Well, I read the X-Men Vs. F4 thread, and I have come to the following unbiased conclusion:
Demi's right.
A majority of the Fantastic Four counters in that particular thread were wry comments and calls for name/feat recognition, etc, rather than actually taking into account all of the abilities on the table in the confrontation, and the implications there of.
Arguing that when Galactus or some other cosmic threat attacks Earth the Fantastic Four are called and not the X-Men is pointless here on the forum. Even moreso when you consider that it's the perogitive of the writer as to which characters, and what occurences, take place in a story, which is not the premise of the battle forums. Here powers are taken into account, not plot devices. There was a point in time where Stiltman was a major threat. Hell, even Squirrel Girl and Inspector Chimp got their days in the sun in comic books, one of which at the expense of Dr. Doom (before the implementation of the ultimate in plot device technology, the Doombot).
It even got so bad in that thread that it was suggested that if the Fantastic Four were disallowed their prep and tech, which allowed them a great number of their more high end victories, that the X-Men should be disallowed their powers, due to utilization of tech and preparation being the F4's modus opri, which was borderline assinine given that the F4 have powers, and the X Men have also utilized prep and tech, so powers vs. powers was fair play.
I would have sided with Creshock in that debate.
He presented the more direct and logical argument in the exchange without having to use cheeky power phrases to get cheap pops from the observers.
Being funny and/or abrasive does not equate to being right, even if it sways the audience in your corner.
Some people are able to see through it.
Note: This is not a personal attack of Alpha. Just my conclusion based on the evidence provided in the thread in question. Alpha and I are cool as far as I am concerned, though I know he doesn't care one way or the other.
Having a "Crush" on someone is a normal part of growing up and discovering what kind of person(male or female) you would like to be in a relationship with. ...
Surfing through the Internet Highway, one encounters many people who they find themselves attracted to..intellectually, spiritually, and physically.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I invite you to engage me in a debate when you see that I am logged on. I doubt you will or if you do you will resort to pathetic jibes at which you yourself laugh hoping to hint to others that it was an attempt to be funny.
We all know what it's like to get "butterflies" when someone we are attracted to walks into a room(or chat room/message board). How does one approach this special person?
Many choose the direct approach...while attempting to be sarcastic or aloof, and sometimes even insult the individual with whom they have a crush on. This is usually done to alleviate any insecurity one might have regarding any rejection encountered upon expressing a desire to get to know the person better.
But how do we know if it's just a simple crush? What if its an Infatuation? What if it's Love? Anyway, whatever it may be..it's definitely a 'Mind Boggling or Mind Blowing' experience.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Or you will, as it has been pointed out by other members, address me "in the third person, because you seek the approval of others rather than confront directly".
One encounters a unique individual in a chat room, messenger service, icq, message board..etc..and all of a sudden, one feels as if they know the person intimately. These "individuals" tend to be so open with you, and most feel the fun of flirting, but once the message flow stops – and they don't respond to you directly anymore..everything Freezes!
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You are a tired hack, who though you may have impressed a few teenagers with you gift for lame rhetoric. has yet to make any impact in the GDF. You drop a bomb and leave. Unfortunately your bombs are as impotent as I would gather your equipment is since you're always trying to prove what a "special man" you are.Like I said, instead of posting and running, calling me out when you know I am not around, why don't you try to engage me in an intellectual debate.
The Crush vanishes into thin air! All that is left are those sweet or bitter memories that remind one of the brief but failed interaction, be it sexual or emotional, as well as a longing to be with that special someone,
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Or you can hide and try and impress your little group of friends, which is probably much safer for you.
Having a crush seems to bridge the gap between infatuation and true love. It encompasses intense and passionate feelings...postive or negative; and excitement of hearing the Crush's voice on the telephone or staying up all night talking to them on the internet.
Eventually...the newness of the relationship wears off and the initial "spark" that started it soon fades. Anger/bitterness/and rejection now take the place of passion/romance.
If you think your emotions are chasing high, stop, think and analyze and then go and let your Crush know point-blank what he/she means to you. If you don’t receive that reciprocal relationship treat, just relax, stay cool – catch the hold of the moment, and let the heart beat into the sweet memories forever.
😆 😆 😆
<<Note: This is not a personal attack of Alpha. Just my conclusion based on the evidence provided in the thread in question. Alpha and I are cool as far as I am concerned, though I know he doesn't care one way or the other.>>
actually, i agree with your assessment of that debate. cresh did a nice job. i wouldn't go so far as to say he owned it, but i think he raised the better points that were not countered as effectively. pretty good debate though.
ps-not, of course, as good as our own little matching of words, in the pc v af thread! let that be a beacon on how to debate in this place!
😄
Can I just ask when assumptions, insinuations and word-bending become commendable?
Not only did Creshosk obviously do it in that other thread (If you read from page 6 you can clearly see me bringing up my points, him changing them and me having to tell him that it's not what I meant, despite him being the one twisting it) but he did it in here. Telling me I had an ulterior motive and using "deceit".
If you AGREE with his view on the thread, and disagree with mine, fine. I'm just curious as to why his methods of "Here's my point" "You mean this?" "No this." "You're lying" "No, that's what I mean." "You can lie all you want" are being praised.
No hate, no animosity, just curiousity. Because I've seen those people praising it, hate it, when it's been used against them. Leading me to a conclusion that at this point, seems to be accurate. Why it was viewed as an owning, coincidentally by Demigawd, is still beyond me. Oh yeah "Because it was". Psh.
-AC
Originally posted by illadelph12Yep agreed 100%, that should be set and match.
Well, I read the X-Men Vs. F4 thread, and I have come to the following unbiased conclusion:Demi's right.
A majority of the Fantastic Four counters in that particular thread were wry comments and calls for name/feat recognition, etc, rather than actually taking into account all of the abilities on the table in the confrontation, and the implications there of.
Arguing that when Galactus or some other cosmic threat attacks Earth the Fantastic Four are called and not the X-Men is pointless here on the forum. Even moreso when you consider that it's the perogitive of the writer as to which characters, and what occurences, take place in a story, which is not the premise of the battle forums. Here powers are taken into account, not plot devices. There was a point in time where Stiltman was a major threat. Hell, even Squirrel Girl and Inspector Chimp got their days in the sun in comic books, one of which at the expense of Dr. Doom (before the implementation of the ultimate in plot device technology, the Doombot).
It even got so bad in that thread that it was suggested that if the Fantastic Four were disallowed their prep and tech, which allowed them a great number of their more high end victories, that the X-Men should be disallowed their powers, due to utilization of tech and preparation being the F4's modus opri, which was borderline assinine given that the F4 have powers, and the X Men have also utilized prep and tech, so powers vs. powers was fair play.I would have sided with Creshock in that debate.
He presented the more direct and logical argument in the exchange without having to use cheeky power phrases to get cheap pops from the observers.
Being funny and/or abrasive does not equate to being right, even if it sways the audience in your corner.
Some people are able to see through it.
Note: This is not a personal attack of Alpha. Just my conclusion based on the evidence provided in the thread in question. Alpha and I are cool as far as I am concerned, though I know he doesn't care one way or the other.
I didn't even know this was still up.
If someone could answer my question please.
I'm not trying to make you agree that the F4 would win, you have a right to agree with whatever view you want. I'm just curious as to why Creshosk's obvious presumptuous, twisting style is being praised and even worse, missed.
Is that what's viewed as a good way to debate here nowadays? Genuine question. If the answer is "Yes, it is", then cool. I'm just trying to grasp the collective mentality that views his style as "logical". Despite me having to continually tell him what I meant after he was twisting it.
-AC
hey, alpha, can you find the thread and quote something specific? towards the end of the debate, things really deteriorated. i tried focusing on the first few pages. by the end you both clearly disliked each other so there was little productive that came from the last few pages.
the animostity was also clear on this thread. i'd love to know where you frist noticed this 'twisting' style of his.
oh, and cresh and i have had at each other as well. i've never noticed that style to his debating, even though we have disagreed in the past.
Check all of page 6 onward. I continually explain my points and I continually have to tell him "No, that's you making assumptions" or "No that's not what I meant." because he was twisting my words.
The thread deteriorated, exactly. Everyone else got my points, so did Cresh I dare say. So his need to take the approach of interpreting my posts wrongly is confusing.
As an aside, quickly: Why is the fact that observers found me funny and not Creshosk, being used against me? If people thought he was stupid and said so, don't you think it's because he might have been being stupid? I didn't ask the observers to chime in. Nor did I need them. Demigawd is quite often an observer who has a sly pop, so is Long pig and formerly Swanky Tuna.
-AC
Its his way of avoiding a truth, Instead of admitting that there right.. they argue the circumstances of how they are right.... in a hope of showing that the circumstances are wrong...
Its a minor loop hole.. If you leave yourself open then expect the attack!
Example...
Cyke can blast wolverine away....
Twisted
Are you saying cykes always going to hit wolverine??? lOLS Cykes fanboys!
Correct version...
If cyke blasts wolverine it will send him flying
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI've traded words with creshosk more than ANY other member of the forum, so I know how frustrating it can be when he doesn't answer a question directly, but he leaves it to your own resources to answer it using inductive reasoning.
If someone could answer my question please.I'm not trying to make you agree that the F4 would win, you have a right to agree with whatever view you want. I'm just curious as to why Creshosk's obvious presumptuous, twisting style is being praised and even worse, missed.
Is that what's viewed as a good way to debate here nowadays? Genuine question. If the answer is "Yes, it is", then cool. I'm just trying to grasp the collective mentality that views his style as "logical". Despite me having to continually tell him what I meant after he was twisting it.
-AC
For instance I shouldn't have to explain to you that 2+x=4, you should be able to induce that after breaking it down. That is his method, labled after Socrates himself.
So instead of telling you right out that prep isn't allowed in a match he will say, "so prep is allowed when YOU want it to?" , hoping you will coin in to his method.
Originally posted by leonidas
hey, alpha, can you find the thread and quote something specific? towards the end of the debate, things really deteriorated. i tried focusing on the first few pages. by the end you both clearly disliked each other so there was little productive that came from the last few pages.the animostity was also clear on this thread. i'd love to know where you frist noticed this 'twisting' style of his.
oh, and cresh and i have had at each other as well. i've never noticed that style to his debating, even though we have disagreed in the past.
Agreed. I haven't noticed any twisting on Cresh's part.
Exactly, and it's blatantly obvious that he does it. So I am unaware as to why people are overlooking it. Especially since he arrived in THIS thread and did it again.
People are either blind or overlooking it because they want to. The third and more disturbing option is that they view his style as a good style.
Originally posted by demigawd
Agreed. I haven't noticed any twisting on Cresh's part.
I respect the fact that we've never got along, but if you read the interaction between Cresh and I in this thread and the other one and deny any twisting on his part, you're just a biased liar. Fact. Because it's absolutely plain for any eyes to see.
"You're a liar, you have a hidden motive." "No I don't, seriously." "Lie all you want." "I know when I'm not lying." "And I know that you are."
Nah, nothing wrong there.
-AC