Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9334139" data-attributes="member: 71699">You'll need to have words with Darkbard about that.I recall once you accused me of sophistry. What you wrote wasI take it that you didn't intend to imply (as this does) that there were a range of elements, each of which may be well or less well suited for a diversity of purposes. And you were not thinking of mechanics as &quot;means&quot;.Or if you were, perhaps you were thinking of each mechanic as discrete, such that if there is a mechanic &quot;advantage&quot; there is no mechanic &quot;like-but-not-identical-to-advantage&quot;. Possibly saying that none of the mechanics or elements you hinted at above were of that sort: unavailable in anything but discrete binaries of mechanic to purpose.If so then I disagree. Dropping &quot;spectrum&quot; as contested, there are a range of purposes and a range of means, and purposes and means can be in degree, and of course means can suit purposes in degree... which I read you to now clarify was your only intended implication. For avoidance of doubt, I don't take anything about that to challenge a &quot;modalistic&quot; description, and especially not to mean that the sum can't be more than the parts.So going forward we'll just need to take that disagreement into account.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9334139, member: 71699"] You'll need to have words with Darkbard about that. I recall once you accused me of sophistry. What you wrote was I take it that you didn't intend to imply (as this does) that there were a range of elements, each of which may be well or less well suited for a diversity of purposes. And you were not thinking of mechanics as "means". Or if you were, perhaps you were thinking of each mechanic as discrete, such that if there is a mechanic "advantage" there is no mechanic "like-but-not-identical-to-advantage". Possibly saying that none of the mechanics or elements you hinted at above were of that sort: unavailable in anything but discrete binaries of mechanic to purpose. If so then I disagree. Dropping "spectrum" as contested, there are a range of purposes and a range of means, and purposes and means can be in degree, and of course means can suit purposes in degree... which I read you to now clarify was your only intended implication. For avoidance of doubt, I don't take anything about that to challenge a "modalistic" description, and especially not to mean that the sum can't be more than the parts. So going forward we'll just need to take that disagreement into account. [/QUOTE]

Verification