Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

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

[Gloomlord]

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

No, I am not accusing him of that at all.

You clearly can't understand the point I am trying to make. I am showing you what you have been doing to me for 250 pages. Asking me to prove a negative. Assuming my data is false.

If the standard is "You must provide data from a four man group with 2x Enchanters, a Mage, and a Cleric", he hasn't met those standards himself.

He has no proof this data actually came from a group, and there weren't 2x Enchanters in his group.

So he needs to provide better data first before he asks for more data from me.

This standard factually isn't necessary, but I find it odd he can't even match his own standard before asking me to do the same.

[Troxx]

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

He's basically lost the argument at this point if he hasn't already.

The man doesn't have a single shred of integrity in his body. He's now accusing Troxx of fabricating the data?!?!

Didn’t anyone tell you?

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

[Gloomlord]

I understand the point you're trying to make, alright.

That you think you're a genius by trolling.

You just once again shifted the goalposts, and you think you're trying to provide wisdom and fairness here?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I understand the point you're trying to make, alright.

That you think you're a genius by trolling.

You just once again shifted the goalposts, and you think you're trying to provide wisdom and fairness here?

You keep saying "shifting goalposts". I don't think you know what that means.

The only people who shifted the goalposts are the people who assume Troxx's request are the goalposts.

I didn't agree to Troxx's request being the standard, so no goalposts even exist to be shifted. I am sorry you have nothing other than the semantic game of claiming my data is invalid because it isn't what Troxx asked for.

It really struck a nerve when I asked you to prove a negative, like you have been doing to me for 250 pages. You really can't stand taking what you dish out.

[Gloomlord]

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

You keep saying "shifting goalposts". I don't think you know what that means.

The only people who shifted the goalposts are the people who assume Troxx's request are the goalposts.

I didn't agree to that, so no goalposts even exist to be shifted. I am sorry you have nothing other than the semantic game of claiming my data is invalid because it isn't what Troxx asked for.

It really struck a nerve when I asked you to prove a negative, like you have been doing to me for 250 pages. You really can't stand taking what you dish out.

But you did, because you just implied video evidence trumps an "out of context parse".

So now we have to go even further to try and prove you wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

But you did, because you just implied video evidence trumps an "out of context parse".

So now we have to go even further to try and prove you wrong.

Now you understand what you have been doing to me for 250 pages. Progress!

You are asking me to prove a negative by asking me to prove my data is valid.

You are making the claim my data and math is invalid. It is up to you to prove this claim.

You really can't take what you dish out for 250 pages.

[Troxx]

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

You are making the claim my data and math is invalid.

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

[cyxthryth]

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

Now you understand what you have been doing to me for 250 pages. Progress!

You are asking me to prove a negative by asking me to prove my data is valid.

No. You are simply being asked to provide relevent data. The irrelevant data that you have provided - which you seem to believe "others are asking you to prove is valid" - is simply irrelevant to this discussion, and its "validity" is simply irrelevant to this discussion. Only the validity of relevant data/evidence would be relevant. This really isn't hard 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.]

You are making the claim my data and math is invalid. It is up to you to prove this claim.

The irrelevance of your data invalidates it from being relevant data - does that verbiage help you understand?

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

You really can't take what you dish out for 250 pages.

I am not sure why your post indicates that you believe that you know and can make objective claims about what others "can't take", and you have provided zero evidence to support that belief, and I am not sure what point you think you are making or fact you think you are refuting in the above Quote.