Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mvincent" data-source="post: 3156114" data-attributes="member: 27034">We may just have to disagree on this.&nbsp; As mentioned, the old 3.0 FAQ answer appears to be a kludge and doesn't seem to be intended to address this. The more recent examples from the 3.5 FAQ appear to agree with my interpretation, as does the very recent RotG article in which the original author of the ambiguous 3.0 answer gives a much more clear answer that disagrees with your interpretation. Can you understand how this would appear to invalidate any support the 3.0 answer might lend to your argument (and how using it, but not the RotG clarification, might appear hypocritical)?I believe that the best we could hope for to resolve this would be to have a series of articles (written by one of the original main designers) detailing TWF'ing. Since we now have such a thing, ignoring it if it still doesn't fit your interpretation seems more like sour grapes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mvincent, post: 3156114, member: 27034"] We may just have to disagree on this. As mentioned, the old 3.0 FAQ answer appears to be a kludge and doesn't seem to be intended to address this. The more recent examples from the 3.5 FAQ appear to agree with my interpretation, as does the very recent RotG article in which the [I]original author[/I] of the ambiguous 3.0 answer gives a much more clear answer that disagrees with your interpretation. Can you understand how this would appear to invalidate any support the 3.0 answer might lend to your argument (and how using it, but not the RotG clarification, might appear hypocritical)? I believe that the best we could hope for to resolve this would be to have a series of articles (written by one of the original main designers) detailing TWF'ing. Since we now have such a thing, ignoring it if it still doesn't fit your interpretation seems more like sour grapes. [/QUOTE]

Verification