Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 2631912" data-attributes="member: 284">And still with the talking down to people.So you are still claiming that you are the best judge of what is RAW and what is not then?&nbsp; Based on what you say, it's a House Rule if it doesn't match your view of that the RAW states.&nbsp; So you are saying that your&nbsp; interpretation of what is RAW can't be wrong, even if it doesn't make sense.In the context in which you used it in this thread, and others have used it, yes you are indeed implying that it's less valid than RAW, and has no place in this forum.&nbsp; The mistake you are making is in assuming that there is only one way to read the RAW. You are not the sole arbiter of what the rules say.&nbsp; How do you know your interpretation isn't the &quot;House Rule&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; Why is your judgement of what the rules say more valid than anyone elses?OK: You said it to Artoomis, not me, but I think it still stands. And I stated that you aren't the most egregious abuser, and I said iearly on that I didn't mean to single you out as such (although I guess I went a little overboard toward the end).Much of what I said wasn't incited directly by you, you were merely the straw that broke the camels back.&nbsp; And I happened to have time this evening to post a rant, which hasn't been the case for months.&nbsp; Yup, and I've pointed it out above. More accurately, you have been telling how they should and should not discuss things.I apologize for that one.&nbsp; It should have been more of a general &quot;you&quot; than you in particular.&nbsp; I was caught up in the moment.&nbsp;&nbsp; But it is based on your comment to Artoomis that I quoted.&nbsp; You seem to be implying that only RAW discussions really belong here, which it untrue. See above.Ok. Half right.&nbsp; I said some pretty strong things.I feel much better now though.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 2631912, member: 284"] And still with the talking down to people. So you are still claiming that you are the best judge of what is RAW and what is not then? Based on what you say, it's a House Rule if it doesn't match your view of that the RAW states. So you are saying that your interpretation of what is RAW can't be wrong, even if it doesn't make sense. In the context in which you used it in this thread, and others have used it, yes you are indeed implying that it's less valid than RAW, and has no place in this forum. The mistake you are making is in assuming that there is only one way to read the RAW. You are not the sole arbiter of what the rules [b]say[/b]. How do you know your interpretation isn't the "House Rule"? Why is your judgement of what the rules say more valid than anyone elses? OK: You said it to Artoomis, not me, but I think it still stands. And I stated that you aren't the most egregious abuser, and I said iearly on that I didn't mean to single you out as such (although I guess I went a little overboard toward the end). Much of what I said wasn't incited directly by you, you were merely the straw that broke the camels back. And I happened to have time this evening to post a rant, which hasn't been the case for months. Yup, and I've pointed it out above. More accurately, you have been telling [b]how[/b] they should and should not discuss things. I apologize for that one. It should have been more of a general "you" than you in particular. I was caught up in the moment. But it is based on your comment to Artoomis that I quoted. You seem to be implying that only RAW discussions really belong here, which it untrue. See above. Ok. Half right. I said some pretty strong things. I feel much better now though. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification