Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 8117867" data-attributes="member: 15700">When I use the term objectively and literally, that's in reference the passage in the book itself that describes powers and spells.&nbsp; Therefore, it is objectively wrong to say that it's closer to say no one had spells in 4e than to say everyone has them, because that's what objective and literal mean.&nbsp; Do you want the page # where it describes that too?And again, it does not describe marital powers as non-magical.&nbsp; It says &quot;non magical in the traditional sense.&quot;&nbsp; That means they are in some some sense, otherwise that sentence would never be written like that.&nbsp; Especially at the end of that sentence when it describes them as being superhuman and reality bending.The only ones edition warring are you and DBW.&nbsp; Don't you get that?&nbsp; I'm not disparaging 4e at all.&nbsp; it's him, and now backed by you, who are accusing others of being badwrong, ridiculous, worthy of mockery for viewing some 4e powers as spells.&nbsp; That's you making that judgment, not me.&nbsp; Not once have I ever said someone is baddwrong or worth mocking for choosing to not view 4e powers as magic.No, DBW insulted me personally, and you've been bending over backward to defend him by arguing the same thing, and by insulting anyone else who views some 4e&nbsp; powers as similar to spells based on how they are described and what they do.&nbsp;&nbsp; So you might want to look in the mirror there, glass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 8117867, member: 15700"] When I use the term objectively and literally, that's in reference the passage in the book itself that describes powers and spells. Therefore, it is objectively wrong to say that it's closer to say no one had spells in 4e than to say everyone has them, because that's what objective and literal mean. Do you want the page # where it describes that too? And again, it does not describe marital powers as non-magical. It says "non magical [I]in the traditional sense[/I]." That means they are in [I]some [/I]some sense, otherwise that sentence would never be written like that. Especially at the end of that sentence when it describes them as being superhuman and reality bending. The only ones edition warring are you and DBW. Don't you get that? I'm not disparaging 4e at all. it's him, and now backed by you, who are accusing others of being badwrong, ridiculous, worthy of mockery for viewing some 4e powers as spells. That's [I]you [/I]making that judgment, not me. Not once have I ever said someone is baddwrong or worth mocking for choosing to not view 4e powers as magic. No, DBW insulted me personally, and you've been bending over backward to defend him by arguing the same thing, and by insulting anyone else who views some 4e powers as similar to spells based on how they are described and what they do. So you might want to look in the mirror there, glass. [/QUOTE]

Verification