best kmc'er v kmc'er match ups!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
This was many months ago, I no longer have the PM nor the link. If this leads you to believe I'm lying I really am not bothered. I think it was to SBO though.

Hmm, my point isn't moot though is it? Or do you not understand the meaning of the word apparant? It means visible, obvious etc. Like I said...or...like you said, don't put across personal opinions as facts.

Let's go back to the three or more times I've said it:

I'm not trying to find out why people believe I got owned. I'm trying to find out why people don't see any problem with Cresh's conduct despite THAT being apparant (note the correct usage). Do you get it now?

Let's do it again just incase. You think I got owned? I don't care, I'm not here to discover why anyone believes that. I'm here to discover why people believe Cresh's conduct was ok or why they're ignoring it altogether.

I'm not trying to convince you I don't care. Why are you telling me what I'm doing?

That seems to be the way here. People prove you wrong, you dodge their points, imply something and run with it.

Can you stop saying that I think you're biased because you disagree? I've said many times that I don't, in general. I think YOU PERSONALLY are biased, yes. But that's NOT, I repeat for you, NOT because you disagree.

"People are just interpreting Creshs actions in a differnt manner."

Yes, and I'm here to understand why.

If you still manage to misinterpret my being here after this, I question you.

-AC

People are telling you why they disagree and youre arguing with them. How can you do that? Its just personal opinion and its over something you cant really provide supporting evidence for. Just let it go. Of course you care about people thinking you got owned if youre going to so much trouble to find out why they'd do that and then arguing with them once they tell you. Thats ridiculous. 😂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
People are telling you why they disagree and youre arguing with them. How can you do that? Its just personal opinion and its over something you cant really provide supporting evidence for. Just let it go.

Let's both be honest here. Something in THIS forum could be obvious to magnificent degrees and SOMEONE would deny it, somehow. Be it from bias, feuding, dislike or something else. I can give you all the evidence, I've posted the link, I've explained it. Despite it all being that obvious, I can't make you agree and to be honest, I do think that a lot of you see it and aren't agreeing, to be fair. I can't prove THAT though, so your reasons for disagreeing will always be known to you.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Of course you care about people thinking you got owned if youre going to so much trouble to find out why they'd do that and then arguing with them once they tell you. Thats ridiculous. 😂

No, I don't care about people thinking I got owned. How many times am I going to have to say this to you? Seriously. I don't, I'm not trying to figure out why people think I got owned either.

I explained this all to you in my previous post here:

"I'm not trying to find out why people believe I got owned. I'm trying to find out why people don't see any problem with Cresh's conduct despite THAT being apparant (note the correct usage). Do you get it now?"

Pay attention to this^. This is why debates don't get solved, because idiots either can't read or interpret. Or both.

-AC

I'm too hung over for this shit, so my last reply today...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[B]If you and Illadelph happen to think that the X-Men would beat the F4, that doesn't make you biased. The fact that you have continually made a point to disagree with me on almost everything and agree with nearly anyone I'm debating, suggests bias and people see it.

Would you like to give some examples as to when I've agreed with "everyone" you're debating? The only time I've replied to anything you've ever wrote was when *I* debated you. And of course if *I'm* debating you, I'm going to agree with other people debating you. what the hell?

And the only times I've disagreed with you is when I think you're wrong. Is that a problem? If you were to say, "Tupac is a better rapper than Biggie", I'd agree with you. If you were to say, "Doom can beat Storm", I would not. It's that simple. Nothing sinister about it.

You're paranoid.

You again dodged my point. Cresh told ME what my points were, I told him he was wrong and explained my point, to which he again told me I was either a liar or tried changing my points...again. You're denying he did this, it's lame.

It's not lame. It's my belief. And others support it.

Not necessarily biased. Being stupid? Yes. Because it's all there in the thread.

So everybody who disagrees with you on this is either biased or stupid.

Got it!

Majority doesn't equal right. He DID change and twist my points. It's seriously scary that you deny he did it. Because you can LOOK (look) through my quotes and see me highlighting something he's said, saying "No, that's NOT my point" and have him again deny it, twist it, or call me a liar.

He did it in THIS thread. Called me a liar, said I use deceit. When I said I didn't, he again called me a liar and said I was. What do you make of this? <------Don't dodge.

I don't get it 😕

Now YOU'RE telling me what my point is? Jesus christ.

I am? I disagree with that too. But I'm clearly biased in this case. 😂

You're just sensitive.

I made CLEAR points. He told me what my point was and it wasn't what I said, and I was forced to explain it to him time and time again. Why are you missing this? On purpose or what? Seriously.

he's trying to clarify your point and lock you into what you said. So what? That's how people prevent you from weasling out of saying what you said. So what?

I'll never tell someone what their point is, purposefully change their words or quote them falsely.

That's basically the sum total of your debating strategy. Funny, that.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, not because it is unfavourable to Y it isn't.

It is, however, because it is favourable to X.

Quite plainly and simply defined.

Well, if I'm deciding a victor in a dispute between X and Y, I have to decide in favor of someone, don't I? Or do we just give "draws" to everybody so that nobody's feelings are hurt? What is this, the special olympics?

Originally posted by demigawd
Well, if I'm deciding a victor in a dispute between X and Y, I have to decide in favor of someone, don't I? Or do we just give "draws" to everybody so that nobody's feelings are hurt? What is this, the special olympics?

I often think it is the special olympics.

Yes, you do have to decide in favour of someone!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Let's both be honest here. Something in THIS forum could be obvious to magnificent degrees and SOMEONE would deny it, somehow. Be it from bias, feuding, dislike or something else. I can give you all the evidence, I've posted the link, I've explained it. Despite it all being that obvious, I can't make you agree and to be honest, I do think that a lot of you see it and aren't agreeing, to be fair. I can't prove THAT though, so your reasons for disagreeing will always be known to you.

No, I don't care about people thinking I got owned. How many times am I going to have to say this to you? Seriously. I don't, I'm not trying to figure out why people think I got owned either.

I explained this all to you in my previous post here:

"I'm not trying to find out why people believe I got owned. I'm trying to find out why people don't see any problem with Cresh's conduct despite THAT being apparant (note the correct usage). Do you get it now?"

-AC

People arent interpreting Cresh's actions like that. Ills laid it down for you. Thats why people dont hav a prob with his conduct. Hes not doing anything wrong. Does this really matter anyway? Come on AC surely you have a better way to spend your time than trying to discredit Creshs debating conduct and therefore your apparrent owning. Thats what this is all about AC the diversion is fooling noone.

As for my use of apparrent:

appearing as such but not necessarily so; "for all his apparent wealth he had no money to pay the rent"; "the committee investigated some apparent discrepancies"; "the ostensible truth of their theories"; "his seeming honesty"

It was just fine. 🙂

Ironically you are both misspelling it, despite both quoting dictionary.com.

Originally posted by demigawd
I'm too hung over for this shit, so my last reply today...

Would you like to give some examples as to when I've agreed with "everyone" you're debating? The only time I've replied to anything you've ever wrote was when *I* debated you. And of course if *I'm* debating you, I'm going to agree with other people debating you. what the hell?

And the only times I've disagreed with you is when I think you're wrong. Is that a problem? If you were to say, "Tupac is a better rapper than Biggie", I'd agree with you. If you were to say, "Doom can beat Storm", I would not. It's that simple. Nothing sinister about it.

You're paranoid.

It's not lame. It's my belief. And others support it.

So everybody who disagrees with you on this is either biased or stupid.

Got it!

I don't get it 😕

I am? I disagree with that too. But I'm clearly biased in this case. 😂

You're just sensitive.

he's trying to clarify your point and lock you into what you said. So what? That's how people prevent you from weasling out of saying what you said. So what?

That's basically the sum total of your debating strategy. Funny, that.

Good boy. Its all about Mr Shakur. 😉

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Ironically you are both misspelling it, despite both quoting dictionary.com.

Shut it!!! 😉

Originally posted by demigawd
Would you like to give some examples as to when I've agreed with "everyone" you're debating? The only time I've replied to anything you've ever wrote was when *I* debated you. And of course if *I'm* debating you, I'm going to agree with other people debating you. what the hell?

Here, for an obvious one. The Iceman thread, the Iron-Man thread where I debated with Bakerboy, the Sue Richards thread.

Originally posted by demigawd
And the only times I've disagreed with you is when I think you're wrong. Is that a problem? If you were to say, "Tupac is a better rapper than Biggie", I'd agree with you. If you were to say, "Doom can beat Storm", I would not. It's that simple. Nothing sinister about it.

You're paranoid.

I'm not paranoid. You just don't see there to be any reason for what I claimed, fair enough. Paranoid would mean I'm imagining it.

Originally posted by demigawd
It's not lame. It's my belief. And others support it.

Your belief is that despite him changing my points (as proven and also admitted by Illadelph) and twisting them, he didn't do any of that? Yes, it is lame.

Originally posted by demigawd
So everybody who disagrees with you on this is either biased or stupid.

With regards to claiming that Cresh DIDN'T altering my posts, to deny such OBVIOUS occurances, to me, is stupidity. I'm not saying they're stupid people, just that on this topic they have a stupid outlook.

Originally posted by demigawd
I don't get it 😕

Where he repeatedly said I had a hidden motive, to which I assured him I didn't and he continually used "You do" as his argument and back up? Despite me assuring him I didn't. What's your view on that?

Originally posted by demigawd
I am? I disagree with that too. But I'm clearly biased in this case. 😂

You're just sensitive.

You told me that the point Creshosk referred to, was my point and that I'm trying to weasel out of it. I'm telling you it wasn't. I had clear points that I tried to prove to him, he was changing them and using the CHANGED version to counter against.

Originally posted by demigawd
he's trying to clarify your point and lock you into what you said. So what? That's how people prevent you from weasling out of saying what you said. So what?

He's not trying to clarify my point is he? If I say something and he asks me "Do you mean this?" and I say "No." and he continues arguing against that which he misinterpreted me to mean, he's not clarifying anything. He asked me what I meant, many times. I showed him, it didn't matter a damn bit. Because he continued to misinterpret my posts.

How was I weaseling out if I asked him MANY times to go find proof of him telling me I said something? I was PURPOSEFULLY showing him my point. If anything I was trying to put my points out there further.

Originally posted by demigawd
That's basically the sum total of your debating strategy. Funny, that.

It's not. I've never told you what YOU meant. Only asked, or assumed WITH a question that you could always come back to clarify. I've never got an answer from you or anyone else and ignored it, ever.

Nor have I intentionally misquoted and tried to use it against you.

So we don't forget, I asked a question earlier in this post that I want answered:

Where he repeatedly said I had a hidden motive, to which I assured him I didn't and he continually used "You do" as his argument and back up? Despite me assuring him I didn't. What's your view on that?

-AC

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
People arent interpreting Cresh's actions like that. Ills laid it down for you. Thats why people dont hav a prob with his conduct. Hes not doing anything wrong. Does this really matter anyway? Come on AC surely you have a better way to spend your time than trying to discredit Creshs debating conduct and therefore your apparrent owning. Thats what this is all about AC the diversion is fooling noone.

Ill laid it out wrong, as I've proven. He suggested that Cresh was giving an easier version of what I said, despite it not being hard. This can't be true can it?! Why? Because it somehow ended up as...NOT MY POINT! *Gasp*. That PLUS the fact that if it was easier, it wouldn't have taken me pages to say to him "No, that's not it."

Also, stop calling it apparent. You said to stop calling things of personal viewpoint, fact. So don't. What you provided in your definition is just one application of the term, and actually proves my point.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ill laid it out wrong, as I've proven. He suggested that Cresh was giving an easier version of what I said, despite it not being hard. This can't be true can it?! Why? Because it somehow ended up as...NOT MY POINT! *Gasp*. That PLUS the fact that if it was easier, it wouldn't have taken me pages to say to him "No, that's not it."

Also, stop calling it apparent. You said to stop calling things of personal viewpoint, fact. So don't. What you provided in your definition is just one application of the term, and actually proves my point.

-AC

Just let it go AC. Does this all really matter. Youre attempting to discredit Creshs debating in an attempt to put a stop to the view that you got owned. Forget about it. Is it really that important?

Why say it appears to be the case but not necessarily so when i can sum it up as the word apparent? If you think thats getting too personal then i say youre getting too sensitive. It wasnt intended as so and by that definition i dont believe it is.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Just let it go AC. Does this all really matter. Youre attempting to discredit Creshs debating in an attempt to put a stop to the view that you got owned. Forget about it. Is it really that important?

I'm not doing it to stop the view that I got owned. What part of this aren't you understanding? That is a question I want answered. 5 posts on and you still don't get it. Why? Are you not reading my reasons? Are you reading them but ignoring them? Are you simple? What's the deal?

"I explained this all to you in my previous post here:

I'm not trying to find out why people believe I got owned. I'm trying to find out why people don't see any problem with Cresh's conduct despite THAT being apparant (note the correct usage). Do you get it now?

Pay attention to this^. This is why debates don't get solved, because idiots either can't read or interpret. Or both."

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Why say it appears to be the case but not necessarily so when i can sum it up as the word apparent? If you think thats getting too personal then i say youre getting too sensitive. It wasnt intended as so and by that definition i dont believe it is.

It's your opinion that my owning was obvious, not a fact.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not doing it to stop the view that I got owned. What part of this aren't you understanding? That is a question I want answered. 5 posts on and you still don't get it. Why? Are you not reading my reasons? Are you reading them but ignoring them? Are you simple? What's the deal?

"I explained this all to you in my previous post here:

I'm not trying to find out why people believe I got owned. I'm trying to find out why people don't see any problem with Cresh's conduct despite THAT being apparant (note the correct usage). Do you get it now?

And i told you because people honestly dont have a problem with how Cresh debated with you. Your interpretation of his conduct isnt necessarily the right one. You need to understand that. To believe otherwise is arrogant to say the least. When "apparant" becomes a word i'll allow you to instruct me in its correct application. Until then silence on the issue is advisable. With many different definitions of the word who are you to tell me about its correct usage when i applied it in a perfectly acceptable way? 🙂

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Pay attention to this^. This is why debates don't get solved, because idiots either can't read or interpret. Or both."

Now who's getting personal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's your opinion that my owning was obvious, not a fact.

-AC

I never said it was obvious, i said it appears to be the case but it wasnt necessarily so. Get it right. 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
And i told you because people honestly dont have a problem with how Cresh debated with you. Your interpretation of his conduct isnt necessarily the right one. You need to understand that. To believe otherwise is arrogant to say the least. When "apparant" becomes a word i'll allow you to instruct me in its correct application. Until then silence on the issue is advisable. With many different definitions of the word who are you to tell me about its correct usage when i applied it in a perfectly acceptable way? 🙂

Let's once again watch me try to explain to you, my problem with all this:

I don't care what people believe or perceive, though it might confuse me a little on this issue. What I am TRYING to discover (no thanks to people like you) is why people believe that. Are we clear now? It has nothing to do with me having a problem with people NOT having a problem, I just want to see WHY.

It's become about spelling when you too were misspelling it? Funny this.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Now who's getting personal.

You're obviously assuming it's about you. Though to be fair, it is applicable. I don't mean that as a personal attack, I just find it very disconcerting that I have to keep explaining why I'm here, despite it being clear.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
I never said it was obvious, i said it appears to be the case but it wasnt necessarily so. Get it right. 🙂

You said it, then provided a definition AFTER I called you up on it and used your quote against you. Though now you've explained what you meant and we can move on with it (note that ability).

-AC

i haven't checked the page you mentioned yet, ac, but it seems i'm either (a) blind (if i don't see the bias) or (b) biased (if i don't see the bias).

you're not leaving me many open-minded ways to view what is presented in that infamous thread . . .

If you go there, get whatever view you want, seriously. I'm not asking everyone to agree.

If you DON'T see what he did, I'm just asking why. Because he did it quite clearly and it's confusing me as to why people don't notice.

C-Master did, Victor noticed it, Illadelph did (despite him believing that Creshosk was putting it in layman's terms, which he wasn't). I'm curious as to why GalacticStorm and Demigawd don't see it. Coincidentally it is just those two.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Let's once again watch me try to explain to you, my problem with all this:

I don't care what people believe or perceive, though it might confuse me a little on this issue. What I am TRYING to discover (no thanks to people like you) is why people believe that. Are we clear now? It has nothing to do with me having a problem with people NOT having a problem, I just want to see WHY.

But what do you want to achieve by finding out why? When people are telling you why you're arguing with them. That is why people believe that you're doing it in the hope of discrediting his contributions and therefore putting a stop to the view that you got owned. Whether you admit to that being the reasoning or not thats how it appears. 😱

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's become about spelling when you too were misspelling it? Funny this.

The difference is i didnt change my spelling of it after being told of my previous error and then smugly try and instruct you on its correct usage. Funny? No. Damn near hilarious.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're obviously assuming it's about you. Though to be fair, it is applicable. I don't mean that as a personal attack, I just find it very disconcerting that I have to keep explaining why I'm here, despite it being clear.

You said it while quoting myself so of course im going to believe its me. If that wasnt your intention then it was a rather silly execution on your behalf wasnt it?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You said it, then provided a definition AFTER I called you up on it and used your quote against you. Though now you've explained what you meant and we can move on with it (note that ability).

-AC

I just assumed as a speaker of the Englis language i wouldnt have to spell out which interpretation of the word i was using. The fact that i told you i wasnt getting personally invested in this should have clued you up. 🙂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
But what do you want to achieve by finding out why? When people are telling you why you're arguing with them? Which is why people believe that you're doing it in the hope of discrediting his contributions and therefore putting a stop to the view that you got owned. Whether you admit to that being the reasoning or not thats how it appears. 😱

Ok, that's how it appears. That's not how it is. What do I want to achieve? Nothing at all. I'm just curious as to why. Nobody has told me why. Illdelph gave me his view of why, but it's not sitting well with me PURELY because it doesn't add up.

Ill said that Cresh was giving a more comprehendable interpretation. False. How do you simplify a very simple point and change the person's point to what they DIDN'T mean in the process? He changed my points because he wanted to, that's the only explanation. If you said something simple to me like "God's existence isn't provable nor able to be disproven." and I said to a bunch of kids "GS doesn't believe God exists because it's stupid." That wouldn't be me simplifying your point. It would be me taking the eventuality that made you look bad and running with it, despite it not being said. Which is exactly what Cresh did. In this thread and the other one.

I'm curious as to why people don't see a problem with it, curious. Nothing more. Hope this answers your question.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
The difference is i didnt change my spelling of it after being told of my previous error and then smugly try and instruct you on its correct usage. Funny? No. Damn near hilarious.

So? You still used it wrong first time around, which is what I referred to. That's the only point I ever made on the situation. Only an idiot notices incorrect spelling and refuses to alter it.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
You said it while quoting myself so of course im going to believe its me. If that wasnt your intention then it was a rather silly execution on your behalf wasnt it?

I do believe I said it after quoting me...and using it as an example of a situation that I believe is responsible for this forum being a cow pat for the most part. It was fine execution, I said what I meant. I can't be responsible for you interpreting it. You can lead a blind man to water but you can't make him drink it. You're also not responsible for him drinking poison water if the lake is contaminated should he DECIDE to drink it without asking. You chose to not ask what I meant, that's not my responsibility.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
I just assumed as a speaker of the Englis language i wouldnt have to spell out which interpretation of the word i was using. The fact that i told you i wasnt getting personally invested in this should have clued you up. 🙂

Well what am I? Psychic? I'm supposed to assume which definition you used when there are many applicable? Considering you were referring to me, I used the obvious definition, ironically.

I don't view you thinking I got owned (if that is what you think, I don't know) as personal, furthermore.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You can lead a blind man to water but you can't make him drink it. You're also not responsible for him drinking poison water if the lake is contaminated should he DECIDE to drink it without asking.

Bit cruel though.