Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="El Mahdi" data-source="post: 6687834" data-attributes="member: 59506">First of all, an ad hominem argument is any argument that attempts to attack the credibility of the one giving an argument, rather than their argument itself.  Saying Crawford's reading comprehension is less than stellar means that Crawford's arguments are automatically suspect - without actually addressing Crawford's argument.  That's the very definition of an ad hominem argument.Second, when it's the clarification of someone that actually designed the game, reading comprehension isn't even a factor.That is unless one is trying to say Crawford doesn't understand what he, and those who worked for or with him, actually wrote?Sage Advice is not Rulings, it's clarification by someone that actually wrote the game - or even if he didn't actually write that specific section, was privy to the thoughts of whoever did, and can reach out to those people directly even now.It's as if today's supreme court, rather than trying to discern the motives of those who wrote the Constitution, were able to actually go ask them, face-to-face, what they intended.No.  Scratch that.  It's as if James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and any other of their congressional contemporaries were personally doing a Constitution FAQ on the internet, directly giving Americans clarification on what they intended when writing the Constitution.But even ignoring the above, choosing to believe - or at least state - that it's Crawford's reading comprehension that is at fault, is at the least assuming only one reason is true despite the multitude of possible reasons available; any one of which would have the same amount of evidence for - which is to say, absolutely none.Not to mention that there is almost no situation where questioning somebody's reading ability could possibly be construed as other than at least rude.  In the case of Crawford it can't even be spun as neutral or even matter of fact (as even as an argument of fact it would be purely subjective or speculative).There was nothing positive, respectful, or even just neutral about what Exploder Wizard said.And this behavior is exactly why there's a dearth of such people as Crawford and Mearls no longer posting here.Would you post here if you were being told your reading comprehension is less than stellar?And that's exactly the point.  It's not okay by ENWorld's rules to say that to another poster.  It's rude in just about any situation.  So why is it somehow okay to say the same about Crawford just because one doesn't agree with him?The answer: It's not.Anyways, I'm done.  I've said what I wanted to say, and I'm not a mod so there's nothing I can do about it.  Whatever Exploder decides to do from this point is up to him.Good Day.</blockquote>

Verification