I should say the same about you. But again the question is not what I want to argue against but how to make sense of what you say as a reply. The idea that I would simply ASSUME synchronisation problems - or suggest that they should be assumed was certainly not based on anything that I said.
>
>> So tell me why is it wrong to split up sequences of actions to
>avoid
>> synchronisation problems ?
>
>There's nothing wrong with it, I've never said there was.
Yet when I made a post saying that it should be allowed you objected.
> I even said
>explicitly, in the post you were replying to, that compund
>actions "may not always be apropriate". I even offered support to you
>against Roderick on this point in an earlier post (Post #16467):
>
>"I kind of agree with Paul's counter with the "jumping over the
>wall"(or was it hedge?) example from the book."
>
>Admittedly I didn't specificaly mention timing issues, but since
>that's what you were talking about I took that as being implicit.
>
>> And *I* didn't start swearing after your last reply, where you
>> replied to half a paragraph while completely ignoring the first
>half.
>
>I may not explicitly reply to everything you say, but I don't ignore
>it. I read it, digest it and try to factor it into my replies.
Yet when I suggested that achieving a high AP bid by insisting that a sequence of actions be combined into a single roll - *instead* of choosing a "daring and risky manouevre" - should not *always* be allowed you replied
"I think that clearly a high-bidding player wants their character to attempt a daring and risky manoeuver is a big concern, especially if they're not being allowed to do so."
>
>
>> > There may be circumstances where they are not appropriate,
>> >but the standard rules handle them prefectly well.
>>
>> And how exactly does that contradict anything I said ?
>
>Why does it have to?
Well given the context - your insistence that your "original point still stands" when it was never even contested - I think that there is a pretty clear implication that I disagreed with it.
> I'm sorry, is the possibility of us saying
>something we can both agree on completely excluded? In trying to find
>common ground, am I completely wasting my time? Is the only allowable
>kind of post an argumentative one?
>
Well when I see an argumentative one - especially one that seems to
claim some sort of victory - I have to say that I do not take it as
indicating agreement. Rather it seems to be indicating that the
other party opposed the point but failed to make a case.
-- -- "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala Guide to Taoism_ Paul K.
Powered by hypermail