Forums of the Megaverse®

Nightmask wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

Johnnycat93 wrote:most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

ok I am confused...
How does citing the DICTIONARY mean he is making up meanings?
you have not made any effort to support your claim beyond endlessly repeating a variant of "you are being unfair and a rules lawyer".
Sorry but by any rules of debate he wins.
Support your claim.
And use something besides trying to obfuscate the established definitions as presented.
Or admit you are defeated.

Lenwen wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

There are no failsafe's .. (teleportation greater.)

If there is perhaps you can quote the spells description an show us ?

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

No

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

No

Considering that the mage knows what the inside of the box looks like ..

According to canon rules, it would in fact work ..

You literally JUST said that he has never seen the inside of the box.

Johnnycat93 wrote:According to the statement I made earlier, he cannot actually know what the inside of the box looks like unless he can actually observe it.

Johnnycat93 wrote:
But this box could also actually be a horrible pocket dimension where thousands of gods are imprisoned, he doesn't know for certain. Teleport Lesser runs on certanties, not "meh I got a pretty good feeling that it is just a normal box"

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:According to the statement I made earlier, he cannot actually know what the inside of the box looks like unless he can actually observe it.

Your house rules do not effect the outcome of a canon debate..

Really? So give me the definition that canon uses as a known location. Because, guess what? There isn't one.

What I'm telling you is that IN SCIENCE

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

Panomas wrote:The more important question here is-If you've never seen the inside of a particular box how do you know its empty to begin

Panomas wrote:On another point is a human being the same as a box? No it is an Inanimate object.

Panomas wrote:I can appreciate the fact your trying to illuminate your point-but the two things are only related in the fact that one cannot be familiar with the inside of these things-

Additionally, if the spell was meant to (teleport) insert small object-into another small object brain (box) don’t you think this would have an entire paragraph dedicated to it

Pepsi Jedi wrote:Even if you HAVE seen inside a box, you STILL don't know what's in the box

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

In your opinion sure-unfortunatly these are the conditions of the spell invocation rules that I did not write.

Nightmask wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

ok I am confused...
How does citing the DICTIONARY mean he is making up meanings?
you have not made any effort to support your claim beyond endlessly repeating a variant of "you are being unfair and a rules lawyer".
Sorry but by any rules of debate he wins.
Support your claim.
And use something besides trying to obfuscate the established definitions as presented.
Or admit you are defeated.

Not once have I made any such claim, I studiously avoided using any language that anyone might even remotely take such an inference from. So don't even begin to attempt to ascribe to myself something I never even remotely said, especially as part of an effort to obfuscate things by attacking myself rather than respond to the actual points I made.

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it. It's a LOCATION, someone puts a tent over your house it still remains in the same LOCATION. You must go down in defeat because you're trying to argue that a location ceases to be known the moment you put something between it and your eyes which is an obvious absurdity. Heck you're embracing that kind of nonsense as you clearly aren't going 'no that's not what I mean' you're attacking myself so you must be advocating that the space above your hand becomes instantly an unknown location even though it's right above your hand just because someone put a red balloon in it. If you think the location right above your hand becomes unfathomably unknown in such a situation you're clearly NOT using the established meanings or definitions of 'known' or 'familiar'.

Nightmask wrote:Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

In your opinion sure-unfortunatly these are the conditions of the spell invocation rules that I did not write.

No, you're giving your opinion and insisting it's the only valid one that's allowed trying to establish your opinion as canon when clearly it is not. It is your opinion that the text carries meanings that it doesn't, meanings you insist on because you start with the conclusion 'I don't want to allow instant kills' and rather than just go 'I don't allow instant kills even though the text is ambiguous on things' you feel (wrongly) that it requires the weight of canon because you don't wish to simply call it what it is: a house rule.

The more you put words in my mouth-the weaker your argument gets.

Panomas wrote: Please give me a source that verifies your theory that all human brains are the same?

Panomas wrote:Their not-are they made of the same materials yes-most typically yes-this does not make them the same however. The human brain is a very complex organ-if all brains were the same-transplants would be available very soon.

Panomas wrote:It would be helpful for those of you who believe the spell allows this sort of teleportation-to site directly the sentence that leads you to think the way you do; from the text of the spell-

In other words what grounds from directly from the text do you stand on.

I would appreciate it.
Thank you.

Lenwen wrote:People are the one's who are placing restriction's .. upon a spell where there were none before ..

Shark_Force wrote:man, the way you people try to defend it, i pity anyone who's made a mage angry and has ever gotten an MRI in your worlds

i'm gonna stick with my answer "the spell doesn't work like that because i say so" when i GM... if it was a viable weapon, people would be using it as one.

(and besides, it's not like you can't get similar results by teleporting explosives next to someone... it just makes you actually have to deal with their defenses instead of cheesing your way past them by relying on your GM to not know when to say no).

Johnnycat93 wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:Are you aware that it is impossible to have two pieces of matter occupying the same exact space. Literally two completely different atoms becoming fused together. Doesn't really yield easy math. The closest example I can think of is the hadron collider where they smash atoms together, often resulting in several (while short-lived) micro-black holes.

Are you aware, that for that to happen you would need entirely another spell (completely new spell never before seen)?

Due entirely to how far apart matter is on the atomic level .. you think they are that close .. when relatively speaking .. its not ..

Solid matter is not displaced by teleport, that much has already been proven. Assuming the literal millions of atoms present inside of a piece of solid matter, it is almost certain that one is gonna land in another.

Lenwen wrote:

Johnnycat93 wrote:most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

There are no failsafe's .. (teleportation greater.)

If there is perhaps you can quote the spells description an show us ?

cornholioprime wrote:Solid matter is not displaced by teleport, that much has already been proven. Assuming the literal millions of atoms present inside of a piece of solid matter, it is almost certain that one is gonna land in another.

Lenwen wrote:

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Panomas wrote:
Exactly-

In short when you make a claim (such as all brains are the same) and I ask you to clarify you don’t because you can’t.
I do not need to verify your claim for you-I didn’t make the claim in the first place.

Your claim is invalid-because it’s your opinion only, as such every opinion you’ve given, has no basis of reason only other than it’s what you believe.

Panomas wrote:I on the other hand have supplied reasons why I think the way I do-reasons backed up with the meanings and definitions of the words, words that are directly from the text of the spell.

Panomas wrote:I have asked you to clarify what gives you the impression the spell can be used in the manner in which you believe in can be-and again no surprise you don’t give any-

Panomas wrote:If another poster asks you to clarify and you utterly refuse-the point that your trying to make becomes irrelevant or invalid-

Panomas wrote:I have wasted enough time with this topic-it’s obvious to me that there is hardly any point in arguing with someone who has no sense to respond to my inquiry,

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Prysus wrote:[justify]

Nightmask wrote:Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I have shown definitions within the Palladium books (in various teleportation variations) that say you're wrong. You've ignored them. But, let's try a different experiment and use logic.

Place a sheet of paper over someone's hand (big enough to cover the whole hand). Have them hold up a number of fingers and see if you "know" how many fingers they're holding up? How about which fingers (three different people can hold up three fingers, and each one could be holding up a differenet set of fingers)? According to the arugment, you should "know" what's going on. This is the difference between knowing and guessing.

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

Lenwen wrote: .. he has seen the inside of other boxes ..

Lenwen wrote:[the fact remains every working human brain is in fact visibly .. identical to every other brain .. minus its overall size / weight.

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:[justify]

Nightmask wrote:Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I have shown definitions within the Palladium books (in various teleportation variations) that say you're wrong. You've ignored them. But, let's try a different experiment and use logic.

Place a sheet of paper over someone's hand (big enough to cover the whole hand). Have them hold up a number of fingers and see if you "know" how many fingers they're holding up? How about which fingers (three different people can hold up three fingers, and each one could be holding up a differenet set of fingers)? According to the arugment, you should "know" what's going on. This is the difference between knowing and guessing.

Sorry but no, the location that the hand occupies doesn't become unknown because you wrapped a sheet of paper around it and how many fingers it may be displaying is irrelevant to as to where the hand is located. The location is not dependent upon whether the hand is a fist or extending a finger nor does the location become unfamiliar because some fingers moved. Where you parked your car doesn't change because stuff shifted in the trunk, it's still parked there and the space called 'the trunk' is still in the same location, what's in it moving changed none of that.

Lenwen wrote:

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Thee entire thread is a discussion on Teleport Lesser, I do apologize if anyone was confused about it being about Teleport Greater.

Panomas wrote:

Here's a source: Where's yours?

Your claim: is that every human brain is identical
Definition: Identical
Similar or alike in every way: The two cars are identical except for their license plates.
Being the very same; selfsame: This is the identical room we stayed in last year.
Agreeing exactly: identical opinions.

Two brains that are different weights are not identical:

Question: Do identical twins have identical brains:

No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_identical_ ... z24zPt6c4s

Lets just say that this source is not exactly the best (it's not) but can you find one even as unrealiable as this source that agrees with your claim?

What's that---You won't hmmm.... my point exactly

Panomas wrote:No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Lenwen wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Here's a source: Where's yours?

Your claim: is that every human brain is identical
Definition: Identical
Similar or alike in every way: The two cars are identical except for their license plates.
Being the very same; selfsame: This is the identical room we stayed in last year.
Agreeing exactly: identical opinions.

Two brains that are different weights are not identical:

Question: Do identical twins have identical brains:

No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_identical_ ... z24zPt6c4s

Lets just say that this source is not exactly the best (it's not) but can you find one even as unrealiable as this source that agrees with your claim?

What's that---You won't hmmm.... my point exactly

The fact that your using wiki .. to prove anything at all only weakens your side of the debate ..

Anyone any time anywhere .. can modify any thing in wiki ..

Lenwen wrote:I said "Every normal brain looks like every other brain of a normal human (minus size / weight)

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Mercdog wrote:

Lenwen wrote:Thee entire thread is a discussion on Teleport Lesser, I do apologize if anyone was confused about it being about Teleport Greater.

And according to what I'm looking at, Teleport Lesser has a success ratio of 80% +2% per level, and an Unsuccessful Roll means the object never arrives where it was meant to appear. But again, I've only got PF with me. I'll check RUE when I get home to see if there's a difference.

Lenwen wrote:Panomas
Stop goal post moving.
Were debating the shape of the brain not it's function or mental capabilities..

If you can not debate the shape and location of the human brain.. I understand and thank you for your time