D&D General Dungeons & Dragons Encyclopedia - new product

[Parmandur]

Repeatedly proclaiming that your point is legitimate doesn't make it so. The text says that it's the first time ever there's been an official title that does what this one does. If we grant that an art book is also an official title, which we self-evidently can, then that "first time ever" statement is necessarily untrue.

Q.E.D.

What sort of official title? Can you name one with similar content and organization as showm in the preview images?

 

[Alzrius]

What sort of official title? Can you name one with similar content and organization as showm in the preview images?

It doesn't need to have similar content and organization beyond the part about the requisite number of campaign worlds and what makes them unique; it just needs to be an official title, which means that Worlds & Realms meets that definition.

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn't need to have similar content and organization beyond the part about the campaign worlds and what makes them unique; it just needs to be an official title, which means that Worlds & Realms meets that definition.

Worlds & Rwlms isn't doing the same thing. I think you have a case that the text is imprecise, maybe, but if read with a little attention to the context...can you provide a text that meets the definition of a similar reference text for multiple Settings, as clearly what is meant? You continue to avoid that question, while insisting thst you are being gaslit somehow...?

 

[Alzrius]

Worlds & Rwlms isn't doing the same thing. I think you have a case that the text is imprecise

I do, and I'm glad that you can acknowledge that.

, maybe, but if read with a little attention to the context...can you provide a text that meets the definition of a similar reference text for multiple Settings, as clearly what is meant? You continue to avoid that question, while insisting thst you are being gaslit somehow...?

Because that question is predicated on your redefining the term "official title" to mean "reference encyclopedia," when there's no justification for doing so and isn't what the text is saying. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on reading it in the most generous light possible, to the point of insisting that it has premises that aren't there, but the salient point is that they aren't there. It's not the first official title to talk about half a dozen campaign settings and what makes them unique, full stop.

 

[Parmandur]

I do, and I'm glad that you can acknowledge that.

Because that question is predicated on your redefining the term "official title" to mean "reference encyclopedia," when there's no justification for doing so and isn't what the text is saying. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on reading it in the most generous light possible, to the point of insisting that it has premises that aren't there, but the salient point is that they aren't there. It's not the first official title to talk about half a dozen campaign settings and what makes them unique, full stop.

Not really all that generous: this is the blurb text for a reference encyclopedia...and if you grant the extremely mild assumption that they mean "reference text"...then cna you think of a similar precursor? Since you have yet to even gesture towards one, seems not, so it is in fact a true statement given that.

 

[Alzrius]

Not really all that generous: this is the blurb text for a reference encyclopedia...and if you grant the extremely mild assumption that they mean "reference text"...then cna you think of a similar precursor? Since you have yet to even gesture towards one, seems not, so it is in fact a true statement given that.

So to be clear, you acknowledge that you are making an assumption. Given that, I don't see why I should be presumed to make the same assumption, particularly since I think that the one you're making lacks any credible justification.

 

[Parmandur]

So to be clear, you acknowledge that you are making an assumption. Given that, I don't see why I should be presumed to make the same assumption, particularly since I think that the one you're making lacks any credible justification.

I am reading the blurb in context. Reading this in context, not only does it make sense, it is a true statement, not gaslighting at all. Unless you can think of a similar reference text? Seems easy enough to prove if it wasn't a first time.

 

[Alzrius]

I am reading the blurb in context. Reading this in context, not only does it make sense, it is a true statement, not gaslighting at all.

Your "context" is what? That it's an ad copy for the book itself? How does that "context" mean that the only "official titles" are reference encyclopedias?

Unless you can think of a similar reference text? Seems easy enough to prove if it wasn't a first time.

Again, you have yet to justify the premise that "official title" means only reference texts, and so your question's premise fails to stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Parmandur]

Your "context" is what? That it's an ad copy for the book itself? How does that "context" mean that the only "official titles" are reference encyclopedias?

Again, you have yet to justify the premise that "official title" means only reference texts, and so your question's premise fails to stand up to scrutiny.

It is a reference encyclopedia. Given that context, just use your imagination a bit...cns you think of any similar text that has come before? Or is it a first? Near as I can tell, it is in fact the first time ever there has been such an official reference text. Given that microscopic leap makes this a true statement and not gaslighting...I am motally certain in my reading being correct as to the intention of the blurb. I will, however, admit that is incorrect if you can provide a counterexample.

 

[Alzrius]

It is a reference encyclopedia. Given that context, just use your imagination a bit...

Again, I'm reading the text of what's there. Simply because the text is about a reference encyclopedia doesn't mean that it's claim about it being the first "official title" should therefore be treated as only meaning that it's the first reference encyclopedia. That's an assumption, as you yourself have acknowledged. I'm saying that it's better not to assume.

cns you think of any similar text that has come before? Or is it a first? Near as I can tell, it is in fact the first time ever there has been such an official reference text.

But not the first official title.

Given that microscopic leap makes this a true statement and not gaslighting

And yet you admit that it requires a "leap" to make that statement true. Take that away, and it's gaslighting.

...I am motally certain in my reading being correct as to the intention of the blurb.

We're not discussing "intention." We're discussing reading what's written.

I will, however, admit that is incorrect if you can provide a counterexample.

Which requires your premise to hold. Since it doesn't, this statement is moot.