That was kind of my point... there are lots of threads on this site where two or more people get all pissed at each other because they're actually talking about different things. Both right about what they're actually talking about, and both wrong for not bothering to talk about the same thing as each other.
Copping an attitude of "well it's not what I'm talking about, therefore you're wrong" is pretty much wrong too (it's a vacuous comeback, after all, with a blatant lack of logical progression from the "if" to the "then"). Better attitude is for each of them to talk about both things. Or alternatively to focus on one thing, with one person going either "I agree with you, but that's not what I wanted to talk about", or "I'll grant your point because I don't know enough about the subject to argue it", or "I'd like to discuss that at some other time or in some other topic, but I'd prefer to discuss *this*, here".
Apples vs. oranges shouting matches rarely end up with a result other than both parties pissed off that the other party is quite obviously not paying attention to their points. Seeing as both parties aren't paying attention to the other's points, for the fairly straightforward reason that they're talking about different things in the first place.
And yes, the OP did say "both", but I think it's a bit nitpicky to expect every post to address both, since someone might not have any particular opinion (or knowledge or experience) on one side but want to say something on the other side. A more reasonable reading (and a more reasonable flow of subsequent discussion) would just have both present *in the topic* and allow people to join either or both discussions in whatever post they make. If they want to respond to the exp part, they can; if they want to respond to the endgame part, they can; if they want to respond to both, they can.
Let's face it, SE certainly didn't clarify that they had plans to make a new "exp *and* endgame" tank, just a new tank without situational specifics. So it's a fallacy in the first place to discuss only possibilities of jobs and changes that would allow tanking in both situations. One would think that the lot of y'all would know SE's shortcomings in their PR announcements well enough by now, not to assume something they didn't say. (Let alone generally taking what they *did* say with some grains of salt.)
I see no harm, aside from confusion for those who aren't paying attention, in discussing the possibility of jobs that might make good exp tanks (maybe good, maybe poor endgame tanks) alongside the possibility of jobs that might make good endgame tanks (maybe good, maybe poor exp tanks).
Might be difficult to keep from getting wires crossed (so separate topics *would* be preferable, but aren't necessary unless people start getting confused and responding on one subject to a post on the other subject). So yes, I think that ideally it should have been split out into two topics - one for exp tanks, one for endgame tanks.
However, I don't think that justifies griping at anyone for talking about only exp viability or only endgame viability merely because the OP says "both" when a bit more sagacity would have led them to say "either" to avoid problems. I mean, c'mon, there are *way* better reasons to shoot down an argument than both vs. either.
