Talk:Pocket/@comment-28700158-20160611154023/@comment-26484417-20160611215930

Tony: Xia Xia's reaction--and I believe Ran's also--is one of the reasons why I believe Pockets are vulnerable pieces of equipment. In other words, if the concept of getting your Pocket broken is unprecedented, no one would consider this as a go-to explanation. However, this seemingly only applies to the visible mode, because invisible Pockets consistently withstand much more than falling rubble.

Regardless, destructibility of a Pocket is only a secondary concern; the original concern was whether contracts are bound to the individual or to the Pocket. The destructibility of Pockets was mainly addressed for the sake of the argument that they are integral to benefit from the contracts. But if the contracts are bound to the individual instead, the destructibility becomes fairly irrelevant. After all, the worst case scenario of losing a Pocket would be a temporary inconvenience (e.g., impeded communication, losing money to buy a replacement, etc.).

Orelav: Reaction like this cannot improve your argument. When you have no more to offer, you can simply not reply instead of making it obvious by submitting an ad hominem.