Darkside007 wrote:Linking seems to be very rare at all, and not done in the MK. Otherwise she wouldn't've simply asked for Thinkamancers, but for someone to break the link.
There was someone there that either was a Thinkamancer, or a Lookamancer, but he did nothing until she stepped in, asking no questions of Janis' need for requirements: Carl Sagan either summoned other Thinkamancers by Thinkagram, or found them by Lookamancy, but he did not question the need for them: he also clearly knew the dange of speaking Sizemore's name. Really, why would anyone but a Thinkamancer know what was needed to unravel a link? A Thinkamancer must be involved in the Linking, and so would obviously wish to protect against damage by ensuring the unravelling was already in place, so no one else would need to concern themselves with that detail. Janis, however, is actually fully aware of what is needed, and she's a Hippiemancer. Janis is the type of person that takes charge. Everyone was clearly more concerned with Parson's breaking of some rule to worry about a Link that could be maintained for a long time yet (based on the Eyemancer Link-up duration, Turns could pass). Janis, a pacifist, was merely taking charge and making it clear to everyone that their priority was not the non-aggressive Warlord who was not trying to hurt anyone (just defend himself when backed into a corner from those he perceived as aggressors), and make everyone do what they should have in the first place: worry about the Casters. Leaders are not restricted from giving orders that everyone knows must be done. So, that no one else gave the orders is not indicative that no one else could... it only indicates that they were distracted by other priorities, and they needed someone taking charge to get themselves into life-saving mode instead of defensive mode.
So, your statement above is based on an opinion of someone's comment that can be explained in many ways. That makes it unsupported by the evidence. There, I knew you'd go 3 for 3. 8)
You don't think you can disprove the Summon spell was created by Link-up with an interpretation fo that comic, do you? Something had to create it, and it's not a single school magic item. It's Linking that allows casters to go beyond normal limitations, and teh Summon spell is pretty clearly far beyond normal.
Kreistor wrote:Oh, I'm glad you think so, but calling them unjustified isn't proving them unjustified. All you said was "Which is why uncroaked warlords retain their Leadership bonuses? Since, you know, all that applies to zombies too...", leaving everything else up to the reader. (Seriously, that's all he said folks, I didn't delete anything in this quote.). [snip] Personally, I like Bobby Archer's point that Warlords keep Leadership bonuses making them quite unlike Casters that do lose the capacity to cast.
You left out the context of the quote, which was you pontificating on all the necessities for real-world leadership. None of them apply to uncroaked, so there is no reason for them to apply to linkups.
You needed to state that in the first place. My statement is not yours, and so does not present context of your choosing. You set me up by trying to interpret my statement in a way that it provides your context. Other people will interpret me differently and provide different context, so unless you provide your interpretation, your response stands alone.
Oh, and I left in the context of Bobby Archer this time, which you still haven't faced.
That you couldn't work that out is your own problem. Though I suspect you could, and you just refused too.
A sign of respect, finally? Yes, I probably could have, but you placed me in a situation where I was having to deal with a you as a flamer, and with the recent events in another thread, I knew I needed to stand up for myself to get this stopped, while staying as far away from the flames as possible. I need to provide an object lesson. You conveniently set the stage for me. I found a way to turn the other cheek, and you slapped me again. Why would I do anything else but try to stop you at that point? You want the benefit of the doubt after that? No, I saw your weakness and used it against you. I don't doubt you would do the same if you could. You don't strike me as someone that could restrain yourself from such an opportunity. I, howwever, actually did already once this thread. I gave you the opportunity to rescind your original flames, without using them against you. You declined, blind to the potential direction I could take this. You clearly can't think like me, and you can't predict my stratagems.
Kreistor wrote:Ah, but it demonstrates the unreliability of your memory, and suggests that your conclusions are drawn on incomplete knowledge, suggesting the possibility of contradicting evidence for any statement you made )or may make) without supporting references, thereby invalidating your current argument and potentially future ones. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a cornerstone, since you demonstrated an over-confident belief that you knew more than me. Given your previous choice to leave things to the reader, it's not a particularly powerful debating strategy, since the incompleteness in your knowledge allows the reader to draw conclusions based on information you were unaware of.
Or perhaps it was irrelevant because it requires that you really really want your point to be true to read it the way you do?
You think I care about a point in a debate? You're thinking at the wrong level.
Kreistor wrote:"Here's what [Sizemore] said. Magic uses the three elements of Life, Motion, and Matter. The major classes of magic are defined by combinations of these three things: [Table of Elements and Classes]. That gives eight major magic classes. But magic is also "aligned" on three axes: Erf, Fate, and Number magic. So each major class is divided into three disciplines, based on what axis it is aligned to. [Table of Axis and Disciplines]. In each discipline there are a certain number of spells it is possible to cast." http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_38a
I'm thinking that you can prove anything if you ignore context, but that doesn't make it true. Does that apply here? Let's see... he mentions Casters specifically... zero times in that part of the Klog. [snip] Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this claim of "spells/day" could only be made if you completely ignore the context surrounding the sentence.
It's going over the basic rules of magic. One of the basic rules is what variety of spells casters of various schools can have.[/quote]
There is still no mention of casters in that sentence, or the surrounding context. Just because tehre are rules about one thing that doesn't mean that a particular sentence must be about that, when there are others rules about other things that need explaining, too. That sentence, in context, stands on its literal interpretation.
Mana is sufficiently similar to the spells/day mechanic that I didn't think it necessary to include it. I thought about it, and then decided that only those trying to disprove points on technicalities and not merits would bother with it.
We're talking about rules here. "Technicalities" are the details of rules. They're relevant, because details determine the specifics of the rule, and overlooking them can result in incorrect interpretations. "Merits" are a subjective term, not objective, and can only be judged by the reader, and are often the subject of debate themselves. Your opinion of what is meritous is certainly appreciated, but hardly evidence, since you're not objective about your own statements.
How do clouds smell? I've never managed to get my nose quite that high in the air. Your response has been full of arrogance, nit-picking and ad hominem, and you took 3x as many words to do it as you needed too. It's almost like you simply try to bury any opposing argument with a character count and pre-emptively call it a win. That doesn't work. It hasn't worked in the other 3 threads you went in.
Also? You can't succeed at manipulating people like that if you annouce that's what you're doing.
Where did I announce a win? I let the readers decide if I succeeded. I present the arguments, the conclusion I would like them to draw, and respect them enough to let them determine success or failure.
And why would I need to manipulate you? Most of the time you can get people to mess themselves up by just keeping the conversation going. Few people have a consistent world view: get them to open up too much, and you'll find their holes. People that think they're smarter than you love to talk, to demonstrate that superiority, convinced of your inability to use their words against them. You did all of this without my prompting. You characterized me: I didn't manipulate that out of you. You set the rules of engagement by being the aggressor. And you untied my hands.
I only used what you hadn't realized you'd created. Heck, you even filled in the third blank, knowing full well that I'd be looking to do so. So how did revealing my strategy prevent you from walking into a trap you were supposedly aware of? If I manipulated you this time, I did so when you just stated it couldn't be achieved because I had announced my plan. So, either I didn't manipulate you, and you did it all by yourself, or you're wrong about how announcements of strategy affect opposing arguments, or I didn't succeed, and that's for the readers to determine.
As for revealing my strategy? Well, I personally do that after I think I've already succeeded. (In this case, I didn't think you'd give me more evidence, and I felt 2/3 was good enough.) Just because I don't tell people I won doesn't mean I don't think it. But I'm not a comic book villain, arrogant enough to reveal my plan before it goes into effect: I learned from Watchmen... the comic long before it was a movie. No, you'd already given me everything that I needed, so telling you about what you'd done doesn't hurt me one whit... my strategy had already either succeeded or failed, and I was going to therefore abandon it anyway. I can come up with a different plan now, so you won't actually know my future direction based on revelations of the past.
Look, you're not objective here, just like I'm not. Your ego is involved, just like mine. You can never convince an opponent of success in an internet debate, so I don't ever listen to an author's opinion of his own success or my own failure, and I don't think anyone else does either. This is, and always has been, about the readers and respect. Fail to respect someone, and they are going to have the edge on you in what truly matters. How you argue is 10x more important than what you're arguing about. You opened this by disrespecting me. That placed you in a position where you underestimated me, and the readers would sympathize with me as the target of an unwarranted attack. That places the onus on you. Either you're good enough to warrant the attack on me, or you aren't, but you'll never be the judge of whether you were. And you'll usually never be told by a third party. So we have to live with ourselves and the uncertainty of success or failure after the dust settles. That begs the question, "What can be achieved, if you can't win the actual debate?"
I can get people to stop insulting other people. That's really all this is about, and my ultimate motivation. Stop the flaming. That's one success I can always see right there in the text. When the insults stop, I know I've won and I'll move on. One way to do that is the way I've done... demonstrate that someone that insults is guilty of his own accusations. That's the ultimate, "Doh!" situation. It hits the ego hard, though, so it can cause some damage. (Another rarer success occurs when the readers actually get involved and back up my responses with positive replies. That usually only happens the first time I hit a forum and take on a long established troll. But that has less of an obvious success rate, because burned trolls go away from places where there's fire. In the long run, readers tend to stay out of my discussions, in case of getting hit by shrapnel.) So, the question is now, "are you going to learn the lesson and stop the insults?" Really, it hurts your cause in so many ways. Believing your own insults makes you underestimate the opponent. It garners opposition against you from readership that would normally stay out, increasing the likelihood that someone smarter than you will step in and find holes in your argument for the person you're trying to defeat. And it loses the respect of mature readers. So... are you done, yet? All you need to do is continue the insults, and I'll keep at you. But you'll risk mod intervention. Can you actually do it? Argue without characterizing your opponent? Or do you need to, and it's an addiction? Really, I don't care why it stops, so long as it does.