Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8040826" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, but not exclusively, as you note and try to handwave below.Yes, you dismiss "usually" and you add words that aren't there.  You're making an argument based on how you interpret things and change the wording to match, but dismiss words that are already there that cut against your conclusion.  This is usually called special pleading, but simply means that you're saying that something matters when you want it to but doesn't when you don't.  In this case, it's the text of the rules.  You've spiced it up a bit by borrowing text from other passages and also by shifting the word choices to better make your point, but it's ultimately just you claiming the rules work your preferred way while dismissing other clear readings.  It isn't persuasive at all.</blockquote>