Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanthallas
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Cute, but once again zero substantive content.
1. It is called proof by contradiction; I dont expect someone who argues on the level of a 10 year old to grasp it, so I will forgive you. It works like this: Assume A is true. If A is true, B is true. B cannot be true by definition. The assumption, A, is invalid.
2. I fail to account for the fact that DA can be clicked off? And then you say THIS IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ENCOUNTER LOG OR ANYWHERE ELSE??? Let me get this straight - I FAILED to account for something that IS NOWHERE IN THE EVIDENCE? You are a real gem. Be good to this one Zeelot.
3. I know how to use those additional characters to take your mobs. I have been using those additional characters to take your mobs. See, I prefer to use my characters to beat you - your guildleader seems to prefer convincing new guides to use half assed logs while spinning stories in their ears and spending 2 hours with them in EC 'testing' what he wants to use as 'evidence' that is nowhere to be found on either encounter log.
|
1. Still contradicting yourself man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanthallas
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
No, I am not the one assuming. Saying that there is no evidence whatsoever for something is not assuming; saying that something could have happened without evidence is.
|
I see Alarti let you borrow his Logic 101 bathroom reader.
2. Again, in your analysis you posit that Zeelot is tanking Trak while DA. You appear to be assuming DA was active the whole 18 seconds. If this is incorrect, please let me know what you actually are arguing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanthallas
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
When he was DAed tanking Trak while Kleavage and 5 other people were engaged?
|
3. Good for you. Please show us your logs that contradict the logs submitted to the GM.
03-13-2013, 03:11 PM
Linear Mode
