Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6794108" data-attributes="member: 16814">Saying it over and over doesn't actually make it true.  Here's your statement that I keyed off of:The bolded part is what I was responding to.  You had just, in the post prior to the one quoted, offered an explanation that had no rules quotes that could support your interpretation of spell casting.  I then commented that you shouldn't throw rocks at an unsupported conjecture when you just made one yourself.  Especially if it was the direct cause of the post you were lamblasting. So, yeah, not a red herring, you did attack his conjecture as unsupported by the rules.  You did it immediately after making your own unsupported conjecture.  Nothing in my statement implied any kind of rightness or wrongness to either conjecture, nor did it, in any way, imply that you were wrong to say that Arial was presenting conjecture as rules.  Those were entirely orthogonal to my point, which was a gentle chiding over being aggressive towards someone's else's conjecture after so recently providing your own conjecture..I don't know, I certainly didn't say you did.  Your failure here is to realize that I wasn't attacking that aspect of your post, but the requirement that his conjecture have rules backup right after you posted a conjecture that didn't have any rules backup.  I found that to be less than fair.  Your actual analysis of Arial's argument's worth I was silent on, until later, when I clearly said that I agreed it wasn't a good argument.  Three times I've said that now and you're still on as if I disagree with your overall analysis rather than the very narrow point of being churlish over conjectures not being supported by the rules.And I didn't respond to you calling it a non sequitur until you did.  What matter when you leveled the allegation?  Timing doesn't change it's impropriety.  Also, if you refer to Arial's argument as a fallacy, then you're calling that argument a fallacy.  You can't cabin your argument to only apply within the context of your exchange with me.  That's special pleading (since your fond of naming fallacies all the sudden).No, our argument is about my statements regarding conjecture.  It's logically impossible to discuss my statements about conjecture without discussing the presence of conjecture.  I get that you're trying very hard to shift this from my narrow comment on conjecture into the larger argument of whether or not Arial was right, but, honestly, I don't really care about that argument.  I didn't find Arial's argument as quoted as persuasive, I said so, and yet you're still prosecuting that.  What I did say was that you both engaged in extra-RAW conjecturing in your responses to each other, and then you suddenly demanded that he adhere to providing RAW for his conjecture -- something you had also failed to do.  I commented on that, and that alone.  I don't care.  I didn't find your conjecture any more persuasive than Arial's, and didn't respond to either you of on the merits of your conjectures.  I only responded on the narrow front of your shifting to requiring proof of support for conjecture, which was a standard you had not held yourself to immediately prior.  I did it in a way that was, I had thought, a good natured ribbing.  Apologies that you've found it so offensive.Hah.  You've called me a liar and I'm disrespecting you?Also, I didn't call you a hypocrite, although I can see where you got that.  I was pointing out a double standard, which can occur accidentally, and, to me, can include hypocrisy or not.  Generally, I only reach for hypocrisy when I think it's intentional.  Everyone's allowed mistakes, especially in making impassioned arguments about things you like.But, that said, I also didn't say anything remotely close to 'using conjecture is bad.'  I limited my statement to requiring rules backup for a conjecture you found wrong, when you had just presented a conjecture that was similarly unfounded in the rules (and slightly more so, in my opinion, but that, again, isn't a bad thing).Sorry, but, while I wish you a better birthday as I hold no rancor or animosity towards you, I'm not the least bit guilty that your birthday has had a bad start because I have defended myself against your charges of dishonesty.</blockquote>

Verification