Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7355549" data-attributes="member: 6857506">And yet for some reason (or no reason?), just as in the PHB he either refuses or neglects to add the 1-3 words that would completely and utterly put the matter to rest.&nbsp; Make that &quot;if&quot; into &quot;just if&quot; or &quot;exactly if&quot; or tack &quot;otherwise, no&quot; onto the end and all doubt is removed.I don't begrudge anyone inferring that the addition of those words expresses JC's intent, but it does strike me as a bit ironic that this appeals to an informal, idiomatic reading of JC's statement in order to construct a very exacting and &quot;gamey&quot; rule that will send us frequently scurrying back to the rule books to check whether something is a spell or only a spell-like effect because the distinction has no conceptual referent in the fiction.&nbsp; Again, I'm not saying this is wrong; it just strikes me as a weird juxtaposition of reasoning styles and questioning it doesn't seem unreasonable.Agreed.I know I am essentially repeating myself, but strictly on the basis of logic, your conclusion does not follow from JC's statement and those answers (&quot;No and no.&quot;)&nbsp; It requires an additional inference about JC's statement.Your degree of investment in ensuring that people who do not share your point of view know they are wrong is certainly exceptional.I could just as reasonably say, if you imagine that JC meant that (your interpretation) and yet neglected to add the 1-3 words that would have said that clearly, then you are delusional.&nbsp; However, just to be clear, I do not think that you are delusional - just a bit overwrought.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 7355549, member: 6857506"] And yet for some reason (or no reason?), just as in the PHB he either refuses or neglects to add the 1-3 words that would completely and utterly put the matter to rest. Make that "if" into "just if" or "exactly if" or tack "otherwise, no" onto the end and all doubt is removed. I don't begrudge anyone inferring that the addition of those words expresses JC's intent, but it does strike me as a bit ironic that this appeals to an [I]informal, idiomatic[/I] reading of JC's statement in order to construct a [I]very exacting and "gamey"[/I] rule that will send us frequently scurrying back to the rule books to check whether something is a spell or only a spell-like effect because the distinction has no conceptual referent in the fiction. Again, I'm not saying this is wrong; it just strikes me as a weird juxtaposition of reasoning styles and questioning it doesn't seem unreasonable. Agreed. I know I am essentially repeating myself, but strictly on the basis of logic, your conclusion does not follow from JC's statement and those answers ("No and no.") It requires an additional inference about JC's statement. Your degree of investment in ensuring that people who do not share your point of view [I]know they are [B]wrong[/B][/I] is certainly exceptional. I [I]could [/I]just as reasonably say, if you imagine that JC meant that (your interpretation) and yet neglected to add the 1-3 words that would have said that clearly, then you are delusional. However, just to be clear, I do not think that you are delusional - just a bit overwrought. [/QUOTE]

Verification