|
Clever bit of sophistry, FLite, but the Swarmsuit is 1 item, and its description says it is clothing.But is clothing the same thing as Clothing?
Not necessarily, and that's the crux of the issue.
I think that is the crux of the issue. And I do consider it unlikely that the writers thought of using the SoMG to create a Swarmsuit, but we can only speculate at the RAI, and anyway, it's hardly relevant. If we players think of things the writers didn't, then that is just good and creative playing, and the very soul of the game.
In a nonPFS game, it is the DM's call. Since the purpose of PFS is to sell PFS products, and that he who buys the cool books gets the cool benefits.
I think PFS DMs need compelling evidence to rule against the customer, and I don't think the argument against successfully bears the burden of proof.
I think you're failing to understand that the ones who don't optimize are also customers, and PFS has a balancing act between retaining both groups.
This is a fantasy roleplaying game. Creative playing is supposed to be what it is all about.
You missed a prefix. Creative roleplaying is what a fantasy roleplaying game is all about.
That being said, you are way over-dramatizing this. A DM ruling that an item can't be used in a certain way in an edge case is not "ruining the experience for everyone else" nor is it "directly devaluing the Paizo name". That's an extraordinarily hyperbolic argument, and makes your position seem very weak when you resort to such extremes in statements.
DMs exist to deal with edge cases, where the rules are not 100% clear in either direction. Here they are not clear, regardless of your thoughts on the matter.
Barring further clarification from "up above", DM adjudication is what is available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?
As a PFS player I try to always assume the most conservative interpretation of grey areas and corner cases. I don't want any vital functions of my characters to end up being left to GM fiat.
And you know, PFS GMs are Paizo customers, too. They are under no obligation to rule in a player's favor. In fact, since Pathfinder is a permissive ruleset, the burden of proof is on the player in this case.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I am AWARE that not everyone agrees with me. I'm not sure about accepting it.
But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?
You know, out side of gaming, I am a consultant.
Quite often a customer comes to me and says I want to do X, where X is something the rules (often quite arbitrarily) do not allow.
When that happens, I look at them, and I say "I am sorry, the rules don't let me do that, can we find another solution?"
And pretty much all of my customers are fine with that, because they know that means I am going to follow the rules, and while that means I won't ignore the rules they don't like, it also means I won't ignore the ones they do, like not double billing them, or like holding their computers for ransom once I am done fixing them.
Just because you are a customer, does not mean the rules don't apply to you.
(And as mentioned earlier, PFS GMs are not employees, they are fellow customers.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you are a customer, does not mean the rules don't apply to you.
I wish more people understood this...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just because you are a customer, does not mean the rules don't apply to you.I wish more people understood this...
Or ideally everyone.
Well, I am AWARE that not everyone agrees with me. I'm not sure about accepting it.
But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?
You know, out side of gaming, I am a consultant.
Quite often a customer comes to me and says I want to do X, where X is something the rules (often quite arbitrarily) do not allow.
When that happens, I look at them, and I say "I am sorry, the rules don't let me do that, can we find another solution?"
And pretty much all of my customers are fine with that, because they know that means I am going to follow the rules, and while that means I won't ignore the rules they don't like, it also means I won't ignore the ones they do, like not double billing them, or like holding their computers for ransom once I am done fixing them.
Just because you are a customer, does not mean the rules don't apply to you.
(And as mentioned earlier, PFS GMs are not employees, they are fellow customers.)
Exactly! Rules like "Swarmsuit is a suit of clothing thus Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into it." Even if you don't like ruling that way in PFS you should, since rules be rules.
Actually, you are ignoring at least one part of the Sleeves text: set of clothing. Not shirt, not pants, not jacket, but a set of clothing.
The word "set" completely invalidates your argument. A junihitoe for example is a set of clothing. Made of many layers (probably more then the swarmsuit). Since the Swarmsuit is a set (keyword there) of clothes Sleeves can transform your clothes into it. This is very simple and the fact that you don't like it is not a valid argument.
I think you're failing to understand that the ones who don't optimize are also customers, and PFS has a balancing act between retaining both groups.
That is not the groups here. There's is two groups; 1. those who follow the rules namely that Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into a swarmsuit, and 2. those who don't follow the rules. None of this involves optimization. PFS should only cater to those who follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, maybe organized play isn't for you.
"cast a cloud over the imaginations", "live in fear"? This drama is now beyond me, I confess. The rule as to what constitutes clothing or not is not 100% clear, regardless of repeated statements to the contrary.
I can't add any more that Reward and FLite haven't already said better.
"cast a cloud over the imaginations", "live in fear"? This drama is now beyond me, I confess. The rule as to what constitutes clothing or not is not 100% clear, regardless of repeated statements to the contrary.
I can't add any more that Reward and FLite haven't already said better.
Does it say it's clothing? Then guess what... it's clothing. 2+2=4. This is really very silly. The mere fact that 2+2=4 is not clear to some people does not mean that it is not 100% clear. Otherwise more people would believe in the 100% clear global warming.
|
|
But are you really saying that PFS characters are not customers and should not be treated as customers?
I'm not saying that the rules do not apply to the player, but the rules do apply to the PFS DM, too.
No, actually you are. You said, PFS characters are customers, and therefore you should be treated like a customer. You didn't say anything about GMs.
(Actually, I am working very hard *not* to parse the idea of PFS characters being customers of Paizo, and just assuming you meant the players, cause otherwise this conversation gets all kinds of wierd.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS GMs may not be employees, but yes they are.
They wear shirts with Paizo's name on them.
We do? Where is mine? I want one. Of course, if I had it I would wear it when I play so I can have my reroll. (Actually, since those shirts are bought from Paizo, that would make us customers.)
They organize and run events to be participated in via the purchase of Paizo products.
No they mostly don't. I organize the events at the store we play at, and out of 20-30 tables a month, I am the GM for one. And I get no commission or anything for any product people buy at the store. (I have been giving out $5 gift certificates to GMs to encourage them to run, and someone was very surprised to find out that those come out of my pocket, not the stores. Again, customer, not employee) And the rest of those tables are GMed by whoever shows up to GM it.
They are the ones principally responsible for retail and quality control of the product, precisely by adjudicating rules at their table, since this is a product made out of rules.
Oh god I wish we were. I would send so many, many typos and gramatical errors back.
They are the only representatives of Paizo Publishing whose faces I have ever seen. They are the face of Paizo Publishing. So even if they are not technically employees, even unpaid employees, they are de facto employees nonetheless.
Nope. If you are on this board you have exposure to a lot of actual employees. GMs on the other hand, even PFS GMs, are players just like you. As indicated by the fact that you can be one simply by deciding to do it.
What you are arguing is that if your friend gives you a ride in his Maserati, he is a Maserati employee, especially if you have never been to a Maserati dealership. And that as a Maserati employee, who is dealing with you the customer, if you ask him to break the speed limit so you see what the car can really do, he has to do it. Okay, that is a little unfair. It is more like, you have a Maserati logo mug full of coffee, and he has a strict "no drinks in the car rule" but since you are a customer, and he is the only representative of Maserati you will ever meet face to face, he should bend his rules and let you bring your mug of coffee in his car.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're failing to understand that the ones who don't optimize are also customers, and PFS has a balancing act between retaining both groups.That is not the groups here. There's is two groups; 1. those who follow the rules namely that Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into a swarmsuit, and 2. those who don't follow the rules. None of this involves optimization. PFS should only cater to those who follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, maybe organized play isn't for you.
Actually, the two groups both follow the rules, they just both have a reasonable difference of opinion over what the rules are. Trying to demonize one group does not aid your argument, and is just childish.
(Actually, as nefreet pointed out, there are 4 groups, but ultimately, 3 of those groups have the same outcome on this specific issue.)
This is a result of Paizos annoying habit of using the same term as both a descriptive term and as a game mechanic, and then applying the descriptive term to things that are not clearly covered by the game mechanic.
|
|
I think you're failing to understand that the ones who don't optimize are also customers, and PFS has a balancing act between retaining both groups.That is not the groups here. There's is two groups; 1. those who follow the rules namely that Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into a swarmsuit, and 2. those who don't follow the rules. None of this involves optimization. PFS should only cater to those who follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, maybe organized play isn't for you.
As I pointed out earlier, there are actually 4 different groups.
You're clearly in one of them. And that's fine. Rule it that way at your table. But accept that a different GM may rule differently when you sit down to play at their table, and still be backed by "the rules".
EDIT: Wow, that was a 6 minute ninja. That'll teach me to make toast while I'm posting.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we getting off topic?
Forget about the Swarmsuit for a moment, and let me describe a scene...
"Hmm, it sure has gotten chilly out. I should have dressed warmer. Ah, well, good thing I have these magical sleeves! There we go, much better."
This is exactly what I imagined this item being able to do, the moment I saw it.
Now, I have people telling me it cannot even produce a warm coat, that actually keeps my PC warm?
Poppycock.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're failing to understand that the ones who don't optimize are also customers, and PFS has a balancing act between retaining both groups.That is not the groups here. There's is two groups; 1. those who follow the rules namely that Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your clothes into a swarmsuit, and 2. those who don't follow the rules. None of this involves optimization. PFS should only cater to those who follow the rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, maybe organized play isn't for you.Actually, the two groups both follow the rules, they just both have a reasonable difference of opinion over what the rules are. Trying to demonize one group does not aid your argument, and is just childish.
(Actually, as nefreet pointed out, there are 4 groups, but ultimately, 3 of those groups have the same outcome on this specific issue.)
This is a result of Paizos annoying habit of using the same term as both a descriptive term and as a game mechanic, and then applying the descriptive term to things that are not clearly covered by the game mechanic.
Clothing is Clothing. Swarmsuit says:
"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"
Sleeves of Many Garments does the following:
"The wearer of these sleeves can, when she slips them on, choose to transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing."
Since Swarmsuit is both a. clothing and b. non-magical, Sleeves of Many Garments can transform their current garments into a Swarmsuit. That is the rules. There is no other valid interpretation that conforms with the English language. If you do not follow this interpretation you are not following the rules. There is nothing wrong with not following unless you are in PFS. But the rules are the rules, so there really is only two groups, those who have read the rules and know that Sleeves of Many Garments can transform your garments into a Swarmsuit and people that don't like it, but have nothing in the rules to support their position. It's really that simple.
Personally I have no issue with the warm coat. Based on the description of the item, I don't think there is any grounds for saying that it cannot actually create winter clothing, which is under the Clothing entry of Ultimate Equipment. It's also not in any sense overpowered, because at most its saving you from carrying around Winter Clothing. Not an issue, because if it gets cold there's almost never a reason you wouldn't have the time to change into your winter clothing. This makes it only really good for weak characters who can't carry clothes with them.
Swarm Suit, again this is in my view, is a different case for two reasons. One, it isn't under the Clothing Entry, so it's applicability is debatable. Two, it is a balance issue. Almost no one would consider carrying around an actual Swarm Suit, because if you need it, you pretty much need it instantaneously, and you're not going to have time to change into it. So, in stark contrast to the Winter Clothing example, being able to instantly don it is actually incredibly powerful.
"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"
Fine, Anzyr, if you want to play the semantics game, you can have the clothing, but not the veil-like netting, explicitly not part of the layers of clothing; the word that seems to be so important. No DR for you.
"These heavy and overlapping layers of clothing, coupled with a wide hat outfitted with a dense, veil-like netting around its brim"
Fine, Anzyr, if you want to play the semantics game, you can have the clothing, but not the veil-like netting, explicitly not part of the layers of clothing; the word that seems to be so important. No DR for you.
You're seriously splitting hairs. How are hats/veils not clothing?
Frankly the fact that this conversation has gone on as long as it has baffles me. It's a magic item that makes clothes. If the swarm suit and it's somehow non-clothing hat are a problem just make a multi-layered burrka (spelling?) that cinches around your boots and gloves. Same effect without the "hat issue."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My questioning actually has nothing to do with the description, and everything to do with the fact that the Swarm Suit isn't under the Clothing section, which is what I believe the Sleeves are meant to refer to.
I was actually trying to make a point that semantic games are silly, but I guess I failed in that; apologies.
|
|
There is no other valid interpretation that conforms with the English language. If you do not follow this interpretation you are not following the rules.
Actually, a lot of the people feel there are two *other* valid interpretations. If they do not follow your interpretation, all they are doing is not following your interpretation.
One interpretation is that sets of clothing are those things listed as such in the "Clothing" section of the book, and that anything else clothing like is a suit of armor or traveling gear. Certainly, many suits of armor are made up of clothing. Are you saying that the sleeves can turn into those armors?
Another interpretation is that the item clearly says the effect is illusion (aura illusion, not aura transformation) therefore the effect is only an illusion and has no mechanical benefit. Given the description it is most likely a glamor or a figment.
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.
Compare this to the travelers any tool, which is transformation, and specifies that it grants bonuses.
My questioning actually has nothing to do with the description, and everything to do with the fact that the Swarm Suit isn't under the Clothing section, which is what I believe the Sleeves are meant to refer to.
I was actually trying to make a point that semantic games are silly, but I guess I failed in that; apologies.
My argument is not semantics. You are attempting to use semantics to bolster your (weak) argument. The fact that it still isn't a very good argument really only highlights how weak your argument is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no other valid interpretation that conforms with the English language. If you do not follow this interpretation you are not following the rules.Actually, a lot of the people feel there are two *other* valid interpretations. If they do not follow your interpretation, all they are doing is not following your interpretation.
One interpretation is that sets of clothing are those things listed as such in the "Clothing" section of the book, and that anything else clothing like is a suit of armor or traveling gear. Certainly, many suits of armor are made up of clothing. Are you saying that the sleeves can turn into those armors?
Another interpretation is that the item clearly says the effect is illusion (aura illusion, not aura transformation) therefore the effect is only an illusion and has no mechanical benefit. Given the description it is most likely a glamor or a figment.
Because figments and glamers are unreal, they cannot produce real effects the way that other types of illusions can. Figments and glamers cannot cause damage to objects or creatures, support weight, provide nutrition, or provide protection from the elements.Compare this to the travelers any tool, which is transformation, and specifies that it grants bonuses.
They can *feel* that way all they want. That's not what it says. It says clothing. It doesn't say Clothing under the Clothing section of X book. Just clothing. So any non-magical (oh look a balancing factor) works. Anything else is just feelings not valid English interpretations. If you can find me a suit of armor that describes itself as Clothing I would agree that it could turn your clothes into that.
Similar the fact that is that the garments transform your garments into the clothing. Not "make them look it" or "use illusion magic to make them appear to be", transform. Again some people may *feel* that's not what it does, but that to is not a valid English interpretation of what "transform her current garments into any other non-magical set of clothing." means. Because the only valid one is that it *gasp* actually transforms your clothes, into these other clothes. Clothes like a swarmsuit.
My questioning actually has nothing to do with the description, and everything to do with the fact that the Swarm Suit isn't under the Clothing section, which is what I believe the Sleeves are meant to refer to.
I was actually trying to make a point that semantic games are silly, but I guess I failed in that; apologies.
I still see this as a non-issue. Magical sleeves make clothing. Why does it have to be in the clothing section to qualify as clothing? I don't have it in front of me, but if memory serves underwear and socks aren't in the clothing section either. Are those not clothing because it's not in the right section or do socks and underwear simply not exist in Pathfinder? Everyone must be free balling. I bet talcum powder is very in demand.
It appears as though you simply don't want it to work and you're doing your best to justify it. If that's the case so be it. Just house rule your home games.
Frankly, I've never seen either a swarm suit or the sleeves used in game.
|
|
Are we getting off topic?
Forget about the Swarmsuit for a moment, and let me describe a scene...
"Hmm, it sure has gotten chilly out. I should have dressed warmer. Ah, well, good thing I have these magical sleeves! There we go, much better."
This is exactly what I imagined this item being able to do, the moment I saw it.
Now, I have people telling me it cannot even produce a warm coat, that actually keeps my PC warm?
Poppycock.
There are probably more people that would allow the Sleeves to transform into a Cold Weather Outfit than would allow them to transform into a Swarmsuit, since one is clearly defined as clothing, and the other not so much, so you're luckier in that regard.
I also don't think I've ever encountered anyone in person that rules the Sleeves to be illusory (only those in this thread), so another point in your favor.
And, you don't play much PFS, so I think you're generally safe.
Put me in the "Expect table variation" (or if PFS "request a society ruling from those forums not a general faq/errata") and "FAQ it" camps on this one.
The RAW can be read either way [Is it "clothing subsection" or "anything ever described as clothing anywhere"?], at least enough so that neither side can make a conclusive argument with it as-is. I wouldn't slight a GM for it either way. RAI could go either way in a ruling.
Hitting FAQ for just that reason. (also, Dot)
If it pleases you, I suppose. The argument is really remarkably simple. It's that the sleeves of many garments can change clothing into anything on the Clothing chart.
Just as a "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons", and not any melee weapon that might be described as being light, due to being made of mithral, or whatnot.
I recognize that you can view it in your manner as well, but there is no grounds for saying that limiting it to the Clothing chart, in the same way that a "light melee weapon" is limited to the "light melee weapon" chart, is absurd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it pleases you, I suppose. The argument is really remarkably simple. It's that the sleeves of many garments can change clothing into anything on the Clothing chart.
Just as a "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons", and not any melee weapon that might be described as being light, due to being made of mithral, or whatnot.
I recognize that you can view it in your manner as well, but there is no grounds for saying that limiting it to the Clothing chart, in the same way that a "light melee weapon" is limited to the "light melee weapon" chart, is absurd.
Except it doesn't say "anything on the Clothing chart" it says Clothing, which is again why there is only one valid interpretation. And if there was a weapon that was not on the light melee weapon chart, that nonetheless had in its description that it was a light melee weapon, then yes it would obviously be a light melee weapon.
Do feats that require a light melee weapon say "any weapon on the light melee weapon chart"?
If it pleases you, I suppose. The argument is really remarkably simple. It's that the sleeves of many garments can change clothing into anything on the Clothing chart.
Just as a "light melee weapon" are weapons under the chart "Light Melee Weapons", and not any melee weapon that might be described as being light, due to being made of mithral, or whatnot.
I recognize that you can view it in your manner as well, but there is no grounds for saying that limiting it to the Clothing chart, in the same way that a "light melee weapon" is limited to the "light melee weapon" chart, is absurd.
"light Melee Weapon" is a specific category. "Clothing" is not. If you were wearing a Burlap sack, a big oak leaf, or the skin of your fallen foes to cover your nakedness it's clothing.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr, you keep using the English language as a defense, but as I pointed out earlier (and linked again, for your reference) that doesn't always work. Pathfinder generally relies on "categories", whether they be bonus types, creature types, body slots, item types, etc.
At your table, you can feel free to rule that the Swarmsuit is clothing, based on its flavor text, and no player can argue with you.
But if you sit down at my table, and I tell you that the Swarmsuit is not a clothing item, you're going to have to accept that for the duration of the scenario.
This is one of those things that will come down to table variance, and neither of us is more "right" than the other.
light Melee Weapon" is a specific category. "Clothing" is not
Can you give me the basis, or source, for this statement?
light Melee Weapon" is a specific category. "Clothing" is notCan you give me the basis, or source, for this statement?
The fact that Light Melee weapons are called a category in the Players handbook and clothing is not.
Edit: Also, understanding the definition of "category."
In the Player's Handbook? Do you mean the Core Rulebook?
In the Player's Handbook? Do you mean the Core Rulebook?
Yes.
Anzyr, you keep using the English language as a defense, but as I pointed out earlier (and linked again, for your reference) that doesn't always work. Pathfinder generally relies on "categories", whether they be bonus types, creature types, body slots, item types, etc.
At your table, you can feel free to rule that the Swarmsuit is clothing, based on its flavor text, and no player can argue with you.
But if you sit down at my table, and I tell you that the Swarmsuit is not a clothing item, you're going to have to accept that for the duration of the scenario.
This is one of those things that will come down to table variance, and neither of us is more "right" than the other.
Saying Pathfinder relies on categories does nothing to my English language argument. Your side has 0 rules to back up your claim and has cited nothing unlike myself. Your side of the argument merely attempts to posit it's *feelings* as rules. Furthermore, I would rule that Swarmsuit is clothing based on its rules text, not its flavor text. And you are free to do so but your interpretation is wrong. And I would definitely send out an e-mail over it.
|
|
Saying Pathfinder relies on categories does nothing to my English language argument. Your side has 0 rules to back up your claim and has cited nothing unlike myself. Your side of the argument merely attempts to posit it's *feelings* as rules. Furthermore, I would rule that Swarmsuit is clothing based on its rules text, not its flavor text. And you are free to do so but your interpretation is wrong. And I would definitely send out an e-mail over it.Anzyr, you keep using the English language as a defense, but as I pointed out earlier (and linked again, for your reference) that doesn't always work. Pathfinder generally relies on "categories", whether they be bonus types, creature types, body slots, item types, etc.
At your table, you can feel free to rule that the Swarmsuit is clothing, based on its flavor text, and no player can argue with you.
But if you sit down at my table, and I tell you that the Swarmsuit is not a clothing item, you're going to have to accept that for the duration of the scenario.
This is one of those things that will come down to table variance, and neither of us is more "right" than the other.
I don't feel that personal attacks are warranted. This is a game, and table variance happens. Rules can legitimately be interpreted in often several ways, until there is clarification. I doubt there will ever be clarification on such a corner case as this, so you're just going to have to live with the fact that neither of us knows who is right, and who is wrong.
And asserting that your position, one of four, is the only true interpretation, doesn't lend much to your cause.
Tiny Coffee Golem,
First, your implication that I don't understand the word "category" is unnecessary. There is no reason, either in the English language, or in pathfinder, that Clothing could not be regarded as a "category" of items.
Second, you are correct that the types of melee weapon are spelled out as categories, which lends some credence to your argument. However, in referencing the Core Rulebook just now, I noticed the same is not true for armor. Light, Medium and Heavy armor are not, as far as I can honestly tell, defined as categories explicitly. Rather, the existence of the armor chart, and the divisions therein, are taken to define armor, and the categories of armor, implicitly. That's all I'm doing for clothing.
Anyzr,
Do feats that require a light melee weapon say "any weapon on the light melee weapon chart"?
Further, I hope you do make as much noise as possible about this. At the very least it can only lead to official clarification that Swarm Suit is not a valid use, because the people who make these decisions do understand balance issues.
I do worry, though, that they might just ban the item completely, as they did for Bracers of Falcon's Aim. That's honestly not something I'd like to see.
My post contains 0 personal attacks. It merely indicates that your interpretation is at odds with the English language (it is) and that your side has produced 0 evidence in your favor, while I have I have cited the rules text both items and highlighted in detail why it works. There is no need for clarification, since the rules are very clear that Sleeves of Many Garments can produce a Swarmsuit. The mere fact that you do not agree with the correct interpretation does not mean that neither of knows who is right. I do and I am.
Personally, I would allow it. While there are legitimate reasons to not allow it, none of them are so overwhelming to be worth the hassle of arguing over it. Sometimes it's best to go with the more favorable ruling and move on to more important things, and this strikes me as being one of those times. Swarms are difficult to deal with even with a swarmsuit, so it's not like you are giving the player an instant win over them.
|
|
The mere fact that you do not agree with the correct interpretation does not mean that neither of knows who is right. I do and I am.
Well, I wasn't hoping to convince you of my interpretation. I was simply trying to make you aware that there are other interpretations besides your own, which I feel is a valid way to approach life in general. Sometimes you have to accept that other people think differently from you, and be open to the possibility that you might be wrong, rather than asserting your rightness.
I don't suppose we can agree to disagree?
Not all interpretation are equally valid. If I were take the interpretation that the Second Amendment gave me a right to bear arms (as in actual bear arms, that's what it says right)? My interpretation would differ from other interpretations, but not be valid. Merely because one can interpret something differently does not make their interpretation a valid one. I can't really agree to disagree anymore then I could agree to disagree that a person entitled to actual bear arms under the Second Amendment. That interpretation is wrong regardless of whether I agree to disagree on it or not. That being said I do agree that we disagree on this topic.