Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Anubis]

You do realise that the same statement could equally be made about your position in this debate?

And perhaps you need to edit your comment (and perhaps even add an apology) about the moderator as I just noticed that the numerous other threads about FAQ v Errata have now been locked by said moderator with a polite explanatory note.

Won't happen. Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me. How do I know this? Simple. The "one he left open" doesn't say anything about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists. Had he left mine or Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.

Mission accomplished on annoying me. Just note, though, that I won't be visiting that thread since it's "topic" has nothing to do with the FAQ/errata, but rather one point inside it. As such, if I get any new information from WotC or Andy Collins, I'll be posting it in a fresh thread, the topic of which will clearly state what it is.

Not sure why Hypersmurf seems to have it out for me (Aren't mods supposed to have no bias?), but I'll just work around him if I have to.

That's probably the only reason you haven't been banned again.

Except that I haven't, you know, broken any rules. Making sarcastic comments in response to another's sarcastic actions breaks no rules nor does pointing out bias on the part of a mod. If he banned me, he'd have to ban all those who attacked me as well, which would of course include you, Caliban. That is, unless he wanted everyone to see his bias.

All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing. Again, I could say more, but I won't. Don't wanna give him a reason to exercise his "smurf smite" power after all.

 

[Artoomis]

Won't happen. Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me. How do I know this? Simple. The "one he left open" doesn't say anything about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists. Had he left mine or Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.

He left "Rules - Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)? " open. Your facts are wrong, I'm afraid. In fact, I started that thread to get the FAQ/Errata discussion out of this one. See posts # 696 and 697 in this thread.

..All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing...

Whoops - you were late in doing that as I did it earlier in posts 696/697 and THAT thread is the one he kept open. The other one was to re-phrase the survey, but now it's closed. Oh, well, such is life.

Hyp did the right thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Won't happen. Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me. How do I know this? Simple. The "one he left open" doesn't say anything about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists. Had he left mine or Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.

Hmm? Free Action to Sheathe is closed.

The one left open is Artoomis' poll thread. I closed Artoomis' other poll thread and left that one open based on the number of replies.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Won't happen. Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me. How do I know this? Simple. The "one he left open" doesn't say anything about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists. Had he left mine or Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.

Again with the misinformation. This is a bad habit of yours. The "free action to sheathe" thread is closed as well.

Hype is not vindictive. Get over yourself.

Mission accomplished on annoying me.

From what I've seen, it's not that hard. You fly off the handle at the drop of a hat.

Just note, though, that I won't be visiting that thread since it's "topic" has nothing to do with the FAQ/errata, but rather one point inside it.

Is that a promise?

As such, if I get any new information from WotC or Andy Collins, I'll be posting it in a fresh thread, the topic of which will clearly state what it is.

Whee!

Not sure why Hypersmurf seems to have it out for me (Aren't mods supposed to have no bias?), but I'll just work around him if I have to.

Paranoid much?

Except that I haven't, you know, broken any rules.

Other than calling people liars you mean? You got a warning about that one. And I provided proof that none of us were lying, but you refused to accept any form of proof that would indicate that you had made a mistake. Kind of ironic, really.

Making sarcastic comments in response to another's sarcastic actions breaks no rules nor does pointing out bias on the part of a mod. If he banned me, he'd have to ban all those who attacked me as well, which would of course include you, Caliban. That is, unless he wanted everyone to see his bias.

This is a rather transparent attempt to avoid getting banned for your behavior by pre-emptively crying bias. Your big mistake is trying to do this to Hypersmurf, who is the least biased and most unflappable person I have ever seen, and that was before he became a moderator. (Not to say that his way of arguing the rules doesn't annoy the hell out of me sometimes, but that's neither here nor there.)

All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing. Again, I could say more, but I won't. Don't wanna give him a reason to exercise his "smurf smite" power after all.

All you've done is continually insult and attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way. This has done more to obscure your (very few) valid points than anything else.

Answers from WOTC customer service are irrelevant, they are far to unreliable. This has been demonstrated multiple times on this forum in the past, where we have sent in the same question multiple times and have received contradictory answers in response. They are nice people, but not a reliable source of information about the rules.

 

[Anubis]

I only posted the information as it was at the time. Maybe I'll give Hypersmurf the benefit of the doubt this time, seeing as he fixed the, ahem, mistake, and things are as they should be now.

I'll only say one more thing about this; I don't lie and my reading skills are perfectly fine. Read those little facts however you like. Doing so will show you that one truth prevails.

 

[Caliban]

I only posted the information as it was at the time. Maybe I'll give Hypersmurf the benefit of the doubt this time, seeing as he fixed the, ahem, mistake, and things are as they should be now.

I'm sure he's relieved that your going to go easy on him.

I'll only say one more thing about this; I don't lie and my reading skills are perfectly fine. Read that however you like.

Say it all you want. Fact is, you called several other people (including myself) liars, but couldn't actually support your statement.

I, on the other hand was able to provide proof to support my statements. So until you apologize for calling me liar, you can count on being reminded of it whenever you try to acta all high and mighty.

 

[Anubis]

I, on the other hand was able to provide proof to support my statements.

You were? Funny, I never saw proof. As I said, you would have to show that every single FAQ released in the time frame I spoke of included the contradiction. You have plenty of FAQs, but no proof that you have all of them.

So as far as that goes, as much as I hate it, it's a stalemate; in other words, neither of us could show absolute undeniable proof. I know what I read and I know that I downloaded the FAQ I had sometime shortly before (as I said countless times before, within six months at the absolute most) my move in May.

If you're allowed to call me a liar, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine. That's a stalemate. Just accept it.

 

[Caliban]

You were? Funny, I never saw proof. As I said, you would have to show that every single FAQ released in the time frame I spoke of included the contradiction. You have plenty of FAQs, but no proof that you have all of them.

I offered to post them, not that it really matters. The answer was only changed once, not mutliple times like you claim.

So as far as that goes, as much as I hate it, it's a stalemate; in other words, neither of us could show absolute undeniable proof. I know what I read and I know that I downloaded the FAQ I had sometime shortly before (as I said countless times before, within six months at the absolute most) my move in May.

You keep saying it's a stalemate, but that's only because you refuse to look at my proof.

And as I said before, if it was indeed 6 months before May, then it would be late 2004, not early 2005. And in late 2004 the FAQ did indeed say that acid/sonic/force ignored hardness in all the answers.

So yeah, you made a mistake. But rather than consider that possibility, you got huffy and called everyone else a liar. I happen to take my integrity pretty seriously, so I'm not in the mood to let it pass.

If you're allowed to call me a liar, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine. That's a stalemate. Just accept it.

More misinformation. I never called you a liar. I said that you made a mistake about the the FAQ you were reading (i.e. The FAQ in question could not have been from early 2005.)

You were the one who called people liars. We just said if you were reading the FAQ you said you were, your reading skills need work. It looks like you made a mistake about the date of the FAQ you were using, and went off on everyone else rather than own up to it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I love discussions about arguments, and arguments about discussions.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Right, Patryn, but Anubis posted several times that WOTC's Customer Service Department
considers FAQ to be Errata now.

There are only 2 reasons why WizCustServ would make that claim: it is either true and they are telling people this per instruction from higher-up, or WizCustServ is incorrect in the statement (for whatever reason).

Actually, the point we're making is that it doesn't matter why WotC Customer Service would make that claim -- if even the two representatives quoted previously would agree. The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata. Having what basically amounts to an unauthoritative voice attempt to change it without changing it is meaningless. WotC has given authority to the rulebooks and the errata, with all other sources being secondary. Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all. WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.