Yes I have a reason, but I’d really rather this dead horse stop being beaten.
i mean...ok then, i guess. i'd still like to hear it, even if it's as a PM, but if you don't wanna talk about it then that's fine.
The parts of your comment that weren’t a direct quote of the text.
considering that my conclusion was derived from the text i was directly quoting i still don't really understand, but whatever, i guess.
My stance wasn’t that there weren’t any examples though, just that this one example wasn’t a good one, along with the general thought that people quote alot of examples that fall really short of proving their point.
and i was arguing against your reasoning as to why the examples provided weren't good ones, which was relevant at the time because the other example hadn't come along.
also, i never said you said there "weren't any examples". i don't even know why you'd think i meant that. i said the example that you say made my post redundant hadn't been posted yet, which it hadn't.
The point is - the particular example really doesn’t matter to the discussion and really never has. So can we move on from it?
i'd argue it did and it did, but sure. in fact, i only really mentioned the original examples again because i was replying to you anyway and figured i might as well.
I didn’t say anything flat out wrong.
you considered an ability that outright says it's a natural ability to not be one. i don't know what you can call that other then wrong.
It doesn’t say anything about whether it’s supernatural. Who is outright saying something outright wrong now?
once again, it literally explicitly states the ability is "natural to the Savage". that is a direct quote from the text. a natural ability is, by definition, not supernatural.
uh...about which statement? because if about the former, then no, because how you rule something and what the thing actually is can be (and in this case would be) different things. if about the latter, then no, because disagreeing with someone is not the same as calling their viewpoint absurd.
Not trying to offend you but you do realize you are still trying to talk about this same thing that’s been discussed to death and doesn’t actually have any bearing on anything actually relevant to the actual conversation - aka beating a dead horse.
i'm talking about it because
you accused
me of something i could not possibly have been doing, and if you had just checked the post order beforehand you would have known that. again, i discussed the examples again because i was replying to you anyway and figured i might as well. i assume, since you're discussing the examples again as well, that you thought the same way. despite that, i can recognize that the discussion of those examples isn't your actual point (though i still responded to those parts since, for the third time, i might as well).
so here's
my actual point - if you're going to accuse someone of doing something, then, at the very least,
check if it was even possible for them to have done what you are accusing them of in the first place. it is the most basic courtesy you could
possibly afford.
