Depends on the recipe. Denny’s or IHOP?
Or Cracker Barrrel? I got a soft spot for Cracker Barrel,
I prefer homemade, but out of those two, IHOP.
Cracker barrel is for boomers. I’m 24. I’m good.
This is the way I make
ngl looks pretty good
Yes!
Instance complete, gonna head to bed now!
That’s quitter talk baby, we can to hit comment limit by tonight 
Libery Creek Vineyards says otherwise.
That’s the spirit! 
That’s a very good pun!
Thank you, thank you. Come on though babe, only 9 more hours to go till I go to sleep, you can do it
Got kids to feed. One needs his ear medicine tomorrow as well.
Worthless, all that matters is derailing these threads together you can’t leave me now.
Tomorrow is another day.
Sorry, thought it would be better if a Draenei said it.
In Vanilla you could clear raids in almost any spec and PvP was mostly a time commitment, not a competition. Raid comps barely mattered. Talent trees were less specialized. There weren’t overpowered buffs/debuffs, and what existed was available in every spec of that class.
Dungeons didn’t require a prot-spec’ed tank, and most healers had a decent amount of flexibility with their specs. As a healing druid in vanilla, typical raid specs included 5-0-46, 24-0-27, and 0-30-21, among others. As a priest there was the standard 21-30-0, but you could also go power infusion, some even went partial shadow to keep up shadoweaving if they didn’t have a dedicated shadowpriest. Shaman would often heal in a 30-0-21 spec because they didn’t lose much compared to full resto, spamming mostly downranked chainheal.
The 0-30-21 druid spec was a great PvP spec, good 5-man and off-tank spec, and solid healing spec. I even tanked every 5-man in my 24-0-27 moonglow spec.
While I generally prefer cheaper respecs, I never felt like respecs got in the way of people playing Vanilla. You may have wanted to respec, but you didn’t need to respec.
TBC is a completely different game where everything I said above is the opposite.
At the end you could. Much harder at the beginning. We’re in phase one, already blowing through the content and bored and you want to make it even less of a challenge and more convenient?
Must be convenient to go through life finding arbitrary labels to place on people, regardless of accuracy, so you can just “la la la la la” with your fingers in your ears.
The only one that matters is this one:
It is a luxury addition, no more, no less. 310% and 280% flying speed don’t need to be in the game, and if someone asked for a 400% mount at some ludicrous price tag, that’s enough to consider the change.
#somechanges just means Blizzard is open to changes. It isn’t a guarantee.
As for “utterly destroying the game” you goobers can’t even pass a preponderance standard, let alone shadow of a doubt… we just have to take it on blind faith that your concerns are real and based on some verifiable facts.
The fabled “nu uh” argument. Glad we got this summarized nicely that anti-Dual Spec is just children go “U CAN’T CONVINCE ME LALALALA”
Moving on.
EDIT:
Oh yeah… I forgot that you were the Warrior that kept editing your posts higher up in the thread to respond to things I said at the bottom while also editing lines I had directly quoted to make it sound like I was responding to something entirely differently. You even admitted to it and then threw your hands up in disgust that I was “bullying” you for pointing out your revisionism.
No big loss.
I mean Riger is right, your only goal is to essentially bully people. Telling people everything they feel is incompletely invalid is usually a symptom of engaging in emotional abuse in relationships…not too different.
Your primary issue that makes you exhausting to interact with is that you basically engage in non-stop forms of begging the question, while using debate fallacy and “objective truth” as your vessel, making you a gigantic hypocrite for one, but an utter nuisance to actual discussion because it doesn’t serve to actually achieve understanding between the two sides. It’s a distraction.
It’s very rare (see:basically non-existent) outside of geometric proofs or highly scientific deductive reasoning that an argument from any human being is completely airtight. Arguments are essentially a point of view, and a discussions a clash of those POVs.
What you do is basically repeating ad nauseam your own conclusion as your premise.
ex: “Your argument is wrong because you’re wrong”
ex2: “Your argument is wrong because it’s an argument/from you”
Any actual objective information you cite is usually in an effort to back the notion that a given person’s argument doesn’t deserve to exist in the first place.
This can also be the “argument to logic”, or simply, the “bad reasons” fallacy wherein you determine an entire conclusion to be false simply because you perceive a fallacy present (whether accurately or not).
Put it this way, it’s not really a convenient surprise that you seem to think every person who disagrees with your position on dual spec is committing hordes of fallacies or has a completely invalid reason for having their beliefs. If you want honest discussion, first you need to drop the act as if any part of a successful discussion needs to be rooted or completely linked to absolute, objective truth to valid, because in a vast majority of cases this is impossible anyway.
Here we can try a simple exercise:
You like/don’t mind dual spec and would like to see it implemented/don’t care if it gets implemented.
I do mind if dual spec were to be implemented and it would hurt my experience and my perception of the what TBCC’s purpose is.
Both view points here are represented by more than 1 single individual. So that first trigger response you’re feeling right now to come out and say “Your premise is built on a lie/fantasy/falsity, therefore wrong”…hold it in for just a second. Consider, friend, why the latter feels the way they do, what brought them to that point. How have our gaming experiences shaped us both in a way that we feel diametrically opposed on the concept of adding dual spec to TBCC?
Both are 100% valid viewpoints. There’s simple a disagreement in what we should do. The thing is, we both actually want the same thing. We both want TBCC to be the best it can be, we simply have different ideas for how to make it so, and we both judge the quality of the product through a different lens. Some judge it’s quality based on how many people are actively playing (these folks might be the type to be for dual spec, and even those who are against dual spec may judge game quality by popularity too). Others judge quality based on how well it’s achieving it’s perceived purpose, even if the population of the game is low compared to other games.
Both 100% valid, but in opposition due to what it means for 1 side to succeed: a highly desirable feature for one side, is a potentially disastrous and game-breaking feature, or at minimum, design contradicting feature to the other.
You will respond to this in one of two ways. You will accept the things I’ve said, even if you perceive some of it to be inaccurate to who you are and how you debate, simply as a gesture of wanting to honestly engage on the subject of whether dual spec should be added…or…and this is where I’d put my money…
…you’ll act like none of these concerns are justified to exist and therefore entirely void and blah blah blah. You’ll come up with a handful of ways in which every premise I presented is false and therefore I’m not justified in thinking it etc etc.
My faith is low, but I still believe we can make this work…
4 Likes
Hot damn you can’t help yourself can you?
No one is gaslighting you, they’re calling out your reasoning as faulty and flawed. If you consistently argue that 2+2=5, people will consistently tell you that you’re wrong. That’s not bullying.
None of this is ‘begging the question’ unless you consider basic rules of formal logic to be themselves a fallacy, which makes the very use of the word ‘fallacy’ entirely incomprehensible because you can’t have a ‘fallacy’ without basic rules of formal logic.
That people regularly argue poorly is not an excuse to do so, and you dramatically understate how often formal logic is employed in daily life. I couldn’t do my job without it. Just because a lot of people use emotive rhetoric, rather than logic, to be convincing doesn’t make it acceptable. Bad thinking is bad for you and anyone you inflict it upon.
Never once have I done this. You are wrong because your premises are flawed and do not lead to your conclusion. Just because you don’t like having your premises contradicted and thus your conclusion disregarded doesn’t mean I assumed you to be wrong and just tautologically concluded the same.
This is just victimhood whinging. You can have your opinions, but those opinions can be wrong. You’re entirely allowed to be irrational and unreasonable. No one can stop that. But no one has to accept your irrationality or unreasonableness. When you have solid opinions, people aren’t going to be too concerned one way or another. But just because you get to form opinions (whether flawed or otherwise), you aren’t immune to criticism.
I’m not sure why you believe yourself immune, but it is silly.
No, they aren’t.
My viewpoint would be invalid if I claimed I had support for adding dual spec in the game based on some hairbrained notion that it fulfills a need or necessarily aligns with goal or intention of Blizzard.
My viewpoint would not be invalid if I claimed dual spec should be added because it would be a fun luxury feature.
One of these relies upon false premises to prop up the desire for change, the other does not.
Every time you try to prop up your aesthetic desire to avoid Dual Spec with something like Blizzard’s intent or “harm the game” or other unsubstantiated claims, you invalidate your position.
You’re allowed to favor the color blue over red.
You’re an idiot if you favor the color blue over red because blue is morally superior.
That you continuously miss this distinction is both sad and hilarious.
Given your initial thread was overtly hostile, the fact you demand people play by your rules to be blessed by whatever you deem reasonable is just silly.
You can either address the argument directly, or you can continue to accuse me of being an abusive person without warrant.
Welp, just as I predicted.
They don’t call your type “incels” for nothing it seems 