Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 3768021" data-attributes="member: 32536">I think your logical reduction is a bit screwy... I think your reduction to the corollary is a bit problematic, but I can't put my finger on exactly why. More importantly, what you say after stating your corollary is, in fact, not derived from the corollary itself.Examine the following set of statements:3E was the best game yet, because the designers loved D&amp;D.4E will be the best game yet, because the designers love D&amp;D.4E is coming after 3ETaken as a whole, there is no logical contradiction in this set. Pre-3E &lt; 3E &lt; 4E, all because the designers love the game. The term &quot;yet&quot; removes any possible contradiction, because it places the editions in an ever-improving sequence.I don't see any way to logically derive an insult towards the makers of 3E in his comments... Especially considering that some of the people who worked on 3E are working on 4E.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 3768021, member: 32536"] I think your logical reduction is a bit screwy... I think your reduction to the corollary is a bit problematic, but I can't put my finger on exactly why. More importantly, what you say after stating your corollary is, in fact, not derived from the corollary itself. Examine the following set of statements: 3E was the best game yet, because the designers loved D&D. 4E will be the best game yet, because the designers love D&D. 4E is coming after 3E Taken as a whole, there is no logical contradiction in this set. Pre-3E < 3E < 4E, all because the designers love the game. The term "yet" removes any possible contradiction, because it places the editions in an ever-improving sequence. I don't see any way to logically derive an insult towards the makers of 3E in his comments... Especially considering that some of the people who worked on 3E are working on 4E. [/QUOTE]

Verification