Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6775609" data-attributes="member: 6801315">But you're also implying that the word immediately allows you interrupt actions in between attacks and other things.&nbsp; You're not just restricting yourself to what the definition of the word is in the dictionary.&nbsp; Which is why I pointed out that the context your using immediately in might not be the intended way readied actions resolve.&nbsp;&nbsp; I've also never said anything about &quot;sometime later&quot; you're inventing this to argue against.&nbsp; Anyone who can read can see this for themselves in my previous posts.&nbsp; And calling out STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN by splitting up my posts doesn't make you right.&nbsp; You just split up my argument and the supporting evidence and then called strawman on each split up point.&nbsp; like el oh el.&nbsp; And you're not answering questions.&nbsp; You claim I'm inventing words and reasoning, I ask what exactly and you ignore / don't reply...Anyway, I think it's better to just agree to disagree because having to re-explain over and over isn't productive and honestly feels like a chore since you're not reading are obviously happy with just spewing rhetoric and false accusations.&nbsp; Until we get an answer from the tweet Seebs sent out, there's no progress to be made.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Noctem, post: 6775609, member: 6801315"] But you're also implying that the word immediately allows you interrupt actions in between attacks and other things. You're not just restricting yourself to what the definition of the word is in the dictionary. Which is why I pointed out that the context your using immediately in might not be the intended way readied actions resolve. I've also never said anything about "sometime later" you're inventing this to argue against. Anyone who can read can see this for themselves in my previous posts. And calling out STRAWMAN STRAWMAN STRAWMAN by splitting up my posts doesn't make you right. You just split up my argument and the supporting evidence and then called strawman on each split up point. like el oh el. And you're not answering questions. You claim I'm inventing words and reasoning, I ask what exactly and you ignore / don't reply... Anyway, I think it's better to just agree to disagree because having to re-explain over and over isn't productive and honestly feels like a chore since you're not reading are obviously happy with just spewing rhetoric and false accusations. Until we get an answer from the tweet Seebs sent out, there's no progress to be made. [/QUOTE]

Verification