Eradrain wrote...
FunkySwerve wrote...
Bingo. I'm surprised someone so willing to toss around the word 'amatuer' didn't understand that.
I did understand that, actually. As I made clear in my second post, it was the lack of any mention of a custom .tlk that threw me off.
THAT is precisely what I'm referring to when I said you didn't understsand 'that' - the use of a custom .tlk in addition to the hak, which kal had to explain to you - look up, if you're forgetting.
You said that you made custom classes and spells possible with a cep_custom hak. You did not mention the requisite .tlk anywhere in your original post to me, only in your subsequent follow-up.
I made no mention of it because haks, not tlks, are the subject of this thread. I credited you with the knowledge that a tlk was required, and avoided explaining as much, because I've seen how sensitive you can be when you feel someone is 'talking down' to you because they're explaining things you already know - even when it's for the benefit of others reading the thread, and not just you.
Curiously, since you say you DID know that, you chose to assume I wasn't using a tlk, and thus wasn't doing things 'properly', and was somehow 'misleading' people:
Eradrain wrote...
I don't know what the CEP Custom hak is because I've avoided the CEP for a long time now, but I do know that though you can change spells and feats around with 2das, you can't properly implement brand new, custom spells, feats and classes without a custom talk table. Saying anything different is just misleading, because it's a work-around, and not the genuine article.
Kal, by contrast, absent whatever motive lead you to make such an ungenerous assumption, correctly surmised that I was in fact using a tlk.
In fact, you didn't even respond to my second post which elaborated my confusion, you elected to ignore it entirely.
Do you think perhaps that's a result of how you've reacted to my responses in the past (not to mention this response)?
'>
Thanks for insulting me in two threads, now, though. I appreciate it.
So if I explain too much, I'm insulting you, and if I explain too little, I'm insulting you. Yet it's somehow ok for you to call people 'amateurs' and accuse them of misleading people based on nothing but an erroneous assumption? I think I'll just get a moderator now...
Funky
Modifié par FunkySwerve, 29 décembre 2010 - 08:29 .