Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look at that pride talking.

If you don't care, just stop posting and laugh at my supposed ignorance.

The only person who is obviously emotionally attached is yourself. It is why you keep calling me names. You just can't let go.

If you want me to stop talking, back up your points with evidence and facts. Not silly rage posts.

Funny how you completely ignored my point about you being "happy", right?

It's almost like...you know I'm right about you.

Don't throw stones in glass houses, manchild.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look at that pride talking.

If you don't care, just stop posting and laugh at my supposed ignorance.

The only person who is obviously emotionally attached is yourself. It is why you keep calling me names. You just can't let go.

If you want me to stop talking, back up your points with evidence and facts. Not silly rage posts.

[cyxthryth]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, there just isn't any point in replying to trolls after a certain period.

You have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You still haven't proven anything, even after I attempt to converse with you again.

Haven't proven anything? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which you cannot refute, and which is self evident - of you attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is proof that you have accused others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

and here is my reply to that attempt in which I point out to you the irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - that you that you yourself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened your argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with you hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]:

Originally Posted by cyxthryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

You - of course - did not reply, but have continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that you are using, and whilst providing zero evidence to support your claims of my being a troll/trolling hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the only thing left to do is post the conversation again, and hope you can do something other than trolling. Trolling isn't an argument. Posting memes/insults/trolls/sarcasm isn't furthering the conversation.

Again, as I have stated to you previously in this reply (and previous replies) - you have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I will not allow trolls to rule the conversation because they want to shut down any conversation they disagree with.

You think ganging up on somebody and trolling them ceaselessly is a valid strategy. It is not.

Again, as I have stated to you previously in this reply (and previous replies) - you have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gloomlord]

Ah, so you admit I'm right about you through ignoring the content of my post?

Glad to hear it. Thank you for the confirmation.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Gloomlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, so you admit I'm right about you through ignoring the content of my post?

Glad to hear it. Thank you for the confirmation.

No, your rage posts are simply meaningless. I will say it again:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look at that pride talking.

If you don't care, just stop posting and laugh at my supposed ignorance.

The only person who is obviously emotionally attached is yourself. It is why you keep calling me names. You just can't let go.

If you want me to stop talking, back up your points with evidence and facts. Not silly rage posts.

[Gloomlord]

Well, we know you're a liar, but regardless:

If I am "rage posting" -- what makes you think I'm the only one?

Most people here have regarded you with a mixture of mocking humour and utter contempt. Why single me out, specifically?

There's no point trying to engage intellectually with someone of your..."calibre".

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Gloomlord [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, we know you're a liar, but regardless:

If I am "rage posting" -- what makes you think I'm the only one?

Most people here have regarded you with a mixture of mocking humour and utter contempt. Why single me out, specifically?

There's no point trying to engage intellectually with someone of your..."calibre".

If there's no point engaging, stop posting.

Obviously you think what I am saying isn't wrong, or you wouldn't be threatened by it.

[cyxthryth]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look at that pride talking.

We are not "talking" - we are making posts on a forum thread hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you don't care, just stop posting and laugh at my supposed ignorance.

Why does your post seem to indicate that you believe that if someone "doesn't care" about something - which you did not define in the Quoted post above hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] - that they should for some (undefined) reason "stop posting" and "laugh" at any particular thing, or do any other particular thing that you think/believe/claim they should "if they don't care"?

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only person who is obviously emotionally attached is yourself. It is why you keep calling me names. You just can't let go.

So, for the sake of civil discussion, what is the reason you keep calling me names and making - unsubstantiated, false - accusations of me being a "troll" (which you have not defined, and which you have provided zero evidence to support your claim of me being) hehe? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you want me to stop talking, back up your points with evidence and facts. Not silly rage posts.

I do not want you to start talking, quite the contrary! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] I want you to back up your point(s) if - you have any - with evidence and facts. Not simply to call others' posts "silly" or "trolling" without defining what you mean or providing evidence to support your position/claim/"argument"(s).

As I have already stated to you, it is not always clear to other posters just exactly what particular position/stance/claim/"argument"(s) you are attempting to defend at any given time - due to how often you have moved goalposts - so, for the sake of civil discussion, please let us know what your current stance is and what - factual, relevant - evidence you have provided that supports it. It really isn't hard hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gloomlord]

I'm glad someone like Troxx injects humour into an otherwise painfully futile debate with someone who does not care about objective truth.

If shamans truly were better than mage at DPS, why would I be any more upset about it than the fact enchanter is a disgustingly overpowered class? I know this game is imbalanced.

The thing is, though: you're not right, DSM. Mage is a better group DPS than shaman.

And why is this so difficult for you to admit? Shaman is an overall more powerful and more interesting class than mage. Noone here debates this. You can't concede over something so innocuous?

What is wrong with you?!

[cyxthryth]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If there's no point engaging, stop posting.

Obviously you think what I am saying isn't wrong, or you wouldn't be threatened by it.

The problem with your post is that it seems to indicate/reveal/betray/expose that you - for some strange reason - believe that it is obvious to you what others think, and/or when they are threatened. You have provided zero evidence to support this claim/position/stance/"argument", and thus it is unsubstantiated (and likely false) hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you are interested in civil discussion rather than an "argument", you might consider backing up your points with relevant, factual data instead of attempting to tell other posters what to do as if you believe that you have some - or any - authority over them hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]