NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arial Black" data-source="post: 6772797" data-attributes="member: 6799649">You're mistaken: I've never sent a Tweet in my life.I've also just explained why using Twitter is a poor way to resolve complex questions such as this. Urging me to use a bad medium doesn't help.What is a good medium is this forum. You can advance your case just as much as anyone else; you can develop your point and have it stand up to scrutiny, just like everyone else can and just like JC could if he were here, and do so much more effectively than if using Twitter.The trouble is that you are refusing to do so. You could explain to us why (or why not) consecutive beams could be interrupted by a readied action, or a readied dispel, and what implications that would have on the case.How skilfully you do that counts. If you reply with tangential stuff that no-one disagrees about but which doesn't make a difference to the case (like the 3 attack steps), then you haven't made a case to answer. If you do manage to advance a piece of evidence that may or may not be pertinent, then others can examine that point for flaws (like using p203 as the 'definition' of 'instantaneous', then us finding that you must ignore half of that very definition in order for it to support your interpretation).It isn't just you; ALL of us have the same environment on this forum; it's not unfair to you or your 'side' of the debate.When you refuse to take part in the debate (by saying "Ask JC then, not me!"), it comes across that you say this because your interpretation cannot be supported by the rules, because if the rules gave you that ammunition to use against us, you would! It sounds like you are admitting defeat, in debate terms.Imagine a high school debate where a speaker stood up and said, "If you don't believe me, then ask someone else!", and then sat down again. He hasn't done his job; he hasn't advanced the debate for or against his 'side', and the only logical conclusion that the audience could reach is that he cannot support his own argument, indicating that the argument is unsupportable.In the meantime, you or anyone else is free to try to 'square the circle' of how spells which cannot be dispelled 'because the magic exists only for an instant' can support consecutive beams which certainly do last long enough to be targeted with a readied dispel magic. I don't want to prevent people from answering, I want them to try to debunk it, because I believe that this circle cannot be squared and the lack of a coherent rebuttal demonstrates the truth about 'instantaneous' must equal 'simultaneous beams'.</blockquote>

Verification