Originally posted by One Free Man
good, which means my perfect rebuttal to this shoddy, misshapen post is going to be invulnerable to rebuttal.
He'd come in here and smack you? You're the one who's constantly pointing out black and white that:
1. Ms.Marvel is only one year off in her statement that the AK-47 was in service in 1946. This makes her "more right than me" even though field testing by select units=/=the same thing as fighting in world war two.Here's why this is wrong. I will give you at least 3 reasons.
1. It's a very minor point that doesn't defeat one part of my argument. My point is that she is uneducated in weapons because she thought the AK47 was used in world war two and formulating an opinion that the AK47>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>m4a1 in every single way.2. Whether she said it was in service in 1946 or 72BC, she was wrong about the dates. And no matter what you say, there is no such thing as "more wrong" you are wrong or right when dealing with temporal situations.
3. She stated that the weapon was in use during ww2. ww2 ended in 1945. She said the weapon was used in 1946 to fight in ww2, which means:
history. One of the first things you are taught, ww2=1939-1945 (sorry Ms.Marvel, i wasn't going to get mean about this.)
a)she fails elementary, that's right [b]ELEMENTARY
b)She's wrong about the weapon. The ak-47 wasn't even released until 1947, and wasn't officially adopted until 1949.
Let's add this up.
If she was off by one year=1
If she was off on world war 2=1Sum=2. Not even remotely right. 2 years off. Even if my 1949 FACT is wrong, we are equally wrong. That's not counting how elementary it is that world war two ended in 1945.
Select units for field testing during a time at which russia was not at war.
hmm. Do I get a gold star from you for automatically winning the discussion because I was right about world war 2, like spot on, instead of a year off? I mean. That's gotta be worth something? How about the korean war? How come I don't get kudos for being right about the korean war? Do I get the "oh he wins, because he was right about the caliber and why the ak47 is called a "poison bullet" Why don't I get your marvelous "he was one year off, he was right" when i have been right about every point and am not even wrong on this one?How about all the times when I was right and she was wrong? Does this make her right? Please answer me, oh, objective and fair god of the douche bags.
🙄
YOU ARE AN IDIOT. USH isn't going to ban me for a LOGICAL and FACTUAL argument when you are playing referee on an argument you have no previous involvement in and are fervently insisting that she is "more right, even though she's still wrong(evenwhenshe'snotmoreright)" one one pointthus:
my entire argument is invalid.
You are the troll here. Your argument is based on the fact that one person, who you are apparently white knighting simply because she is a girl, is wrong on 2 counts, but is "more right than me" because she was "only one year off" in her statement that "the ak-47 was in service in 1946, therefor it was used in world war two." Therefor making it plausible that my whole argument is invalid. [/B]
Originally posted by One Free Man
good, which means my perfect rebuttal to this shoddy, misshapen post is going to be invulnerable to rebuttal.
He'd come in here and smack you? You're the one who's constantly pointing out black and white that:
1. Ms.Marvel is only one year off in her statement that the AK-47 was in service in 1946. This makes her "more right than me" even though field testing by select units=/=the same thing as fighting in world war two.Here's why this is wrong. I will give you at least 3 reasons.
1. It's a very minor point that doesn't defeat one part of my argument. My point is that she is uneducated in weapons because she thought the AK47 was used in world war two and formulating an opinion that the AK47>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>m4a1 in every single way.2. Whether she said it was in service in 1946 or 72BC, she was wrong about the dates. And no matter what you say, there is no such thing as "more wrong" you are wrong or right when dealing with temporal situations.
3. She stated that the weapon was in use during ww2. ww2 ended in 1945. She said the weapon was used in 1946 to fight in ww2, which means:
history. One of the first things you are taught, ww2=1939-1945 (sorry Ms.Marvel, i wasn't going to get mean about this.)
a)she fails elementary, that's right [b]ELEMENTARY
b)She's wrong about the weapon. The ak-47 wasn't even released until 1947, and wasn't officially adopted until 1949.
Let's add this up.
If she was off by one year=1
If she was off on world war 2=1Sum=2. Not even remotely right. 2 years off. Even if my 1949 FACT is wrong, we are equally wrong. That's not counting how elementary it is that world war two ended in 1945.
Select units for field testing during a time at which russia was not at war.
hmm. Do I get a gold star from you for automatically winning the discussion because I was right about world war 2, like spot on, instead of a year off? I mean. That's gotta be worth something? How about the korean war? How come I don't get kudos for being right about the korean war? Do I get the "oh he wins, because he was right about the caliber and why the ak47 is called a "poison bullet" Why don't I get your marvelous "he was one year off, he was right" when i have been right about every point and am not even wrong on this one?How about all the times when I was right and she was wrong? Does this make her right? Please answer me, oh, objective and fair god of the douche bags.
🙄
YOU ARE AN IDIOT. USH isn't going to ban me for a LOGICAL and FACTUAL argument when you are playing referee on an argument you have no previous involvement in and are fervently insisting that she is "more right, even though she's still wrong(evenwhenshe'snotmoreright)" one one pointthus:
my entire argument is invalid.
You are the troll here. Your argument is based on the fact that one person, who you are apparently white knighting simply because she is a girl, is wrong on 2 counts, but is "more right than me" because she was "only one year off" in her statement that "the ak-47 was in service in 1946, therefor it was used in world war two." Therefor making it plausible that my whole argument is invalid. [/B]
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. It was 1947. It was made official in 1949. You can pretend that "field tested" somehow makes you right, but it doesn't. They were used, in an official capacity, in 1947. Sure, it was a form of testing, but that doesn't change the fact of the year in which they were ofifficially used by he Red Army.Ms. Marvel said 1946. She was off by a year.
The end.
Originally posted by Fagboy
Looks like dadudemon and his pesky lil internet bravado gets owned.
How goes it, Lord Sorgo?
Originally posted by AnalCandy
PVS, too?
And, I wasn't owned. Not even close. He owned himself, back pedaled, and is making a huge fail job at word semantics.
Give up your pathetic wrongness, OFM. You're wasting lots of time just to reiterate yourself being wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemonDenials a biatch huh? Yeah he owned himself by posting facts and tooling you in the process when all you do is post a few sentences and assumed it meant anything without even having the competence to read his post, the only reason why you're actually thinking ms marvel is right and trying to argue that you're right is because you fantasize about her and masturbate vigorously behind your computer but don't want to admit it.And, I wasn't owned. Not even close. He owned himself, back pedaled, and is making a huge fail job at word semantics.
Better quit jacking off homey boy because :
Originally posted by AnalCandy
Denials a biatch huh? Yeah he owned himself by posting facts and tooling you in the process when all you do is post a few sentences and assumed it meant anything without even having the competence to read his post, the only reason why you're actually thinking ms marvel is right and trying to argue that you're right is because you fantasize about her and masturbate vigorously behind your computer but don't want to admit it.Better quit jacking off homey boy because :
Originally posted by dadudemon
[BYou're wrong. It was 1947. It was made official in 1949. You can pretend that "field tested" somehow makes you right, but it doesn't. They were used, in an official capacity, in 1947. Sure, it was a form of testing, but that doesn't change the fact of the year in which they were ofifficially used by he Red Army.Ms. Marvel said 1946. She was off by a year.
The end. [/B]
News flash: I've never believe Ms. Marvel was a woman. 😬
Originally posted by AnalCandy
No but i do know you've attempted to take pictures of your small weener and tried to PM it to ms marvel but chickened out becuz its too small.
Dang. I was hoping you'd say somthing more on topic, about proof. 🙁
Edit - Wait, I'm talking to a sock troll. I could get into trouble for feeding the trolls...including OneFreeMan. Maybe I should take Robtard's underhanded advice and stop being so douchy?
Originally posted by dadudemonI think the general consensus is that you have been owned.
How goes it, Lord Sorgo?PVS, too?
And, I wasn't owned. Not even close. He owned himself, back pedaled, and is making a huge fail job at word semantics.
Give up your pathetic wrongness, OFM. You're wasting lots of time just to reiterate yourself being wrong.
You've also run out of argument.
"I'm right, you're wrong, you just keep saying wrong things over and over and over again" Is not a good argument.
Especially when I've conceded the point that
Yes, it was in use by select units for field testing in 1947. This is part of the testing process. You want to take this as "in service," go ahead, but it officially started its "service record" in 1949. Any faults would have been fixed if found in the 1947-1949 period, and it would have been far from the "select units'" primary weapon, considering the experimental nature of it.
1947-1949 is probably the only time that the Russians weren't actively fighting anyone, as well(joke). This means it didn't see combat until the korean war.
Even if I am totally wrong, this does not disprove my point in any way, my point being that the weapon couldn't have been used in world war two. This makes this discussion trivial to the main point.
You can't be more wrong than someone else. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You're right, you're right. There's no "more wrong" or "Less wrong."
I've
1. Explained why the field testing=/=the start of the service record.
2. Explained How field testing=/=actively in combat.
3. Explained how if the AK-47 had shown faults during field testing, it could easily have been "fired" from the position.
So lets say the grand old USofA is at peace. I design a rifle that they have moderate faith in. So they issue it to some select units for field testing. This is to see if the man who has to depend on this to survive can find anything wrong with it. Not to use it in combat.
This is not "in service" because I haven't gotten payed for my work. The military is also not implementing it in combat on purpose. They are testing it so that I can improve it, or so that if they find a fatal flaw, they can discontinue any sort of plans to distribute it.
There would be NO AK47's IN ANY SORT OF COMBAT from 1947-1949!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO you are basically arguing semantics. Is she right-er (notice how they haven't made a word for that, because there is no such thing as right-er?) by being one year off from the first time a soldier carried it away from the dealer, or am I spot on right in the fact that it wasn't adopted as an acceptable firearm for combat until 1949?
The consensus is you're wrong.
Ms.Marvel hasn't come along white-knighting your ass. Probably cause she's smart and knows I know what I'm talking about.
The only man with any true military experience agrees with me.
The Peanut gallery agrees with me.
The only person who agrees with you is probably yourself. And I know how these things go. We're going to battle it out till the end of time.
So, now that I've siezed my victory, I will flee the scene so you can pointlessly and constantly rationalize that
"she's 1 year off that makes her more right"
Originally posted by One Free Man
I think the general consensus is that you have been owned.You've also run out of argument.
"I'm right, you're wrong, you just keep saying wrong things over and over and over again" Is not a good argument.
Especially when I've conceded the point that
Yes, it was in use by select units for field testing in 1947. This is part of the testing process. You want to take this as "in service," go ahead, but it officially started its "service record" in 1949. Any faults would have been fixed if found in the 1947-1949 period, and it would have been far from the "select units'" primary weapon, considering the experimental nature of it.
1947-1949 is probably the only time that the Russians weren't actively fighting anyone, as well(joke). This means it didn't see combat until the korean war.
Even if I am totally wrong, this does not disprove my point in any way, my point being that the weapon couldn't have been used in world war two. This makes this discussion trivial to the main point.
You can't be more wrong than someone else. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You're right, you're right. There's no "more wrong" or "Less wrong."
I've
1. Explained why the field testing=/=the start of the service record.
2. Explained How field testing=/=actively in combat.
3. Explained how if the AK-47 had shown faults during field testing, it could easily have been "fired" from the position.So lets say the grand old USofA is at peace. I design a rifle that they have moderate faith in. So they issue it to some select units for field testing. This is to see if the man who has to depend on this to survive can find anything wrong with it. Not to use it in combat.
This is not "in service" because I haven't gotten payed for my work. The military is also not implementing it in combat on purpose. They are testing it so that I can improve it, or so that if they find a fatal flaw, they can discontinue any sort of plans to distribute it.
There would be NO AK47's IN ANY SORT OF COMBAT from 1947-1949!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO you are basically arguing semantics. Is she right-er (notice how they haven't made a word for that, because there is no such thing as right-er?) by being one year off from the first time a soldier carried it away from the dealer, or am I spot on right in the fact that it wasn't adopted as an acceptable firearm for combat until 1949?
Originally posted by One Free Man
The consensus is you're wrong.Ms.Marvel hasn't come along white-knighting your ass. Probably cause she's smart and knows I know what I'm talking about.
The only man with any true military experience agrees with me.
The Peanut gallery agrees with me.
The only person who agrees with you is probably yourself. And I know how these things go. We're going to battle it out till the end of time.
So, now that I've siezed my victory, I will flee the scene so you can pointlessly and constantly rationalize that
"she's 1 year off that makes her more right"
Originally posted by dadudemon
You're wrong. It was 1947. It was made official in 1949. You can pretend that "field tested" somehow makes you right, but it doesn't. They were used, in an official capacity, in 1947. Sure, it was a form of testing, but that doesn't change the fact of the year in which they were ofifficially used by he Red Army.Ms. Marvel said 1946. She was off by a year.
The end.
Consensus means jack if you are inexorably wrong. And, trolls don't count. 😬
Also, continually hounding Ms. Marvel when it's obvious to only some, that she's really a he, but without an admission or "evidence", means jack. It could result in a warning or ban. 😬