D&D 5E Warlock and Repelling Blast

[Noctem]

I don't think making personal attacks against me will make this discussion better seebs.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Keep in mind, I came to this thinking it was pretty obvious that the blasts would proc separately, and that hitting someone with four blasts would knock them back 40'. I have a negative attitude towards Noctem because everything I've seen from him in this thread has been at best totally counterproductive, and often full of errors, misrepresentations, and personal attacks.



There's history before these threads. Noctem has a long history of the behavior of being snide and rude about other people "not reading the rules" when he's actually just making stuff up. Yes, he "apologized" for it once, but he keeps doing it, so we know the apology is not sincere. He has not stopped doing the thing of making stuff up and attacking people over it.

I don't think making personal attacks against me will make this discussion better seebs.

You forgot to add 'passive aggressive,' seebs.

 

[seebs]

AB, I think you might find it enlightening to distinguish between "the effects of this spell can't be dispelled" and "the spell itself cannot be interrupted in any way".

That's two theoretically different claims, and you're not considering the possibility that the rule on instantaneous magic might be intended to state one but not the other. I think it's quite possible that the intent was closer to "both" rather than just one of them, but you aren't even acknowledging that the claims are different.

 

[Noctem]

I don't think you making personal attacks against me will help either Ovinomancer. Personal attacks are the resort of people who have nothing to add to the discussion and they know it. You don't take part in the discussion. You attack the people participating in it directly. If you think it'll help your argument and prove you right, i'm sorry but you're wrong.

 

[seebs]

You forgot to add 'passive aggressive,' seebs.

Heh. Not really, I just don't care that much. And it's true, "personal attacks" will not make the discussion better, but criticism of bad behavior is not the same thing as personal attacks.

 

[Noctem]

Heh. Not really, I just don't care that much. And it's true, "personal attacks" will not make the discussion better, but criticism of bad behavior is not the same thing as personal attacks.

In this case it is, you're attacking me personally instead of focusing on the arguments I've posted.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think you making personal attacks against me will help either Ovinomancer. Personal attacks are the resort of people who have nothing to add to the discussion and they know it. You don't take part in the discussion. You attack the people participating in it directly. If you think it'll help your argument and prove you right, i'm sorry but you're wrong.

Heh. Are you even the least bit self-aware? Or do you revel in your hypocrisy? I mean, you just said:

Agreed. I don't feel there's any point in trying to continue the debate with Arial Black either. He's the lone dissenter like you mentioned earlier and imo (and I'm saying this as my own statement and not one we necessarily share) he's stuck in an echo chamber and is totally incapable of accepting evidence that he's wrong. He will twist and dismiss anything that might do so, even dev tweets as he's proven up thread.

Like, today, you said that.

 

[Noctem]

And I'm talking about his previous posts and his arguments which twist the dev tweets we present in our arguments as evidence. I'm not talking about him personally or making personal attacks against him. I even point to his previous posts in the thread. I don't say that he's an idiot or other personal attacks against him. I don't say he's rude or snide like seebs did. I don't say that he's insincere. I don't say that he's attacking people. I don't say that he's passive aggressive. These are all character assassination statements designed to dismiss what I've said in this thread and elsewhere. I'm the bad guy and you're all victims, is that it? I would like you to both stop making personal attacks and get back to the discussion at hand if you have anything new to add. If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree and wait for a response to the tweet Seebs sent out earlier. These personal attacks don't serve anyone.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And I'm talking about his previous posts and his arguments which twist the dev tweets we present in our arguments as evidence. I'm not talking about him personally or making personal attacks against him. I even point to his previous posts in the thread. I don't say that he's an idiot or other personal attacks against him. I don't say he's rude or snide like seebs did. I don't say that he's insincere. I don't say that he's attacking people. I don't say that he's passive aggressive. These are all character assassination statements designed to dismiss what I've said in this thread and elsewhere. I'm the bad guy and you're all victims, is that it? I would like you to both stop making personal attacks and get back to the discussion at hand if you have anything new to add. If you don't, then let's just agree to disagree and wait for a response to the tweet Seebs sent out earlier. These personal attacks don't serve anyone.

Wow. You're serious, aren't you? "[Arial is] in an echo chamber." "[Arial is] incapable of accepting evidence he's wrong." "[Ariel] will twist and dismiss anything that might [prove him wrong]." Those aren't personal attacks. You're not talking about him personally or making personal attacks against him. Dude, you're clearly talking about him, personally, because you named him. You're clearly making attacks on him because you said mean things about him. Saying that your personal attacks aren't really personal attacks because you say so is special pleading.

 

[Noctem]

Wow. You're serious, aren't you? "[Arial is] in an echo chamber." "[Arial is] incapable of accepting evidence he's wrong." "[Ariel] will twist and dismiss anything that might [prove him wrong]." Those aren't personal attacks. You're not talking about him personally or making personal attacks against him. Dude, you're clearly talking about him, personally, because you named him. You're clearly making attacks on him because you said mean things about him. Saying that your personal attacks aren't really personal attacks because you say so is special pleading.

No I'm talking about his posts, arguments, position he's forwarding and so on. I'm sorry you don't understand this but there's a difference between making personal attacks and making statements in regards to the arguments someone is presenting. Saying someone is an idiot is different than saying someone's argument is idiotic. Anyway I don't think derailing the thread further is going to help. Please stop making personal attacks against me just because you don't like the arguments I present. Talk about those instead of me personally.