Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7297826" data-attributes="member: 6919838">Yes, you seem to have used &quot;literally&quot; by its now approved counter-definition... just as you now use &quot;inferred&quot; as if it means &quot;implied&quot;. A reader &quot;infers&quot; and a writer might &quot;imply&quot;.I get that you &quot;inferred&quot; that somehow i was challenging your table AUTHORITYE or some such but i was not in fact and did not either state it in fact or imply it as far as i can tell. There was a reason i did not mention your table rules at all, not once, in what i wrote in my response, or dropping dice or any of that other stuff.. For some, that could have been a clue.But since you apparently still do not understand, i was talking about the part in your post about the questions of what ability was in use. ASIDEI think it is funny that we are having this discussion in a thread where part of the dialog has been about PLAYER clarity in statements vs assumption CHARACTER capability. between &quot;literally&quot; vs &quot;in fact&quot; and &quot;infer&quot; vs &quot;imply&quot; we see here how the specific exchange between two educated and experienced folks can often go awry on the notion of a single word or phrase or connotation... and unfortunately here we do not each have an external go-between (character) with known skills and attributes and &quot;expectations of competence&quot; that can serve as a buffer between the import of each turn of phrase or misperception or miscommunication and the outcome. You were so certain about what you read into my post you stated it as &quot;their post said&quot; and only later got into &quot;infers&quot;... which some could see relevant to the subject of player=to-Gm dialog as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7297826, member: 6919838"] Yes, you seem to have used "literally" by its now approved counter-definition... just as you now use "inferred" as if it means "implied". A reader "infers" and a writer might "imply". I get that you "inferred" that somehow i was challenging your table AUTHORITYE or some such but i was not in fact and did not either state it in fact or imply it as far as i can tell. There was a reason i did not mention your table rules at all, not once, in what i wrote in my response, or dropping dice or any of that other stuff.. For some, that could have been a clue. But since you apparently still do not understand, i was talking about the part in your post about the questions of what ability was in use. ASIDE I think it is funny that we are having this discussion in a thread where part of the dialog has been about PLAYER clarity in statements vs assumption CHARACTER capability. between "literally" vs "in fact" and "infer" vs "imply" we see here how the specific exchange between two educated and experienced folks can often go awry on the notion of a single word or phrase or connotation... and unfortunately here we do not each have an external go-between (character) with known skills and attributes and "expectations of competence" that can serve as a buffer between the import of each turn of phrase or misperception or miscommunication and the outcome. You were so certain about what you read into my post you stated it as "their post said" and only later got into "infers"... which some could see relevant to the subject of player=to-Gm dialog as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification