Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[cyxthryth]

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

no valid arguments

As I have already stated to you multiple times, this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument. Why are you (seemingly) trying to simply argue instead of engage in civil discussion by backing up your position with relevant, factual data or evidence? [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.]

OP agrees I am not moving the goalposts, since his post was general. There is nothing that says you can't have a pocket cleric.

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. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard.

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

Since we seem to be assuming the players are experienced, I see no reason why a pocket cleric is a difficult thing to use.

The problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that others have given reason for you to believe that they believe "a pocket cleric is a difficult thing to use". It is not a difficult thing to use, and nobody has stated that it is - pocket clerics are simply objectively irrelevant to this discussion.

Remember: this thread is about a 4 caster/priest group. Speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5 hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This really isn't hard hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[cd288]

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

As I have already stated to you multiple times, this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument. Why are you (seemingly) trying to simply argue instead of engage in civil discussion by backing up your position with relevant, factual data or evidence? [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. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



The problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that others have given reason for you to believe that they believe "a pocket cleric is a difficult thing to use". It is not a difficult thing to use, and nobody has stated that it is - pocket clerics are simply objectively irrelevant to this discussion.

Remember: this thread is about a 4 caster/priest group. Speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5 hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This really isn't hard hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yup. He’s now clinging to the “this was general” comment after literally moving the goalposts multiple times creating very specific scenarios that he argued endlessly about. When he was proven wrong he created new scenarios. When he was proven wrong again he shifted to his current stance. It’s the funniest thing I’ve watched on these forums ever I think.

The only thing that might have been funnier is when eisley and santagar shat all over everyone in the course of supporting vanquish and then got kicked from the guild like a week later

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yup. He’s now clinging to the “this was general” comment after literally moving the goalposts multiple times creating very specific scenarios that he argued endlessly about. When he was proven wrong he created new scenarios. When he was proven wrong again he shifted to his current stance. It’s the funniest thing I’ve watched on these forums ever I think.

The only thing that might have been funnier is when eisley and santagar shat all over everyone in the course of supporting vanquish and then got kicked from the guild like a week later

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much. But you have proven your reading comprehension is seriously lacking with your previous posts.

It is sad when you have to agree with cyxthryth who isn't making any valid points. He just keeps copy/pasting nonsense because he thinks he is mimicking how I post. It is a very poor attempt.

[cd288]

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

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much. But you have proven your reading comprehension is seriously lacking with your previous posts.

It is sad when you have to agree with cyxthryth who isn't making any valid points. He just keeps copy/pasting nonsense because he thinks he is mimicking how I post. It is a very poor attempt.

DSM talking about someone else writing nonsense and calling people "sad" is pretty rich

As is claiming that he's not moving goalposts he's having multiple different conversations...when in actuality it's multiple people all discussing the same subject (which is whatever new scenario DSM has invented for why he wasn't wrong).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DSM talking about someone else writing nonsense and calling people "sad" is pretty rich

As is claiming that he's not moving goalposts he's having multiple different conversations...when in actuality it's multiple people all discussing the same subject (which is whatever new scenario DSM has invented for why he wasn't wrong).

Please show me where you think I moved goalposts.

I won't hold my breath though, because you can't show proof for any of the things you have accused me of.

[cd288]

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

Please show me where you think I moved goalposts.

I won't hold my breath though, because you can't show proof for any of the things you have accused me of.

....

Lmao dude just go back through your 900 posts and you can watch the different evolving arguments you've made. Typical DSM...spams a thread with a million posts and then demands someone take like an hour to go back through all his endless, novel length posts and quote them back to him. What a moron...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

....

Lmao dude just go back through your 900 posts and you can watch the different evolving arguments you've made. Typical DSM...spams a thread with a million posts and then demands someone take like an hour to go back through all his endless, novel length posts and quote them back to him. What a moron...

Perfect excuse. You just accuse me of nonsense and then say you are too lazy to find where you think I did this.

The only reason why this thread is so long is because of the 1000+ troll/insult/meme posts from people who simply can't stand being disagreed with. I didn't force them to write those posts lol, I am not sure how you think this is part of some grand strategy on my part.

[cyxthryth]

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

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts.

You have provided zero evidence that anybody has claimed or implied that "having multiple conversations simultaneously is moving goalposts" 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.]

Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts.

The data says otherwise, as is made evident by the irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - that the title of this thread is "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" and - speaking strictly mathematically - 4=/=5 hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard.

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

OP's question was general, and he has said as much.

What relevance is your post intended to indicate you believe stating "OP's question was general" has? [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.]

It is sad when you have to agree with cyxthryth who isn't making any valid points.

I have made plenty of valid points and have refuted plenty of your invalid/irrelevant ones hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] You have not replied to multiple posts and have dodged multiple direct questions, as if you have been backed into a corner "arguing" from bad faith (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument). The post history is clear & speaks for itself, and I submit it as evidence of this irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute.

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

He just keeps copy/pasting nonsense because he thinks he is mimicking how I post. It is a very poor attempt.

No. I am not copy/pasting "nonsense" just because you choose to state it hehe. The problem is that your post seems to indicate that you think that I think I am mimicking how you post. I am merely attempting to engage in civil discussion with you, and you have provided zero evidence to support your claim that you know what I think.

It is not my fault that your post would seemingly indicate that you believe my attempts at communicating to you are "poor attempts". Do you believe it is "a less poor attempt" to outright ignore posts and questions directed toward you in a 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.]

Please show me where you think I moved goalposts.

The data shows that you have attempted to include a 5th "pocket" character in the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group".

Speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5 hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard.