Your Opinion on the Current State of Job Identity/Balance in 6.4?

[Deo14]

Not really, it's pretty commonly used. But it's whatever. At this point you're just trying to wage a feud for god only knows what reason, derailing any thread you can to get your way. If you want to act like this, that's up to you, but I'm not going to help you.
.
As I told you, I'm not interested in helping you derail threads with your personal vendetta against me. You'll have to find someone else. I'll spell this out exactly once for you:

Derailing by focusing on the main part of argument, of course. Check that thread and re-read it.

Ngl, though, that is a pretty badass picture. Maybe next time I'll wear the Dwarven helmet. Could be pretty cool.
Thank you for the picture, btw. I love it.

Thanks, I wanted to farm some Golbez yesterday, but ended up making that masterpiece instead.

You can engage in this feud if you want, but I'm going to try and stay above it. If I respond, it will continue to be in HBs to not detract from ACTUAL discussions going on, and it may be me just posting the same thing over and over. You can either decide to act like a mature person, or you can keep doing...whatever this is, but it's beneath the rest of us.

Happy to hear that, if only I could be as mature as you! But you can go ahead and continue your discussions with your mouth moving and your ears plugged as always.

Slidecasting is:
...

Now you put in the main part of your comment, finally! No more omitting context, what an upgrade!

But yeah, my point still stands, you keep at this point quadruple downing on your "When the cast time of an action is less than the GCD", which was majority of the slidecasting argument. Sure it's nitpick, it's just somewhat incorrect definition, so why won't you just admit that and move on? Too big ego to admit you were ever wrong? All you had to do was admit your mistake after first person called you out.

Do you get it now? You've been harassing me over you not being able to understand a person talking about a series of things. The fact I note spells with cast times have the window AND the BLM can do it even with spell casts equal to the GCD shows that your "B-b-but REN SAID that if you have a cast that isn't LESS THAN THE GCD you CANNOT SLIDECAST!!!" is a full on lie. Because, interestingly, that statement never appears in the post or the quote. Somewhere else in the thread I said something else, but the quote you want to hang your hat on has me no where saying "Slidecasting is ONLY spells that are less than the GCD".

Implying I harrass you for calling you out? You always respond back to me, and so do I. If you don't want me to ""harrass"" you, stop responding, and everyone will be happy they won't need to read our bullshits.

"B-b-but REN SAID that if you have a cast that isn't LESS THAN THE GCD you CANNOT SLIDECAST!!!"

Slidecasting is when the cast time of an action is less than the GCD

So are we supposed to cherry pick the right points from your comments? You had incorrect and conflicting info in them, you fucked up, deal with it.

What DOES appear in the post? Me saying ALL SPELLS with cast times have around 0.5 sec window to slidecast. Meaning I directly stated that spells with cast times longer than the GCD have slidecast windows.
.
Do you get it now? You've been harassing me and demanding I "admit I was wrong" all this time over your own inability to read and understand a post, and your fervent desire to "prove me wrong" over just asking me "Did you mean THIS or THIS?"
.
"You can still slidecast with spells that have cast time longer than recast" IS LITERALLY WHAT I SAID WHEN I SAID ALL SPELLS AS THAT INCLUDES SPELLS WITH CAST TIMES LONGER THAN THE GCD.

Yes, you said 2 conflicting things, so of course it would be nice to clarify what you meant, but instead you're doubling down and acted like both are correct. It's really dumb nitpick of definition, I agree with that, but none of that would escalate like it did if you just corrected yourself, but instead you went on yet another rant and called everyone names.

And the reason I didn't put in the first part is because it was already in the part he quoted, so it seemed redundant.

Of course. Obviously. Surely. Main part of the argument is very redundant, right?

Now, you can keep up your feud or not, I just don't care, but I'm not going to bother trying to correct you more or engage in your petty tit-for-tat indulgence ranting.
.
[few paragraphs higher:]
You can engage in this feud if you want, but I'm going to try and stay above it. If I respond, it will continue [rest omitted]

At start of this very message you said you will keep engaging with me, but now you won't ?! What the fuck is wrong with you and your conflicting info? Did you mean THIS or THIS? This is the problem, are you gonna double down on this too and engage me but claim you don't or what? Are you going to make another rant where you will call everyone names just because of this? Have you not learned anything?