Re: Defending myself

Re: Defending myself:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]

Posted by Ophi on September 24, 1999 at 12:50:24:

In Reply to: Defending myself posted by Nepenthe on September 24, 1999 at 09:00:50:

>
I see you've extrapolated my attitude in posting with the same shining accurate thought that decided clairvoyance was eyes of intrigue and that there's no reason to be a good or evil conjurer. No offense, but did you pass those logic classes?

Hrm yeah I'm now helping teaching it.
I suppose you on the other hand, extrapolated my attitude into my incompetency.

The devil doesn't do sanct. It casts fly, protective shield on the conjie that conjured it. But the Archon is a lot more valuable in terms of defensive abilities.

> The point there is: There's a solution if you look for it. Meaning, if you have a favorite character that isn't a conjurer, they haven't been wholly destroyed or made useless by the introduction of a new class. There are solutions and tactics out there, though you may not see them immediately.
>
In other words, I was trying to offer some hope.

Hope, relies on the faith of having a 'chance'. I don't like chances. Neither do I have faith. I'm sure the rest of the nightgaunt-killed is assured by just that... 'hope'.

>
You might have added that. You might have been thinking that. Fortunately you're not me.

Just as well. Don't want to be you in either case.

>
The point is to wait, see, learn. Don't try to argue about something you don't understand and make an ass of yourself.

I don't remember saying you were an ass in the first message I posted. It would be appreciated if you can do the same. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If you wish to instead, use profanity vocabulary, then there's nothing really to talk about.

>
Um.. This is my first post. I don't remember being 'persistent' in anything. Your point being?

>
If such a class existed, I might agree with you.

Indeed.

Done. And might I ask that you not attempt to dignify lies, speculation, and misinformation in the future by attempting to build a logical argument from them.

That's what I do for a living. I live on misinformation and spreading rumors. It's what the educational professionals of the US do in their spare time.

Follow Ups:

Re: Defending myself Nepenthe 16:04:22 9/24/99 (3)
- Re: Defending myself Ophi 03:28:42 9/25/99 (2)
  - yet another pointless reply. blah. Nepenthe 16:00:09 9/25/99 (1)
    - Re: yet another pointless reply. blah. Ophi 22:35:30 9/26/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > I see you've extrapolated my attitude in posting with the same shining accurate thought that decided clairvoyance was eyes of intrigue and that there's no reason to be a good or evil conjurer. No offense, but did you <b>pass</b> those logic classes? > Hrm yeah I'm now helping teaching it. > I suppose you on the other hand, extrapolated my attitude into my incompetency. > The devil doesn't do sanct. It casts fly, protective shield on the conjie that conjured it. But the Archon is a lot more valuable in terms of defensive abilities. > > > The point there is: There's a solution if you look for it. Meaning, if you have a favorite character that isn't a conjurer, they haven't been wholly destroyed or made useless by the introduction of a new class. There are solutions and tactics out there, though you may not see them immediately. > > > In other words, I was trying to offer some hope. > Hope, relies on the faith of having a 'chance'. I don't like chances. Neither do I have faith. I'm sure the rest of the nightgaunt-killed is assured by just that... 'hope'. > > > You might have added that. You might have been thinking that. Fortunately you're not me. > Just as well. Don't want to be you in either case. > > > The point is to wait, see, learn. Don't try to argue about something you don't understand and make an ass of yourself. > I don't remember saying you were an ass in the first message I posted. It would be appreciated if you can do the same. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If you wish to instead, use profanity vocabulary, then there's nothing really to talk about. > > > Um.. This is my first post. I don't remember being 'persistent' in anything. Your point being? > > > If such a class existed, I might agree with you. > Indeed. > Done. And might I ask that you not attempt to dignify lies, speculation, and misinformation in the future by attempting to build a logical argument from them. > That's what I do for a living. I live on misinformation and spreading rumors. It's what the educational professionals of the US do in their spare time.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]