Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corwin" data-source="post: 6976717" data-attributes="member: 1560">Okay. And? It also says lightly obscured can involve such areas as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage. What am I missing? What argument were you trying to make? That the words &quot;lightly obscured&quot; don't mean what I think it means? Are you familiar with &quot;obscured&quot; at all? If something is &quot;lightly obscured,&quot; you consider it to still be &quot;seen clearly.&quot; I don't. The usage of those words have meaning to me. Where does that leave us?Cool. Me too.Thanks for the refresher. But I've had all that figured out for a while now. And all on my own, too. I've wearing big boy pants!I'm sure you have a citing to corroborate your interpretation of *why* the Sage added &quot;clearly&quot;. I look forward to reading his insights on the reasoning for that clarification.Again, I'm not sure how you reconcile something that is &quot;lightly obscured,&quot; by definition, with something being &quot;seen clearly.&quot; I just keep getting hung up on the meanings of &quot;obscured&quot; (even lightly) and being seen &quot;clearly.&quot; You say binary. Yet, the rules themselves have three degrees. Not two. &quot;Seen clearly&quot; (as I see it, or un-obscured if you will), &quot;lightly obscured&quot; and &quot;heavily obscured&quot;. Binary? Not by definition, no. That's a fine interpretation for your table. I concede that. You can enjoy the heck out of playing it that way. Pardon me if I disagree with your interpretation and choose to play it the way I read it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corwin, post: 6976717, member: 1560"] Okay. And? It also says [B]lightly obscured[/B] can involve such areas as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage. What am I missing? What argument were you trying to make? That the words "lightly obscured" don't mean what I think it means? Are you familiar with "obscured" at all? If something is "lightly obscured," you consider it to still be "seen clearly." I don't. The usage of those words have meaning to me. Where does that leave us? Cool. Me too. Thanks for the refresher. But I've had all that figured out for a while now. And all on my own, too. I've wearing big boy pants! I'm sure you have a citing to corroborate your interpretation of *why* the Sage added "clearly". I look forward to reading his insights on the reasoning for that clarification. Again, I'm not sure how you reconcile something that is "lightly obscured," by definition, with something being "seen clearly." I just keep getting hung up on the meanings of "obscured" (even lightly) and being seen "clearly." You say binary. Yet, the rules themselves have three degrees. Not two. "Seen clearly" (as I see it, or un-obscured if you will), "lightly obscured" and "heavily obscured". Binary? Not by definition, no. That's a fine interpretation for your table. I concede that. You can enjoy the heck out of playing it that way. Pardon me if I disagree with your interpretation and choose to play it the way I read it. [/QUOTE]

Verification