Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Geron Raveneye" data-source="post: 200892" data-attributes="member: 2268">WowAnd here I thought they had gone tired of it by now...ah well&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; Just a comment or two, maybe...hong, you know it would make a much nicer discussion if you stopped touting your &quot;No, I don´t have to provide chapters and verses to back up my posts.&quot; and give some quotes, for the single reason that CB is doing so, and showing you how he interpretes it, while most of your posts only decry his arguments as absurd/irrelevant and ask him for more proof. A discussion lives from both sides showing their arguments on the same level. While CB is trying to argue from the books and his interpretations of the rules, you´re mostly just denying his arguments and throw in some real-world arguments to counter his.As it looks to me, you both already reached the conclusion that the whole discussion is worthless, as the rules per se don´t support either of your views, and that it all has to be &quot;rule zeroed&quot; anyway to make sense. As you´re not even arguing on the same level of arguments, the rest is nothing but namecalling and &quot;I´m more right than you&quot; dirtflinging. Just wondering why the heck you´re continuing this thing here, as all you both do is run in a circle, biting the other´s tail...not that it doesn´t look funny, mind you...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Geron Raveneye, post: 200892, member: 2268"] [b]Wow[/b] And here I thought they had gone tired of it by now...ah well :) Just a comment or two, maybe... hong, you know it would make a much nicer discussion if you stopped touting your "No, [b]I[/b] don´t have to provide chapters and verses to back up my posts." and give some quotes, for the single reason that CB is doing so, and showing you how he interpretes it, while most of your posts only decry his arguments as absurd/irrelevant and ask [b]him[/b] for more proof. A discussion lives from both sides showing their arguments on the same level. While CB is trying to argue from the books and his interpretations of the rules, you´re mostly just denying his arguments and throw in some real-world arguments to counter his. As it looks to me, you both already reached the conclusion that the whole discussion is worthless, as the rules per se don´t support either of your views, and that it all has to be "rule zeroed" anyway to make sense. As you´re not even arguing on the same level of arguments, the rest is nothing but namecalling and "I´m more right than you" dirtflinging. Just wondering why the heck you´re continuing this thing here, as all you both do is run in a circle, biting the other´s tail...not that it doesn´t look funny, mind you... [/QUOTE]

Verification