Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3222421" data-attributes="member: 111">There are sufficent errors and contradictions within the RAW to create doubt in one's mind about its veracity, too.Thinking the RAW is the be all to end all and that definitive answers can always be unambigously derived from an imperfect set of rules is folly.It is this folly that leads some to dismiss the FAQ out of hand rather than embracing it with an appropriate amount of caution, knowing any particalur ruling could have an actual error in it - just as any sentence in the RAW may have an actual error in it. To me, at least one thing is certain, no one should advise a new poster to dismiss the FAQ without their own due consideration and analysis.&nbsp; To me, that is the utlimate is poor behavior on a debate-based discussion (as this forum mostly is),&nbsp; It is attempting to get someone to completely dismiss a source wihout any thinking on their own.&nbsp; Very poor form.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 3222421, member: 111"] There are sufficent errors and contradictions within the RAW to create doubt in one's mind about its veracity, too. Thinking the RAW is the be all to end all and that definitive answers can always be unambigously derived from an imperfect set of rules is folly. It is this folly that leads some to dismiss the FAQ out of hand rather than embracing it with an appropriate amount of caution, knowing any particalur ruling could have an actual error in it - just as any sentence in the RAW may have an actual error in it. To me, at least one thing is certain, no one should advise a new poster to dismiss the FAQ without their own due consideration and analysis. To me, that is the utlimate is poor behavior on a debate-based discussion (as this forum mostly is), It is attempting to get someone to completely dismiss a source wihout any thinking on their own. Very poor form. [/QUOTE]

Verification