Well, I for one bare no bias (except for against MIDER, of course, who tried to get me banned over a Lucifer Vs. Living Tribunal thread, so we do have actual beef).
From what I gathered from reading the Xmen Vs F4 thread, it wasn't so much Creshock twisting Alpha's words, as much as Alpha putting his points in a sarcastic and sometimes domineering tone which garnered the reader to interpret his point from their own vantage point, and then when Creshock countered and quoted, Alpha explained the "true" meaning of his comments, but these explanations were also ripe with even more sarcasm, and just didn't hit home anyway.
Everyone has their own style, but the key to debating isn't purely style, it's substance. That's why I know against some posters (GS, Demi, Alpha, Leo, Manjaro, CC, Jinzin, Whurly, etc.) I have to bring my A game because under normal circumstances they bring facts and present them well. It's a matter of practice for me. Why present a weak argument?
In this exchange Alpha, you were in usual form, but you didn't bring the substance. I've seen you throw the hammer down in Hulk and Doom threads many, many times, but you didn't bring an argument that carried a lot of weight in this particular thread.
Creshock, on the other hand, actually presented a valid argument, as well as efficiently countering the retorts you offered on the actual battle at hand, and he also deflated a lot of the points you made which didn't bare a lot of purpose in the premise of a battle forum debate (like reputation of a combatant versus abilities of said combatant).
He did counter and quote, but from what I read, he didn't twist. The manner in which the points were presented in order for him to interpret were, by style, not presented in a direct manner so he wouldn't have to deduce your true meaning.
Just my observation though. I'm only one board member. It's open to interpretation.