Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9268185" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I've literally seen several threads with supposed "confusion" that were absolutely obvious, and the confusion was rhetorical and pedantic. I've rarely seen actual confusion, but as I said, any actual confusion that comes from talking about older editions of the game in the general dnd forums with no specification is the fault of the poster, not a sign of absolutely anything about the game or nomenclature.Regardless of your intentions, you are hyperbolizing. Your snark detracts more from your position than it does anything else.You might want to read my post agian if you think this is the case. You've failed to track the criticism being made, and so your response to it is nonsensical. I didn't say that you said any such thing. I pointed out that it's a very simple situation, and your snide commentary is ridiculous in a way that reflects, rather than magnifying something external. They have called it a revision, an update, a refresh, and described those things less explicitly. The song and dance doesn't exist. What they have correctly insisted upon over and over again in spite of the disingenuous commentary of the internet hate-stans and snarks is that it isn't a new edition, it isn't "not 5e", it isn't a new thing in the sense of being separate from, it's still 5e DnD. "It's the same game" and "nothing has changed,...everything is completely 100% undeniable the same" are two completely different statements. The former is what they've said, while the latter is nothing more than a weird strawman you and others have invented in order to make your criticism seem like more than merely pedantry about what term is used to refer to the revision.Morrus wasn't snide.Here you're replying to something I said to someone else, about how it doesn't even take being younger than 20 to not think of the early 2000's as so recent they basically just happened. Nothing in the statement you've quoted here implies anything remotely resembling the absolute nonsense you're trying to throw my way in reply to it. It's an extremely weird assumption to make. If that is seriously your takeaway, please put me on ignore for a while, or at least stop trying to interact with me in this thread, because I don't have the energy to deal with that level of wild assumptions and truly cosmic leaps to inexplicable conclusions. I'm not shy about criticizing people. If I thought someone was foolish, they'd know. "Stupid" is a faulty concept I generally have little patience or respect for. I tend not to reference it. And since it's the only reason I can think of that you'd react like I said something offensive while talking about how I perceive time in a somewhat anomalous manner compared to most middle aged people, I will say that no, none of this has any impact on the oddity of trying to act like 20 years ago is super recent. The majority of dnd players weren't adults when 3.5 came out, if they were even born, and most people who weren't already older than 25 in 2000 are going to think of 2000 as having basically just happened.</blockquote>

Verification