Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Legildur" data-source="post: 2695991" data-attributes="member: 1258">And see, that is where we differ.&nbsp; To my mind, you are willing to accept a lower standard of proof (for want of a better word) than I am.&nbsp; I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are not guaranteed to be right, either.And more power to them for recognising the shortcomings they had in this area.&nbsp; I truly hope it works out....is well founded and solidly unpinned with strong evidence.&nbsp; But perhaps their game is lifting?&nbsp; And my 'prejudice' is not blinding at all - and 'truth' is such a strong word to use in these contentious circumstances.&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; I just attach an appropriate (subjective) weight to their answers when considering their value in the overall argument.And for what's worth, there was a period there where I even stopped reading the FAQ as the number of theads on the Rules Forum identifying major faults in answers steadily increased as to throw some doubt (in my mind) over the validity of any of the answers.&nbsp; Or more to the point, I couldn't be bothered sifting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.&nbsp; To me, the Monk and INA thing is probably wrong (no matter how much I would like it to be true) by the text from the PHB (and other pieces of the puzzle listed numerous times in the now closed thread.&nbsp; But I do see how the (reasonable) argument is formulated that it is allowed.&nbsp; I just don't happen to agree - without revision of said text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Legildur, post: 2695991, member: 1258"] And see, that is where we differ. To my mind, you are willing to accept a lower standard of proof (for want of a better word) than I am. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are not guaranteed to be right, either. And more power to them for recognising the shortcomings they had in this area. I truly hope it works out. ...is well founded and solidly unpinned with strong evidence. But perhaps their game is lifting? And my 'prejudice' is not blinding at all - and 'truth' is such a strong word to use in these contentious circumstances. :) I just attach an appropriate (subjective) weight to their answers when considering their value in the overall argument. And for what's worth, there was a period there where I even stopped reading the FAQ as the number of theads on the Rules Forum identifying major faults in answers steadily increased as to throw some doubt (in my mind) over the validity of any of the answers. Or more to the point, I couldn't be bothered sifting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. To me, the Monk and INA thing is probably wrong (no matter how much I would like it to be true) by the text from the PHB (and other pieces of the puzzle listed numerous times in the now closed thread. But I do see how the (reasonable) argument is formulated that it is allowed. I just don't happen to agree - without revision of said text. [/QUOTE]

Verification