Re: Nights of Reckoning rules cards

On 1 Jun 2006 11:36:26 -0700, <pdb6@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Daneel wrote:
Which is nice, but it fails to consider two things - one, the things You
posted never refuted what I wrote, they just showed that You are unable
to comprehend their meaning. At first I tried to explain, assuming You
were sincerely clueless. I then realized that it is ignorance, not
cluelessness, and my relentlessness kicked in to match Your stubbornness.

You simply repeating "you have never refuted my points" in no way means
that your points have not been refuted. 'Cause they have been
repeatedly refuted. You refusing to understand this does not mean that
it never happened.

Of course it would not. It's the other was around - I'm saying it because
You constantly seem to think that Your non-sequitur, half-relevant
attemts at refutal were somehow mistaken as genuine arguments. Which
they weren't.

Which is cool, and fairly meaningless, and still does not address the fact
that I'm right (as per the myriad of unrefuted points).

You are incapable of proving that you are right, as your point ("rules
cards are bad for the game 'cause I say so") is based solely on your
own assumptions. I think I am right. Yet I realize that it is possible
I am wrong. You think you are right, yet seem incapable o realizing
such a thing. Much like if you were sure you were Napoleon.

The 'because I say so' part is most interesting because it seems that
You failed to comprehend the points I was basing this conclusion on.

--
Regards,

Daneel
.

Relevant Pages