[cyxthryth]

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

No, there just isn't any point in replying to trolls after a certain period.

You have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [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 still haven't proven anything, even after I attempt to converse with you again.

Haven't proven anything? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which you cannot refute, and which is self evident - of you attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

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

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is proof that you have accused others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

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

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

and here is my reply to that attempt in which I point out to you the irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - that you that you yourself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened your argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with you hehe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]:

Originally Posted by cyxthryth [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. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

You - of course - did not reply, but have continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that you are using, and whilst providing zero evidence to support your claims of my being a troll/trolling 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.]

So the only thing left to do is post the conversation again, and hope you can do something other than trolling. Trolling isn't an argument. Posting memes/insults/trolls/sarcasm isn't furthering the conversation.

Again, as I have stated to you previously in this reply (and previous replies) - you have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [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.]

But I will not allow trolls to rule the conversation because they want to shut down any conversation they disagree with.

You think ganging up on somebody and trolling them ceaselessly is a valid strategy. It is not.

Again, as I have stated to you previously in this reply (and previous replies) - you have not provided the definition of "troll" that you are using. Would you be willing to define this term that you are using to label others' posts, and the content of their posts, for the sake of civil discussion? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]