Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
l told you why I am doing this before. I am not going to let trolls drown out real facts with nonsense posts.
Trolls do not get to win debates this way.
I am calling you a troll because of your behavior, not because I am insulting you.
If my data is incorrect or my math is wrong, you need to show why.
Simply claiming my math or data is invalid is not an argument. It is a fallacy at best, and trolling at worst. All of the people I claim as trolls are doing the same thing of assuming my data/math is invalid for no reason.
|
Reposting the current state of the discussion:
DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.
While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:
Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "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":
Quote:
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 irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
|
and here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:
Quote:
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"?
|
Again, DSM - of course - did not directly reply to me for some reason, and has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.
Hehe.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
09-16-2022, 08:28 AM
Threaded Mode