So I was right . . .

'nuff said!

About the fact that grounded does not include elevated, yes, you were correct.

Yup.

Yes, you were correct on this point, but did you know why....?

I used SuperGENE's Compiled Rules document, which has the FAQed entry in the text. That was the definition I went by when I made my statement.

Your point being what exactly... that someone can lay out a very thorough and complete argument that states the facts and you still won't believe it?

If you were trying to convince me of why I shouldn't waste my time typing up my "thought process" in such a fashion, congrats... you made your point.

Hey, if you're comfortable saying "Cos I'm the RA" that's your business.

Probably as comfortable as you are saying "That's not good enough for me" . . .

He didn't ever say, nor did he ever imply, that his answer or reasoning was "Because I'm the RA."

The reasoning behind both sides of the argument had been clearly stated and re-stated throughout this thread. He simply confirmed which argument and reasoning was correct which, by the way, is what we'd been asking him to do.

While did he once mention something about the word of the RA being sufficient, you're right, hair10 wasn't the one really making that arguement.
All he has said is "the text of the PAC allows it." That is a bit to vague when there is ambiguity involved. I at least know exactly how you, JacinB, have arrived at your conclusion, and that is a good thing for the purpose of discussion.

What the basic issue is how specific the text of the PAC has to be to override a specific rule from the rulebook. Tyroclix and I obviously have a much higher standard for this specificity , requiring a "compelling clix interest narrowly tailored to express the rule change," to paraphrase a legal term.

hhmmmm I thought I said: 'nuff said'

I am glad JacinB and Sandra got what they want. As I see it both arguments were constructed well. It could have gone either way. Both arguments had 'some implied fillers' to finish their argument from what I read {in other words 'assumptions' on how the rules are percieved}

All in all It came down to the designers telling Hair10 the way they want it laid out. So there it is....end of discussion.

peace!



wes

Don't you wish....

Doubtful.

I believe we are missing "In your dreams", "Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.", and "Yeah, Right!".