Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bonedagger" data-source="post: 229920" data-attributes="member: 2564">Caliban:Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion:1)&quot;You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules.&quot;Wrong2)&quot;Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?&quot;Yes. (But somehow you confused my &quot;?&quot; with a &quot;!&quot;)3)&quot;Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?&quot;No. (To this question you kept refering to question &quot;2)&quot;?)4)&quot;You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. And that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was.&quot;At some point you did get my point.5)&quot;Do you find me dense, ignorant, blind and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point &quot;1)&quot;).&quot;Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point &quot;1)&quot;. In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point &quot;1)&quot; as a justification.Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules. Bahh... Why even try? (You do seem to be very familiar with the word &quot;dense&quot; though).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bonedagger, post: 229920, member: 2564"] Caliban: Actually after having reread the last of this thread I will try one last time with 5 points and one conclusion: 1)"You claimed that you can sunder magical weapons with a none-magical weapons and that that is clearly spelled out in the core rules." Wrong 2)"Was there somewhere in the book that it said adamantium works in an antimagic area?" Yes. (But somehow you confused my "?" with a "!") 3)"Where there any other places the rules suggested that Adamantium is none-magical?" No. (To this question you kept refering to question "2)"?) 4)"You then said that it's pretty obvious what the intent of adamantine was. And that it was vague and not clearly spelled out what the intent was." [u]At some point you did get my point.[/u] 5)"Do you find me dense, ignorant, [b]blind[/b] and pointless with stupid arguments for objecting to you (The Sage) contradicting the corerules? (See point "1)")." Apparently. And you seemed to miss that this was really about point "1)". In your reexplanation of the Sages reason you used point "1)" as a justification. Conclusion: The intent may have been one thing but don't come and say that it is clear in the corerules. Bahh... Why even try? (You do seem to be very familiar with the word "dense" though). [/QUOTE]

Verification