Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5074323" data-attributes="member: 71571">Not quite.'I suppose' indicates that I am accepting it -may- be possible.  The tone of the sentance is to indicate that if it were possible, that there would be no point anyways, because of the reason you stated above.  The subjunctive mode is used to indicate something that may or may not occur, and that is the verb form I used. It is.  What I am saying is that there'd be a logical inconsistancy if it were interpreted as you say, because of what is stated literally.  You are stating that what is stated literally cannot be because you believe in what you say, and therefore because of that, it cannot be taken literally...  which is a fallacious argument.In other words, we both agree that reconciling your interpretation with the literal wording of the rules leads to an incongruency.  However, where we differ is that you claim it means the rules cannot be taken literally, where as I claim that it is because your interpretation is wrong, and that the literal rules work fine.Which has more weight? I acknowledge that it could be true.  I actually believe that is not the intent of the rules, but my belief in the intent is irrelevent. Agreed.  There must be a reason. The stealth check isn't invalidated.  The hidden status is canceled.  There's a difference here. I am saying that by failing to satisfy the requirements for cover, that you cannot remain hidden.  The rules say this as well.But there IS a cause.  The cause is that you fail to satisfy the conditions for remaining hidden.  Which means that if there is an incongruity, one must be willing to examine the rules interpretation as the problem, rather than the literal rules.  Except, of course, that your interpretation is correct, and therefore the rules as written cannot be so.When, in fact, logic states that the rules as written are correct, and therefore your interpretation cannot be so.If A and B are a contradiction...Then either A and NOT B, or NOT A and B.Therefore, if A is true, B must not be true.Therefore, your interpretation cannot work.You haven't actually applied logic.  See above.</blockquote>

Verification