I gave never said any of that - nor have I changed my position.
Just because you can't dispute my logic nor even attempt to refute any of the things I've quoted does not mean you can put words into my mouth.
Your logic has been disputed and refuted. If you don't think it's been done well, that's one thing, but people are at least trying it. This seems ruder than Viatos's analogy comments by far. (Not going to report it though, it's well within my tolerance for vitriol.)
To recap one last time:
One last time (hopefully):
The Dresden Files RPG is an attempt to model the entire DV.
The rulebooks give a great summary of the DV.
This is true, but what does it have to do with anything?
The rules do provide everything you need to play in the DV, but then again I hear that GURPS does the same. And Evil Hat seems to think that Fiasco does as well.
Anyway, Richard, there three main things left over in your posts that bug me.
1. The calls to end the argument. If you want the argument to end, don't participate in it. Seriously. I'm still here because I'm fine with seeing this continue.
2. The nonsense about opinions. Hardly anyone here is giving opinions, most of this is beliefs. The difference between an opinion and a belief is, some beliefs are wrong. You clearly understand this, given your attempts to prove other people wrong. Treating a belief as an opinion will lead to nonsense.
3. The statement that everything in a rulebook is a rule. That's not just wrong, that's obviously wrong. Are the page numbers rules? Is "Shut up, Bob" a rule? Please, be more careful with the blanket statements.
PS: The biggest problem with narrative-mechanical conflation is probably the uncertainty that it introduces into discussions of variations. If I want to play a Nightside game with DFRPG, what do I have to change? If you can't tell a rule from setting info, that's very hard to answer.
PPS: SEC and SER are okay, but I think I'd prefer SAW for Setting As Written. I've never really felt the need for the extra level of explanation.