PotMS... Am I missing something?

[winginson]

It does seem an FAQ would be a good thing here (or a new codex)

Although it RAW, it does seem silly that most daemons don't obey the GK anti-daemon rules. Its like saying anyone not called Mary, Anna or Sue isn't a female. Or my house isn't a house because it doesn't have a house number.

But a 5ed codex with competative GKs, I would pickup without hesitation. The idea of of playing the super-elite of the super-elite appeals, its unfortunate it does not seem that way on the table.

[Frank Fugger]

Nice ridiculous strawman.
DH wargear works against a daemon.
Which leads to: Hey, what's a daemon, anyway?

Which should lead to "the units defined as Daemons in the Daemonhunters' Codex", but invariably doesn't...

Which leads to: Oh, looky this list here in the DH codex. And looky this codex that says everything in it is a daemon.

Straw man, eh?

The DH codex does NOT explicitly state that only the units it lists are daemons and none else are. All it definitively says is that these units do indeed count as daemons. It's not exclusive. There is no rules verbiage to back your more restrictive interpretation up.

That's your position; the list isn't exclusive. The fact that Daemons have the "Daemons" special rule is utterly irrelevant, since, as you said yourself, the definitions of terms and rules in one Codex never take precedence over the definitions of terms and rules in another.

If you want a more tangible example than Calgar, what about Daemon Prince CSM HQs? They're not on the list of things that the DH Codex defines as a "Daemon", they don't have the Daemon special rule; the only reason they'd be considered Daemons is because the fluff says they are and they have the word "Daemon" in their name. They might as well be called "The Marmalade Monster" as far as Sanctuary or Rites of Exorcsim goes.

Again, you are willfully misinterpreting what I said and clearly meant to create a ludicrous strawman argument with zero substance whatsoever.

Actually I'm referring to stuff you yourself have said in order to refute your position. Straw man arguments require ME to ignore crucial details of your position, not for you to double-think your undies into a big knot and then try to barrack people who argue with you.

Saying that something that calls itself a daemon MUST count as a daemon IS exclusivity. Logic trumps strawman.

In a purely RAW context, assuming that information in a more recent Codex provides a revision to information in an older Codex isn't "logical". It might be common sense, but it's not logic. Easy to confuse the two sometimes, especially when it comes to purely logical rulesets being operated upon by illogical beings. GW have never said anywhere that this is the case, because if they HAD said it then our Storm Shields would grant a 3+ invulnerable save and our Assault Cannons would be Heavy 4 Rending.

What you're doing is suggesting that common sense dictates that the units in the Daemons Codex should count as Daemons for the purposes of Daemonhunters' psychic powers and special rules because... well, they're DAEMONS. That's fine. I get that.

What I'M saying is that, according to RAW, and logic, they DON'T count as Daemons, because they're not on the DH list, they're not part of the DH Codex, and thus aren't affected by any definitions or terms within the DH Codex, and vice versa. Sure it doesn't say that the list is exclusive; but it likewise doesn't say the list ISN'T exclusive. The 40K ruleset is exclusive rather than inclusive (otherwise why can't I move terrain around in turn 3? It doesn't say I CAN'T...) so you've got to assume the list is a definitive list of what models count as Daemons until GW tells you different.

The Witch Hunters Codex "Psyker terminology" specifically states that units defined as Psykers by their own Codex count as psykers for the purposes of WH powers and wargear. No such blanket statement exists within the DH book.

What's this nonsense about the DH codex having an opinion about what is or isn't a daemon? The DH codex doesn't give a fig about what is or isn't a daemon. It says, "you will count these units in this list as a daemon". That's what it says. It doesn't say anything more than that.

...then the descriptions of the powers and rules have the word "Daemon" liberally sprinkled throughout, and because Daemon is not defined in the core rules you have only the DH Codex definition of the term to refer to when working out what effects these powers and rules have. I'd say the DH Codex has a very heavy interest in what is or isn't a Daemon.

Of course, we could always discard logic and RAW in favour of the common sense option of expanding the outdated definition to include information added to the game system by a newer book, but

You seem to think it says, "NOTHING COUNTS AS A DAEMON BUT WHAT I LIST OUT RIGHT HERE! All you other 'pretend' daemons can suck it."

The fact that the list isn't stated to be definitive is an irrelevance; it's an exclusive ruleset, therefore you can't count Bloodletters as Daemons for the purposes of using DH powers and wargear just because it doesn't say you can't, at least not unless I agree to it. Otherwise you could indeed move terrain around in turn 3 without your opponent's consent.

That is one codex overruling another codex. THIS IS NOT PART OF 40K. Show me how this is enshrined ANYWHERE. Show me ANY other example of one codex outright trumping and eliminating and ignoring another codex's rules, and I will concede.

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that Codex: Chaos Daemons trumps Codex: Daemonhunters in it's definition of Daemon, or at the very least serves as an adjoinder to it. The DH Codex contains a definition of what it means when it says "Daemon". That's made plain in the first line of the paragraph. It doesn't say that it IS a definitive definition, but then again it doesn't say it isn't either, so you've got to assume that it isn't until told otherwise unless you want to open up the turn 3 teleporting buildings scenario. Therefore, when it comes to what is and isn't a Daemon for the purposes of DH wargear and powers, that's the definition you use. What counts as what and what is what and what has what special rules in Codex: Chaos Daemons is completely irrelevant.

So, yeah. Show me how unrelated Codexes serve as updates and revisions to each other with new editions, show me another example of terms and rules in one Codex trumping those in another, and I'll concede.

The fact you're asking me to do just that suggests you can't.

[Kelter Skelter]

PS - If someone tries to pull that on you, you could say "ok my codex does not define your bloodcrushers as daemons...therefore, against my DH forces, it is not fearless, has no invuln save, and does not have Eternal Warrior because it is not a daemon in my codex."

this is the best way of putting it

[Emp.]

Its like saying anyone not called Mary, Anna or Sue isn't a female.

Sir you need to visit Europe than, where Michel (phonetic "me-shell")(sounds like America's "Michelle") is a man.

[number6]

@Frank:

I say "to-may-to" and you say "to-mah-to". I think you and I have entirely different definitions of what "RAW", "logic", and "common sense" actually mean. So I'm not going to repeat myself any further but just pick up on a couple of your points.

If you want a more tangible example than Calgar, what about Daemon Prince CSM HQs? They're not on the list of things that the DH Codex defines as a "Daemon", they don't have the Daemon special rule; the only reason they'd be considered Daemons is because the fluff says they are and they have the word "Daemon" in their name. They might as well be called "The Marmalade Monster" as far as Sanctuary or Rites of Exorcsim goes.

Actually, I entirely agree with your implied position here. According to RAW, Daemon Princes from the CSM aren't "daemons", nor do they count as "daemons". I think it's stupid, but I do think it's at least logically consistent with the argument I'm making, and which you seem to accept in one case (the one you give here) but not in the other (the one you're stubbornly refusing to recognize).

Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that Codex: Chaos Daemons trumps Codex: Daemonhunters in it's definition of Daemon

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Where have I ever said the list in the DH codex doesn't apply? Don't be purposefully obtuse.

or at the very least serves as an adjoinder to it. The DH Codex contains a definition of what it means when it says "Daemon". That's made plain in the first line of the paragraph. It doesn't say that it IS a definitive definition, but then again it doesn't say it isn't either, so you've got to assume that it isn't until told otherwise unless you want to open up the turn 3 teleporting buildings scenario.

What do "turn 3 teleporting buildings" have to do with anything? The BRB clearly states what "buildings" do. It's covered under terrain. Which of course you know, so stop inferring total unstoppable chaos because I am able to read game rules in two distinct codexes and not have any cognitive dissonance where you apparently do.

Stop using completely irrelevent and specious examples to "prove" your argument. You're only demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Here is what I am saying:

1. The DH codex defines some daemons.
2. The Daemons codex defines a whole bunch more daemons.
3. The DH codex has rules that unambiguously affect "all daemons".

Is that clear enough?

You see a conflict somewhere between the DH codex and the Daemons codex that just isn't there. Where's the conflict? Where's the differing logic? The definitions of "daemon" from both codexes continue to be relevant to the game. Nobody's rules have to be ignored or broken.

Which is in total opposition to your stand. In order for your interpetation to work, we must rule that the Daemons codex own rule defining daemons is null and void when interacting with one, exactly one, and only one other 40K codex army: the Daemonhunters.

And you want to argue GW and RAW intent? Give me a break. If your stand isn't counter to absolutely everything GW intent and RAW stands for, I don't know what is.

You should take your argument to its logical conclusion, Frank:
Why bother defining what counts as a daemon if nothing else in the game has any interaction with that rule?

If GW intended for Codex: Daemons "daemons" to have zero interaction with the Daemonhunters special rules, all they had to do was leave out the ARMY-WIDE SPECIAL RULE THAT SAYS EVERY UNIT IS A DAEMON! There isn't any other codex that deals with daemons like this. (Well, now the new SWs have one such piece of wargear. 18 months after the release of Codex: Daemons. And we both know that the SWs weren't even close to that point when the Daemons codex was completed. So, yeah. Clearly only the DH could be the target here.)

GW has long established in the 40K rules that there are game units that "are daemons". "Daemon" units exist, period. The DH codex doesn't say "these daemons but not these are affected by GKs etc". It just says "all daemons". Clearly, the Codex: Daemons "all units are daemons" rule exists in this framework. It's part of that framework, it reinforces that framework, it's just another piece in the same ol' puzzle. Why you insist that everything has suddenly changed -- and how you can support thinking that -- is beyond me.

[A.T.]

The DH codex doesn't say "these daemons but not these are affected by GKs etc". It just says "all daemons"

Unfortunately that isn't the case - page 20 of the daemonhunters codex states :

Throughout the Codex, the term 'Daemon' refers to the following units: ...

...followed by a list of what 'daemon' means in the context of the book.

It sucks, but it's there in print. Daemons are not daemons. God it's stupid.

[number6]

Yes, that's what the DH codex says.

AND it's pretty much exactly what the Daemons codex says as well.

So why does one take precedence over the other? How do you allow the DH verbiage to outright overrule the Daemons verbiage? I still don't see the logical explanation for that.

The DH codex does NOT say, "the term 'daemon' is exclusively these units". Which is to say: the DH codex does not close the door on other definitions of "daemon" being valid.

[Frank Fugger]

Unfortunately that isn't the case - page 20 of the daemonhunters codex states :

...followed by a list of what 'daemon' means in the context of the book.

It sucks, but it's there in print. Daemons are not daemons. God it's stupid.

Nobody's saying it doesn't run contrary to common sense and base human decency.

All I'm saying is that it's RAW, and therefore if someone decides their Daemons don't count as Daemons there's nothing you can do about it. I honestly don't think Daemonhunters need half (if any) of the anti-Daemon powers they get to beat a Daemons' list, but if you want to throw a hissy fit and walk away because the Codexes are different then good luck to you my boy.

I say "to-may-to" and you say "to-mah-to". I think you and I have entirely different definitions of what "RAW", "logic", and "common sense" actually mean.

We have very much the same idea on all those things; you've proved it yourself several times. The point on which we differ seems to be whether or not 40K is an inclusive or exclusive ruleset.

You're trying to say it's an inclusive ruleset, by showing how the DH "Daemons terminology" doesn't say it provides a definitive definition of Daemon in the context of the book in which it appears, and therefore it can (and indeed SHOULD) be augmented by newer information in an unrelated book.

I'm saying 40K is an exclusive ruleset, which means not only do two unrelated Codices not provide revisions and updates for each other but, in a more general sense, if it doesn't say you can't do something then you have to assume you can't until told otherwise. That means you can't use Rites to force a terrain test on any unit not listed in the DH Codex, because the rule says "Daemons who wish to assault a unit of Grey Knights", and as far as the DH Codex is concerned only the units under the "Daemons terminology" heading are Daemons.

In that respect it's more a case of I say "tomato", you say "lemon meringue".

Actually, I entirely agree with your implied position here. According to RAW, Daemon Princes from the CSM aren't "daemons", nor do they count as "daemons". I think it's stupid, but I do think it's at least logically consistent with the argument I'm making, and which you seem to accept in one case (the one you give here) but not in the other (the one you're stubbornly refusing to recognize).

That's because they are utterly different cases. You don't think the Daemon Prince is described in the CSM Codex as a Daemon? It doesn't have a special rule declaring it such, but even if it did it'd be irrelevant since the CSM Codex and Daemonhunters' Codex are completely seperate books.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! Where have I ever said the list in the DH codex doesn't apply? Don't be purposefully obtuse.

If you need me to elucidate; you're saying that Daemons are Daemons because the Daemons Codex says they're Daemons, right? What does the Daemons Codex have to do with Daemonhunters' wargear, psychic powers or special rules?

Nothing. That's right. There is a definition of the term "Daemon" given in the Daemonhunters' Codex, which explains what that book means when it says the word "Daemon" in descriptions for wargear, psychic powers, special rules and units. Therefore, Daemons as defined by the Daemonhunters' book are different from Daemons as defined by the Daemons book.

What that means in essence is that the only way "Daemons are Daemons for the purposes of using Daemonhunters' abilities because the Daemons' Codex says they're Daemons" can possibly be true is if the definition of Daemon from the Daemons Codex is assumed to either revise the DH Codex's definition of the term Daemon or supplant it entirely. That would mean the information in Codex: Daemons is superceding or providing a revision to the information in Codex: Daemonhunters, and as we've already established, Codexes can't do that to other Codexes.

Do you see now why you don't necessarily have to say "the list doesn't apply" to be wrong?

What do "turn 3 teleporting buildings" have to do with anything? The BRB clearly states what "buildings" do. It's covered under terrain. Which of course you know, so stop inferring total unstoppable chaos because I am able to read game rules in two distinct codexes and not have any cognitive dissonance where you apparently do.

No, it defines what a building *is* in game terms. It doesn't specifically state that I can't pick up a building on turn 3 and move it out of the way to negate an opponent's cover save, nor put one down in front of my Grey Knights to give them one.

If you're saying that, because there's nothing to say you CAN'T use Rites on a Bloodletter, it means you can, why can't I move buildings around? It doesn't say I can't.

Stop using completely irrelevent and specious examples to "prove" your argument. You're only demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll do that when you look up the definition of "straw man". PROTIP: It doesn't mean "something I can't argue with and seek to discredit as expediently as possible so's I don't have to".

Here is what I am saying:

1. The DH codex defines some daemons.
2. The Daemons codex defines a whole bunch more daemons.
3. The DH codex has rules that unambiguously affect "all daemons".

Here's what I'm saying:

1. The DH Codex defines the term "Daemon" as it appears in the DH Codex.
2. The Daemons Codex defines the term "Daemon" as it appears in the Daemons Codex.
3. The two books are utterly seperate entities in game terms, and therefore rules and definitions in one have no bearing on rules and definitions in the other, regardless of when each was released.
4. Therefore, Daemons in the Daemons Codex aren't necessarily Daemons in the Daemonhunters' Codex.

You see a conflict somewhere between the DH codex and the Daemons codex that just isn't there. Where's the conflict?

In the fact that you can't use rules and definitions of terms from one to maximise the effect of wargear from the other, because Codexes don't overlap that way.

If they do, why is my AssCannon only Heavy 3? Why do my Storm Shields suck balls? Why does Yarrick's "Iron Will" have a different effect from my Inquisitor Lord's "Iron Will"? I want my Inquisitor Lord to be able to have the Uber-FNP too.

Where's the differing logic? The definitions of "daemon" from both codexes continue to be relevant to the game.

But not to each other, which is the pertinent point. There's your dissonance.

Nobody's rules have to be ignored or broken.

Except if you want to take the interpretation of Daemon from the Daemons Codex and apply it to the Daemonhunters' one.

I want to take the Space Marine's definition of Assault Cannon and apply it to the Assault Cannon in the Daemonhunters' Codex. Can I do that? No? Then why can I take the Daemons' definition of "Daemon" and apply it to the word "Daemon" as it appears in the Daemonhunters' Codex psychic powers and special rules descriptions?

Which is in total opposition to your stand. In order for your interpetation to work, we must rule that the Daemons codex own rule defining daemons is null and void when interacting with one, exactly one, and only one other 40K codex army: the Daemonhunters.

Which is true. The Space Marines Codex definition of Assault Cannon interacts with one, exactly one, other Codex in 40K too; Daemonhunters. Does it make it any less un-RAW for me to use my Assault Cannon as a Heavy 4 Rending weapon when it's not?

The fact it only affects one army doesn't make it any less wrong.

And you want to argue GW and RAW intent? Give me a break. If your stand isn't counter to absolutely everything GW intent and RAW stands for, I don't know what is.

Proposing that Codexes with no relationship to each other should update and revise each other when released? Is that RAW? Is that what GW's intention is? Does that mean my vanilla Drop Pods only fit 10 models now?

You should take your argument to its logical conclusion, Frank:
Why bother defining what counts as a daemon if nothing else in the game has any interaction with that rule?

For that to be the logical conclusion there would have to be no available definition of "Daemon". Which there is. The Daemons Codex has one. The Daemonhunters' Codex has a different one. The two don't overlap or interact with each other in any way, so Daemonhunters' rules which affect Daemons (as the DH Codex defines Daemons) may not necessarily interact with Daemons from the Daemons' Codex.

It's THAT hard. Assault Cannons aren't necessarily Assault Cannons. Daemons aren't necessarily Daemons.

If GW intended for Codex: Daemons "daemons" to have zero interaction with the Daemonhunters special rules, all they had to do was leave out the ARMY-WIDE SPECIAL RULE THAT SAYS EVERY UNIT IS A DAEMON!

That's not what it says; it says every unit in the book has the "Daemon" special rule, then goes on to list the properties granted to the units by this special rule. It doesn't say that having the Daemon special rule makes them Daemons in the Daemonhunter's Codex. That's not one of the properties. I don't think the Daemonhunters are even mentioned but twice in the entire book.

Guessing at designer's intent is a hairy thing to do, however I think even Phil "PowerBook" Kelly might baulk a little at the thought that 45pts-worth of psychic powers could shut down an entire Codex. Three Land Raiders, three Elite Inquisitors with Sanctuary and Hierophants. What do I do? Drop Grinders and hope they manage to Tongue the Raiders to death before the twin-linked lascannons eat my face? Assault them with... oh no wait I can't, because my units are all Daemons.

There isn't any other codex that deals with daemons like this. (Well, now the new SWs have one such piece of wargear. 18 months after the release of Codex: Daemons. And we both know that the SWs weren't even close to that point when the Daemons codex was completed. So, yeah. Clearly only the DH could be the target here.)

The difficulty with Runic Weapons is it says they wound "Daemon models" on a 2+. It doesn't define what "Daemon models" are. Common sense tells us it'd be "anything with the Daemon special rule"; so where does that leave Greater Daemons from the CSM Codex? They don't have the Daemon special rule, but the DH Codex defines them as Daemons and they're models that come in a big box with the word "DAEMON" on it. What about Possessed Squads and Defilers? They're Daemons according to the DH Codex, but not according to anything else. What about Daemon Princes? All they have to proclaim their Daemonhood is their name and some other bits of fluff. Marmalade Princes.

Common sense therefore leads us to the conclusion that trying to convince someone that a Daemon Prince isn't a Daemon model is going to end in a big argument, so what we'll do instead is be an adult about it and let the Rune Priest wound on a 2+.

Luckily, because the DH Codex actually bothers to define what the word Daemon refers to when it appears "throughout this Codex", I don't need to make any such concession for Sanctuary or Rites of Exorcism.

GW has long established in the 40K rules that there are game units that "are daemons". "Daemon" units exist, period. The DH codex doesn't say "these daemons but not these are affected by GKs etc".

No, what it does is contain a definition of the term "Daemon" as it appears in the Daemonhunters' Codex, and anything not on the list is therefore not a Daemon.

The Space Wolves' Codex makes no such definition, ergo if it could possibly be claimed to be a Daemon model, it is one. Except if it's Possessed or a Defiler, then it's an argument. Trying to pass Marneus Calgar off as a Daemon here is going to get you a slap.

It just says "all daemons".

... and then goes on to define what it means by "Daemons". It says "all Daemons"; it MEANS "all Daemonhosts, Greater Daemons and Daemon Packs, Daemon Beasts..." etc etc.

Clearly, the Codex: Daemons "all units are daemons" rule exists in this framework.

That's not what it says. It says "all units in this army have the Daemon special rule". Even if it did say "all units are Daemons", unless the DH Codex and Daemons Codex are linked in some way other than by fluff, it would still be irrelevant. The special rule could be called "Oh Yes Sir Indeed We Are Daemons And Don't You Doubt It", every unit could have it's name changed so that the word "Daemon" is interposed within it somewhere, the Unit Type could be changed to "Daemon" and GW could come out with a mandatory decree that all models from the Daemons Codex must be modelled with a big banner that says "I AM A DAEMON!"...

... all of that could happen, and Sanctuary would STILL only work on Greater Daemon HQs.

The "all units are Daemons" thing exists in the framework of 40K, so Codexes who want to say "Daemon models" without defining what a "Daemon model" is can get away with wounding stuff on a 2+. The Daemonhunter's definition of the term "Daemon" also exists within the framework of 40K, and is restrictive. It doesn't say "Daemon models"; it says "Daemons", then on page 20 explains what it means when it says "Daemons".

It's part of that framework, it reinforces that framework, it's just another piece in the same ol' puzzle. Why you insist that everything has suddenly changed -- and how you can support thinking that -- is beyond me.

Because of all that stuff I just said.

[Emp.]

The daemonhunters codex classification of "Daemons" applied to nearly every demonic model in the old (current when written) CSM codex. A daemon prince was a lord with stature, i.e. that would have counted as a Daemon, stop saying a Daemon Prince doesn't count. It encompassed all demon models in that codex. Than CSM and Chaos Daemons got a new book, IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT WHEN EVERYTHING APPLIES IN ONE BOOK, IT'LL APPLY TO THE NEXT UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. The Daemon terminology talked about all daemons back then, new books were written, the same ruling applies, it still affects all Daemons everything that is stated there, and everything with the "daemon" special rule. Stop trying to take something written back when and apply it literally to more updated pieces of literature. GW doesn't live to appease people like you who can't comprehend basic things that would pass on through simplistic means of wording. You really have no argument you're just rambling on non-sense. stop thinking with your dip stick and start using the brain, you're both ridiculous.

And about moving terrain; I'm sorry but you're just plain stupid. Stop bringing in such retarded examples to try and justify yourself, it makes you look like more of an idiot. You put up a good argument, and I commend your ability to really debate what you believe in, but you're trying to argue common sense and that just makes you look like a pompous ass.

[Frank Fugger]

The daemonhunters codex classification of "Daemons" applied to nearly every demonic model in the old (current when written) CSM codex. A daemon prince was a lord with stature,

No, a Lord with Daemonic Stature was a Lord with Daemonic Stature. Daemon Princes are not a Lord with Daemonic Stature.

stop saying a Daemon Prince doesn't count. It encompassed all demon models in that codex.

And now it doesn't.

Than CSM and Chaos Daemons got a new book, IT'S COMMON SENSE THAT WHEN EVERYTHING APPLIES IN ONE BOOK, IT'LL APPLY TO THE NEXT UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.

Common sense? That's arguable, but we'll go with "maybe".

RAW? No.

The Daemon terminology talked about all daemons back then, new books were written, the same ruling applies, it still affects all Daemons everything that is stated there,

Oh I agree. The problem is most of these units don't exist anymore.

See how the Deldar Nightmare Doll doesn't work because the roll to see who goes first doesn't exist anymore? The same principle applies to the Daemonhunters' powers. The -1Ld on Instability tests doesn't work anymore; do we bring back Instability tests even though most Daemons' players won't know what they are, or do we just ignore the rule that isn't relevant anymore?

and everything with the "daemon" special rule.

No it doesn't. Units with the "Daemon" special rule aren't on the list. Are we arbitrarily adding things to the list now? Can I add Land Raiders? They should have to take Instability tests.

Stop trying to take something written back when and apply it literally to more updated pieces of literature.

Stop trying to take updated pieces of literature and apply them to unrelated older Codexes. It doesn't work that way.

GW doesn't live to appease people like you who can't comprehend basic things that would pass on through simplistic means of wording. You really have no argument you're just rambling on non-sense. stop thinking with your dip stick and start using the brain, you're both ridiculous.

No, GW does live to appease people like me, because I spend money on their models. GW doesn't live to make sure their rules are tight, because that requires outlay. That's why we have crap like this happening in the first place, because GW can't be arsed to FAQ old and outdated books and instead allows them to bump along the bottom, causing arguments and giving people reasons to make puerile personal attacks on other forum users.

And about moving terrain; I'm sorry but you're just plain stupid. Stop bringing in such retarded examples to try and justify yourself, it makes you look like more of an idiot.

Case in point. Just because you don't understand the relevance of the example (even after I've explained it) doesn't mean it's a bad one.

You put up a good argument, and I commend your ability to really debate what you believe in, but you're trying to argue common sense and that just makes you look like a pompous ass.

You're a fine one to talk.

If you want to weigh in on this, fine. If you have a strong opinion on it, fine too. Be forthright, assertive and intractable by all means. Just leave out the personal attacks, because at the moment you're coming across as a rude little boy with a distinct lack of basic social skills. Your "points", such as they are, have all been addressed in one form or another at some stage in the thread; scan back over it and you should find what you're looking for. If not, well... unlucky. I don't see why I should regurgitate stuff I've already said for you if you're going to behave like a cock.

Behave yourself, be civil, and all is good.