Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7843075" data-attributes="member: 7016641">a few people have actually brought things up about my first post on this thread, but most people havnt and ive pointed out multiple times that arguing over what subordinate concepts that different types of damage relate to or not and whether hitpoints can be quantified is not really about the same thing my initial thesis was about and i even later went back to my initial thesis and stated how its by in large talking about an unofficial interpretation of hitpoints while the majority of the argument about abstractions has been about what the official interpretation of hitpoints can/should be. mostly with people telling me my interpretation is wrong and me saying &quot;its only wrong sometimes but heres when its wrong &quot;A. B. C.&quot; but heres where it fits as the best interpretation &quot;D. E. F&quot;&quot; and then mostly people telling me im wrong about &quot;D. E. F&quot; even though it would invalidate the rest of the alphabet including the ones before it if i was wrong. furthermore saying im wrong to even bring the alphabet up and that no one could actually connect the alphabet in a meaningful way to the language being used.but your right, most arguments about abstractions havnt been about the topic of this thread. i was annoyed at that a bit but i kinda just guess that is how conversations on internet forums go, they never stay on topic forever when possible closely related tangents are ones other people care more about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arch-Fiend, post: 7843075, member: 7016641"] a few people have actually brought things up about my first post on this thread, but most people havnt and ive pointed out multiple times that arguing over what subordinate concepts that different types of damage relate to or not and whether hitpoints can be quantified is not really about the same thing my initial thesis was about and i even later went back to my initial thesis and stated how its by in large talking about an unofficial interpretation of hitpoints while the majority of the argument about abstractions has been about what the official interpretation of hitpoints can/should be. mostly with people telling me my interpretation is wrong and me saying "its only wrong sometimes but heres when its wrong "A. B. C." but heres where it fits as the best interpretation "D. E. F"" and then mostly people telling me im wrong about "D. E. F" even though it would invalidate the rest of the alphabet including the ones before it if i was wrong. furthermore saying im wrong to even bring the alphabet up and that no one could actually connect the alphabet in a meaningful way to the language being used. but your right, most arguments about abstractions havnt been about the topic of this thread. i was annoyed at that a bit but i kinda just guess that is how conversations on internet forums go, they never stay on topic forever when possible closely related tangents are ones other people care more about. [/QUOTE]

Verification