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.

[Troxx]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Seems like you haven't changed since you took a break from the forums.

You just troll when you can't counter an argument.

[cyxthryth]

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

Seems like you haven't changed since you took a break from the forums.

Seems like all (both?) of the posters who have - even slightly - agreed with you have taken up corners to silently concede in hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Or perhaps they are preparing better/more well-constructed posts to support you? I eagerly await their replies - in addition to yours - 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.]

You just troll when you can't counter an argument.

No. You seemingly ignore posts and dodge questions while calling others trolls when you cannot provide evidence that supports your (unfounded, false, and/or irrelevant) claims or when you cannot counter irrefutable facts (which you simply cannot refute) or have been asked a direct question which you are seemingly unwilling or unable to answer without exposing that you are being disingenuous and/or "arguing" in bad faith (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument). In the event that this post is ignored I submit it as further evidence of you ignoring posts.

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

[Troxx]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Troxx]

Keep it up boys … 300 is on the horizon!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Chortles Snortles]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]