist History and how people get stuck thinking something based on rumored conventional...

Because the post you linked to of mine, without direct reference, was about the podcast. Which you knew, because you had just linked to it without replying to it to start this thread, remember? Saying "see the record" without linking to the record or referencing a specific part of it isn't a...

I agree non-legendary creatures can absolutely be a solo threat to a party. It's more difficult to pull off but it can be done and your example is a good one. I'd say flight, or some other meaningful distance or barrier between the party and the foe, is pretty important to pull this off. The...

You mistook my saying you stated falsehoods with my calling you a liar. I don't think you're a liar. I think you believe falsehoods because of the extreme bias I mentioned which you have in favor of Williams. Which I found ironic given your essay on Revisionist History, and your unwillingness to...

You state several falsehoods in your rendition. 100% provable falsehoods. For example, you state the only person surprised by Gary's ouster is Gary. However, we can all hear directly from many people there at the time they were all surprised. We know this. We're certain. There is no doubt at all...

None of them could imagine it. Rose Estes, who isn't a bit fan of Gary at the time, was stunned. Everyone was stunned. Gary didn't even know it was Williams behind it when it was happening.

There are much more ethical means to accomplish those goals. She chose unethical ones because they were shortcuts and it left her in charge rather than someone they could all agree on together in arbitration or with a mediator or with the bank holders. I think people are finding excuses to...

Agreed. He was behaving awful. This does not make me think Williams was not also behaving awful. She was behaving "better" than Gary, but that's not the standard. Everything she did in that week was deeply weasel-like and nasty. There were much better and more honest ways to attempt to obtain...

Where a company incorporated is irrelevant for this topic. That's purely a tax issue, not a regulation issue. Same with data centers (which are copied across the globe including in California for load balancing) or training, all irrelevant. Where the humans doing the work are located is all that...

Again, it has an asterisk i the title with (spoilers I guess?) Can we please stop gaslighting with what's written in the thread title? What does "I guess?" mean to you?

If you regulate it in California, where most of the AI companies are based, 1/7th of the nations GDP, and 1/8th of the population, that generally is enough to force the issue. They're not going to run one version for California and another for the rest of the nation, and other states and often...

I meant the comment with the spoiler tag. Again yes the thread has it but it very clearly has a question mark on it. Nevermind, you did it, it's done. Just don't think I've ever seen someone do that, and surely not with a "whoops, sorry if I messed it up for you" when they found out it caused...

This is my new favorite Wizard subclass and will be playing with it in two different campaigns, one with a arcane trickster and the other straight wizard (with a level dip in Ranger for Armor probably). All you need for a successful hide check is 3/4s cover, which offers a lot of AC boost as...

It says "spoilers I guess?" It was unclear, probably because the movie is JUST coming out and usually we give it a few days for serious spoilers. Don't think I've ever seen the very first response post be a spoiler, with no spoiler tag, literally the hour it's hitting theaters.

So I guess the answer is "Spoilers: Yes" with you spoiling that literally before the first weekend of the movie in the second friggen post.