Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 8522890" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Because that hasn’t occurred!?&nbsp; &nbsp; The older race write ups are literally still official. When they replace things, they issue errata and change older books with that thing, as they did with the change to how Bladesingers work.&nbsp; &nbsp;They are explicitly not doing that, here. Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge fairly basic rhetorical devices, like a comparative example? I said something like, “Calling this an edition change is like calling XYZ (formatting)and edition change.” And you replied as if I had claimed that this situation is about formatting. It is very obvious that I don’t think it’s a case of formatting, because I’d have to be speaking absolute gibberish to say what I said, ie “this is like [formatting issue]” and mean “this is a case of a formatting disagreement”. Or, you are refusing to acknowledge the natural result of what you’re arguing. Change requires replacement, in this context. Since the older write ups are not being errata’d, nor made unofficial, there isn’t a change. That doesn’t follow. That isn’t how anything works. Calling you on rude behavior isn’t rude. Don’t try to play the reversal game, please. I’m willing to drop it, giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding intent, but please don’t try to pull the thing where you take offense at someone not liking how you talked to them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 8522890, member: 6704184"] Because that hasn’t occurred!? The older race write ups are literally still official. When they replace things, they issue errata and change older books with that thing, as they did with the change to how Bladesingers work. They are explicitly not doing that, here. Is there a reason you refuse to acknowledge fairly basic rhetorical devices, like a comparative example? I said something like, “Calling this an edition change is like calling XYZ (formatting)and edition change.” And you replied [I]as if I had claimed that this situation is about formatting. [/I]It is very obvious that I don’t think it’s a case of formatting, because I’d have to be speaking absolute gibberish to say what I said, ie “this is like [formatting issue]” and mean “this is a case of a formatting disagreement”. Or, you are refusing to acknowledge the natural result of what you’re arguing. Change requires replacement, in this context. Since the older write ups are not being errata’d, nor made unofficial, there isn’t a change. That doesn’t follow. That isn’t how anything works. Calling you on rude behavior isn’t rude. Don’t try to play the reversal game, please. I’m willing to drop it, giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding intent, but please don’t try to pull the thing where you take offense at someone not liking how you talked to them. [/QUOTE]

Verification