Quote Originally Posted by Kalmegil View Post
I'm still not sure why the fact that an answer doesn't tell us something other than what it tells us means it's not useful or actually insight. Sure, the answer could tell us more. But that doesn't mean it tells us nothing.

In this case, he gave a specific reason about why he went with "chomp chomp."
"Insight" means, basically, "an accurate and deep understanding." I didn't get a deep understanding of the creative process from the Giant telling me this information. I got an obvious and logical understanding - that he can't show everything and everything doesn't need to be shown for various reasons, respectively - but not a deep understanding. There's nothing under the surface here.

Now, can I read some things under the surface based on it? Sure, but that would be me applying my interpretations and insights (or you applying yours) rather than the Giant giving me his.

Actually, it says "That stuff a character said, but that wasn't depicted, really happened." I thought it actually happened when I read it, but the confusion between cleric and wizard command undead powers, and their abilities to command suicidal actions, has cropped up before.

I assumed he was simply house-ruling, though, so there was new information in this for me.
In which case the appropriate response is to do exactly what the Giant did - clarify the rules - rather than cite the Giant clarifying the rules. I think that discussion has been done in the comments threads before, and the consensus was, essentially, "just link the SRD."

And yet, he posted that because someone did believe the different thing happened. Mainly because it wasn't actually depicted in the comic.
I don't know if you noticed, but.. that poster does that kind of 'out there' theorizing like every week. There's a difference between genuine misunderstanding and just going out of the way to try and find stuff like this.