Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2685549" data-attributes="member: 20805">Anubis&nbsp; I fully understand your stance in this matter and you have convinced me....in no way shape or form will you consider alternate meanings for 'source' or 'official'.&nbsp;Nor, for that matter, will you consider any other option than the all or nothing approach to FAQ = Errata.&nbsp;I have made it clear, in precise language, that you appear to be arguing something completely different than those who have posted in reply.Your Stance:&nbsp; All FAQ is Official Errata and takes precedence over previously published RAW.&nbsp; Those who disagree have no right because 'WOTC HATH SPOKEN'My Stance:&nbsp; Some FAQ answers turn into Errata when incorperated into the RAW. Other FAQ answers are in conflict with the RAW and are in error. Even other FAQ answers should be treated as sugestions or House Rules.&nbsp; Those who disagree do so because of a difference in the use of the words 'source' and 'official' {as mentioned multiple times with no answer from you beyond 'I dont care what a dictionary says'}&nbsp;Its impossible to debate with a person who:&nbsp;A&gt; refuses to even entertain the possiblity that they might be working from a different set of assumptions.&nbsp;B&gt; refuses to answer beyond a restatement of thier stance.I considered taking the time to reply only with previously unanswered quotes from upthread... but, before I take another step down the slippery slope that Caliban and Infiniti have already plunged, I will agree to disagree and bow out. I highly suggest to any other posters on this thread to take the time to review every challange already made to you in the 4 other threads in order to avoid re-using a challange that you have deigned to not respond to already or neglected to read the post in full.I highly suggest to you, Anubis, that you rethink your tone in your posts as well as your debate methods. More usefull discussions would be possible with some changes to your approach.Gone 10-7, bye bye&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool&nbsp; &nbsp; :cool:"&nbsp; data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Primitive Screwhead, post: 2685549, member: 20805"] [b]Anubis[/b] I fully understand your stance in this matter and you have convinced me....in no way shape or form will you consider alternate meanings for 'source' or 'official'. Nor, for that matter, will you consider any other option than the all or nothing approach to FAQ = Errata. I have made it clear, in precise language, that you appear to be arguing something completely different than those who have posted in reply. Your Stance: All FAQ is Official Errata and takes precedence over previously published RAW. Those who disagree have no right because 'WOTC HATH SPOKEN' My Stance: Some FAQ answers turn into Errata when incorperated into the RAW. Other FAQ answers are in conflict with the RAW and are in error. Even other FAQ answers should be treated as sugestions or House Rules. Those who disagree do so because of a difference in the use of the words 'source' and 'official' {as mentioned multiple times with no answer from you beyond 'I dont care what a dictionary says'} Its impossible to debate with a person who: A> refuses to even entertain the possiblity that they might be working from a different set of assumptions. B> refuses to answer beyond a restatement of thier stance. I considered taking the time to reply only with previously unanswered quotes from upthread... but, before I take another step down the slippery slope that Caliban and Infiniti have already plunged, I will agree to disagree and bow out. I highly suggest to any other posters on this thread to take the time to review every challange already made to you in the 4 other threads in order to avoid re-using a challange that you have deigned to not respond to already or neglected to read the post in full. I highly suggest to you, [B]Anubis[/B], that you rethink your tone in your posts as well as your debate methods. More usefull discussions would be possible with some changes to your approach. Gone 10-7, bye bye :cool: [/QUOTE]

Verification