Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

I think we short circuited the handful of brain cells DSM had left [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[cyxthryth]

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

I think we short circuited the handful of brain cells DSM had left [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"It turns out both sides were right." - LOL

[cyxthryth]

Reposting the current state of the discussion:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "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 irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse 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 DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

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"?

Again, DSM - of course - did not directly reply to me for some reason, and has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

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

[PlsNoBan]

Cyxthryth is almost as persistent at trying to get DSM to respond to him as DSM is about how good shamans are at everything

[Troxx]

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

Cyxthryth is almost as persistent at trying to get DSM to respond to him as DSM is about how good shamans are at everything

I still find it funny DSM literally will not talk to him. He’ll respond to my gifs and flat out insults from others … but will not say a word directly to him.

It’s a mystery

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

[Crede]

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

I still find it funny DSM literally will not talk to him. He’ll respond to my gifs and flat out insults from others … but will not say a word directly to him.

It’s a mystery

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

Same, it's hilariously obvious how DSM is afraid to engage him in any direct discussion. He actually resorted to trolling him in their brief exchange in this thread with Essence Lens stuff. Here's some history:

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

Nah, that's going to be Troxx and friends complaining because they don't have good data, and can't accept the truth or basic math.

The thread should have been over here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=638 , but the truth has thrown them into a rage they can't get out of, and must try and hide the truth with silly troll posts.

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

"Silly troll posts" huh? I see where this is going. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You called me "silly" when you were backed into a corner by my replies to you on the below thread too, and you stopped replying (like a little bitch): https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...401629&page=37.
Your concession in silence was accepted. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see you haven't quite given up on this current thread just yet though. *chuckle* Take as much time as you need. You will certainly move on to hyper-focus on another thread/topic in which you'll continue to demonstrate your seemingly-apparent autism to all neurotypicals who encounter your posts.
I can only speak for myself, but your inevitable concession in silence for this thread is accepted in advance. [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.]

Wow. Sorry you are so mad lol. You can choose to believe that is what happened in the thread you linked[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Sorry you don't got Warder loot, silly.

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

Your multiple apologies are accepted alongside your silent concessions, both prior and pending. [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.]

Still mad. Still bad. Still sad. No Warder loot either. Essence Lens is great though, and better than most Warder loot. So you will be fine.

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

You do not know who I am, neither in-game nor IRL, you do not know what loot I have and you do not know how I feel. You may choose to type whatever you wish, it does not change those facts. [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.]

If you don't care, then why bother posting false nonsense?

Clearly you are still mad from that other thread (which is 4 months old at this point), which is why you are bringing it up lol.

Seriously it is ok. Essence Lens is better than most of the Warder loot you would have gotten. Only the most dedicated of raiders are getting SoM or Fungi Robe, and that is honestly only a few people. None of the other loot really matters. You could argue gnome mask if you are a fashion fanatic, but that is besides the point.

EDIT: I am not going to be responding to any more posts about this silly nonsense involving the other thread with you cyxthryth. Either you are attempting to troll (poorly), or you have some weird grudge and felt the need to bring up a 4 month old thread that isn't even related to this one. Not a good look either way. Please stick to RnF if you want to make a thread about it[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's really brilliant how he has managed to defeat DSM in all occasions resulting in him having to troll/ignore cyx.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Same, it's hilariously obvious how DSM is afraid to engage him in any direct discussion. He actually resorted to trolling him in their brief exchange in this thread with Essence Lens stuff. Here's some history:

It's really brilliant how he has managed to defeat DSM in almost all occasions resulting in him having to troll/ignore cyx.

It amazes me that you have to resort to posting what I said out of context, because you have no valid argument in this thread. Anybody who actually looks at what I was responding to will see I was defending myself from nonsense posting.

This is the worst attempt yet.

Do people not know you can look back at the post history?

[Crede]

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

It amazes me that you have to resort to posting what I said out of context, because you have no valid argument in this thread. Anybody who actually looks at what I was responding to will see I was defending myself from nonsense posting.

This is the worst attempt yet.

Do people not know you can look back at the post history?

My argument is perfectly valid, and has been backed by the majority of this thread.

It is really quite sad that you had to resort to posting data irrelevant to this discussion(1-2 shaman fights) and had to goalpost shift(5 classes) in an attempt to defend your flawed argument.

[cyxthryth]

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

I still find it funny DSM literally will not talk to him. He’ll respond to my gifs and flat out insults from others … but will not say a word directly to him.

It’s a mystery

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

I'm glad you a few of you guys have gotten some amount of joy out of my contributions to this thread and the responses - or lack thereof - that my contributions have received from DSM.

As you have all probably seen/noticed, I have simply continued to re-insert myself into the conversation via (direct) replies to DSM's posts, because it is simply that easy (for me) to provide or discuss factual points/data/evidence that are relevant to the conversation. As long as DSM continues to reply to other posters and thereby demonstrates interest in engaging in a civil discussion, I will continue to attempt to engage in civil discussion with him.

With that being said, I am not sure why it seems like DSM does not - seemingly - find it as easy as I do to carry on a simple civil conversation in this manner, otherwise - if it is as easy for him as it is for me (and I imagine most of the rest of you posters/readers) - then his lack of replies to me would seem to possibly indicate an inability to refute the points I have made and/or answer the questions I have asked him (directly) without revealing/exposing/betraying/confirming that he is not actually interested in having a civil discussion (as both his lack of replies to me and the content of some of his posts have seemed to indicate)... or that he simply does not have any/sufficient relevant factual data to provide in support of his position/claim/"argument"(s)... or that he is the one who is "trolling" which - logically - is entirely possible, and perhaps even probable, as he has not yet provided the definition that he is using for "troll"/"trolling" hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(lol)

[Troxx]

Wait … is there a whole ‘mother thread out there I am missing out on Crede?