You're talking to the brick wall? You started saying a bunch of numbers that made no sense about dotting dragoons. I proved you wrong and it mysteriously vanished from your argument without any acknowledgement.

24 people barreling on you is what a burst is. Do you not understand that? My advice was to scatter "which I said scholar could help do, and I said they may be able to help tankier jobs survive. Later in our argument I listed several jobs that could stop entire burst from happening in the first place.

My argument about astro was that its lb affected only the party like scholar, but to a much greater extent, and that it also affected enemies, also to a much greater extent than scholar. You know I'll throw in that it does far more healing and does far more relevant damage than scholar as well. I don't even care about holding this position because what I took issue with is that scholar doesn't help stop an enemy burst from happening. As you say, no job can survive it, so it's a far superior option to stop attacks from happening in the first place. I listed several jobs later in the argument that could do so.

I said the bind dark had was nice, but it's biggest asset is the vaccum effect. Once you're sucked in it doesn't matter if you get bound or not because you're going to be charmed, feared, or sucked by another dark shortly after. Seraph doesn't prevent any of these things from happening.

I don't see how conceding points, making concessions, and giving superior options is arguing in absolutes... This tirade you speak of was 2 paragraphs. The first being that scholar fully mitting might save the tankier jobs and that better advice would be to spread out and not get hit by the attack. The second was saying that your assumption about hitting dragoons was incorrect. You were the one who decided to write several paragraphs first. Is it annoying that I replied to it or something?