Worba wrote:pentupanger wrote:I'll apologize if the OP was just curious if there were any beasts that "looked" like <insert demon/undead mob here>, so he could tame them and I think I remember him saying as much... but for someone else to come in and say, "well so-and-so is clearly a demon/undead but we can tame them" isn't the right way to tell another hunter what can be tamed and what can't be tamed.
First of all I'm not the OP.
Second, I'M NOT THE PERSON WHO SAID XYZ CAN'T BE TAMED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BEAST. If you read my post (from 3 weeks ago) I was
responding to that person in the same fashion as your last sentence above.
The reason it is silly to tell someone "we don't tame undead" is because of the very simple and self-evident fact that Blizzard can, does and will change classification at will, and so just because something looks demonic, ghostly, skeletal or whatever does not mean it won't nonetheless become tamable at some point down the road.
Don't accuse me of playing semantics, and don't attack me for someone else's post.
I wasn't apologizing to you anyway right then... I was apologizing to the OP.
I don't go around hunting down everyone's previous posts from other threads to make sure at some point in time they didn't say the same thing as I did.
I "attacked" (as you put it) the post that you were quoting someone else replying to them. You were answering their questions but in a way that I took a stance against. From what I remember (I am not going to go up and read exactly what was said, and I am fighting the flu right now so I am not totally right in the head right now), you said something about how we can tame certain creatures that were clearly not beasts...
I came back saying they were beasts, because we could tame them and we can only tame "beasts" per Blizzard's standard.
Let me give an example on how I see this whole thread:
Whoever: The red demon wolf can be tamed but you can tell just by looking at it that it is a demon.
Me: No, if it was a demon we couldn't tame it. It is a beast.
Whoever: No, it is clearly a demon labeled as a beast and that is why we can tame it.
Me: It is still a beast!
Now, I don't really see how this got blown out of proportion and how everyone thinks I am the one doing the "raging". Trust me, I am not even close to being angry, and I am seriously not trolling.
I'll be the first one to apologize to everyone who has said anything on this thread, especially if I just misread something and then started a whole slew of backlash from my comments on whatever I misread.
It has came to a point though that I really don't even remember what the whole deal was anyway... when I first read the OP I thought he was asking if certain creatures could be tamed and when it was pointed out that the creatures were undead. Then someone else stated that we have the creatures out there that look like undead/demon/elementals and we can tame them.... this is when I started in saying we can tame most things that are labeled as beasts even if they didn't look like "beasts". Semantics came into play when someone mentioned that although something was labeled as a beast... if it looked undead then it was undead.... even though it was labeled as a beast. (there were other instances of semantics, but I think you get what I am talking about.)
That's how I remember the thread. If I misread something or even took something out of context then let me apologize to whoever needs it.
Furthermore, I'll apologize to whoever else that reads the thread, because I really did not mean to be taken so seriously over something like "a beast is a beast is a beast" type of thing.
I actually think that most of this thread's "hot spots" were just miscommunications between a few people who knew what they were saying but just wasn't clicking with each other.
)