Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8088652" data-attributes="member: 6701124">It may well be that you asked for the visual because you wanted to try it. And it may well be that you wanted to believe and hadn't dismissed it in advance. And it may well be that you are open to the possibility it exists.I don't believe that anything you've posted after #105 would lead anyone to think so.Starting at #105[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-you-prefer-your-character-to-be-connected-or-unconnected-to-the-adventure-hook.674278/page-6#post-8082153[/URL]With no particular stake in the argument (I hadn't really thought about how much of a plot was there in advance before), it read to me at the time as pretty much saying you thought those who disagreed with you were ignorant, delusional, and/or liars and didn't understand what was really going on at their table.  And you ask them to post their sessions (seemingly to prove otherwise).And then, a number of people reply, including at least #107 that says they've posted play links before.And you follow up at the beginning of #124 with it has to be video links - which in retrospect doesn't sound as bad as I remembered at the time in isolation, but reading it in light of #105 and what comes in later posts does.  And then later in that post you again say that all DM's making this claim are wrong ("DM's claiming their story is not pre-fabricated are still doing the same things as DM's running AP's.").And then in #142 "In fairness, maybe that's true. I am open to it. I just feel like I am not wrong in this case. Now to be fully fair, I am also a fan of people believing they do one thing, but are actually doing another."  This doesn't sound like you're leaving open the possibility it's true in any real sense.  Especially since you are requiring folks to provide video to prove you're wrong: "But as I stated earlier, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. This is why I ask for videos of play to see what people mean by "fill in the blank."'#152 "Sometimes one has to read and generate a view from the entirety of text rather than understanding a view from a portion of the text."  Dismissing another's comments that way probably doesn't help make anyone believe you actually are open to being wrong or seem to encourage a charitable reading of what follows.And in #158 you say you need the videos because you can't trust what the others are writing up. "A write up occurs after the fact. I mentioned it earlier in the thread. People can weave anything they want into a write up. Not saying they are lying. They're not. But they might look at things differently if in the moment rather than reflecting. The memory, and our actions, are no where near the truth. I think we all know this just from basic psych tests." I read that as either they're either un-selfaware, have uniformly untrustworthy recollections session after session, or are liars (the saying they're not liars doesn't help when the surround doesn't seem to match it).But then on being asked about that, and if you want videos to test the truth of things in #159, you reply in #160 that the goal is to learn.  This seems patently contra to the start of #158 (at least in the conventional sense of to learn).And so I'm not surprised that no one seems to have taken your  "I have taken at face value that others have been able to not have one of these two things happen. I have accepted that." as actually  doing so.  And then you ask for the video, and then you double down. "If the video does not exist, do me a favor. Ask why? Then please answer that question in writing so we can discuss."I'd ask why anyone going through this should believe you actually are open to being wrong.</blockquote>

Verification