I have the player’s version of events. I don’t have to argue for someone who isn’t in this thread. If you want to, go ahead.
Then by all means, do so. You can do it without challenging my opinion. You haven’t actually presented a different POV, you’ve simply disagreed with mine and supposed the DM must have had a good reason. So go ahead. What’s that good reason?
Do you know the rules of AD&D 2nd Edition? I believe you are misinterpreting this statement entirely.
I don’t think you understand what the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is if you believe those statements are indicative of it.
Increasingly, I don’t think you understand the rules of the edition they were playing.
I believe my opinion is well-founded because I have experience with the game as both a DM and a player, have encountered DMs who have treated magic items as something to give out but then restrict usage of, and I have also encountered DMs who were much less restrictive in this regard, so I’ve seen the difference in game play. All this with 2nd edition AD&D.
If you have a different opinion, once again, instead of simply attacking mine, feel free to present your opinion of how the DM could’ve been justified. It will be equally valid as my opinion. I’ve yet to actually see that from you.
The trend of automatically assuming that any gm call is in the wrong without extending the benefit of the doubt to consider reasons why it might have been reasonable is an incredibly toxic behavior that stems from and reinforces the sort of rules disagreements noted in the OP. Beyond that it gives players bad expectations for their gm by causing them to also feel their GM is less likely to deserve the benefit of the doubt when they see it regularly.
Our disagreement has nothing to do with arguing for the uninvolved gm and it's bizarre that you would make such a strange assumption. When you decided to take your private personal opinion public and post about it condemning the gm call that was made you opened up that opinion itself to be critiqued and criticized. In this case your opinion is being criticized because it it incapable of being "well-founded" as long as it is built atop the faulty assumptions that no reasonable GM might feel the need to make the call that was made & make it for reasonable reasons.