G.Lantern, Thor vs Superman, Silver Surfer.

Why do you feel the need to dodge and throw up a wall of invincible ignorance at every ****ing opportunity?

Answer.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Accusation without proof. In fact, downright hypocrisy. You're the one dodging the point I made here. My definition of a fight is more accurate, you've even refused to pull out definitions because you know who will be in the right here.

The fight was over. When the board hit. No more fighting took place. Fight is done. Move on.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Accusation without proof. You're the one claiming a shutdown but offer zero proof to support your assumption. It's funny that all you really can do these days is to troll and throw around false accusations (and then not backing THOSE up with facts).

He was shutdown. All his attacks failed. Shutdown. Move on.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You're the one who claimed he was "shutdown" and that he "needed to resort to a blindside"

Apparently. He needed to blindside him so he could actually hit him as he was being shutdown.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
He's used to board to combat opponents near BRB's level in the past. Your refusal to accept that the board is actually a viable weapon to use against his opponents speaks of your ignorance of who the Surfer is.

I accept it as a stupid tactic in a KMC fight.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210

No, they're given the option to use all their powers before they can be classified as "shutdown".

Wrong. Think before you type. Based on what happened in the book, he was shutdown, Your derailment tactic of what he could have done or what could have happen is stupid and pointless.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You using words like "fight" and "shutdown" when you're attaching your OWN definitions on those words isn't really a viable way of winning debates.

Wrong. I use English definitions. English. Something you know nothing of, as it is your second language. To make things worse, your not smart to begin with...

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Actually, you're the one dodging and denying here. I've presented that the board is a viable strat and does not in any way detract from the Surfer's showings in this fight,

It's a stupid fanboy's dream that it would be effective to hop off your board and try to blindside your opponent in the middle of a KMC fight.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You heard, I'm calling you out. Prove that your use of "fight" and "shutdown" apply to this fight the way you're implying.

Google it. In English.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210

I will admit that I misconstrue some words and it's meanings.

Oh, and lie. Troll. Derail. Dodge.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I said:

Stating that I KNOW you're not trying to flatly state that it WAS cheap since I KNOW that you've already stated that it wasn't.

I don't know why trying to clarifying your own post to you is a sidestep to anything, but I guess you just randomly pick between "Denial", "dodge" and "derialment" now because you've really run out of valid points to use and have just stuck to all out trolling now. :-/

Again, why bring it up. Oh that's right because you were sidestepping and derailing about the meaning of words in a language you know nothing about.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
BRB propels himself with Stormbreaker but has been seen to throw his hammer at his opponents. Why you think it's ok for BRB to use his primary mode of transportation (other than his ship, w/c isn't part of this debate) as a weapon and "funny" for SS to do so shows bias.

Yes, even though they are two completely different characters, I still think Surfer should hop off his board in the middle of combat attempt a blindside attack and he can propel himself while his opponent laughs.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Are you saying that you can PROVE that BRB actually actively stopped his attack to talk to the Surfer in that scan? I'd love to see this.

Pretty much, child.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
He didn't block it in that scan.

Showings of board being unblocked by BRB = 1
Showings of BRB blocking the board = 0

....

He was blindsided.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Are you saying that energy blasts and rushing are all of the Surfer's powersets? Make your point with this statement and stop with all the dodging.

Did you see anything else in the fight?

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Nice Denial/Derailment. You can't disprove my point, I've went as far as use a RL example of why you don't use the first part of a fight to determine whether or not someone got "owned" in ANY fight. You can't disprove my points, you can't even prove yours.

What first part?

What point? Yes you babble about psychotic crap and derail and such, but points? No.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You in YOUR blind denial can argue against THAT until your hearts content.

Right, twenty pages later after my still standing original point, and it's my denial and derailing that got us here...

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Just because the Surfer got the advantage over BRB, doesn't end the fight at all.

Oh that's right that fight actually ended when Surfer failed to block Skuttlebutt's attack and got knocked off his board again. Thanks for reminding me.....

All in all, most of this has nothing to do with my original point. I'm not going to be responding to anymore of your derailments.

SS solos team 2 wins

Originally posted by weaponx510
SS solos team 2 wins

facepalm

Originally posted by Spire
The fight was over. When the board hit. No more fighting took place. Fight is done. Move on.

Cuz well the panels where the Surfer was punching BRB into a fetal position just ISN'T fighting, right? It must just be talking cuz other than punching, you can see the Surfer talking in that panel.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by Spire
He was shutdown. All his attacks failed. Shutdown. Move on.

No. His first 2 attacks were defended against. You don't go into a fight, dodge the first two punches and then claim "YAY! I shut him down!" even though you ended up picking your teeth up 20 seconds later.

Think about that please. Geez...

Originally posted by Spire
Apparently. He needed to blindside him so he could actually hit him as he was being shutdown.

He didn't NEED to do anything. He simply used a viable tactic that would end the fight quickly the minute he saw an opportunity (anyone would have done the same). The fact that you would imply (without proof) that he NEEDED TO speaks of bias.

Originally posted by Spire
I accept it as a stupid tactic in a KMC fight.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it invalid/unusable.

Originally posted by Spire
Wrong. Think before you type. Based on what happened in the book, he was shutdown, Your derailment tactic of what he could have done or what could have happen is stupid and pointless.

Wrong. You can't prove that he was. His first two attacks were defended against. He compensated. The fact that he was ABLE to compensate using options open to him then win speaks that he was NOT shutdown.

You can't prove he was shutdown and just going "he was shutdown" a million times isn't really going to change that fact.

Originally posted by Spire
Wrong. I use English definitions. English.

Funny. You speak of English definitions but refuse to bring them out to defend your points. Maybe there's something like a "Spire's Imaginary Dictionary and Thesaurus" that you keep in your head. Sadly, that is not a universally accepted piece of reference material.

Originally posted by Spire
Something you know nothing of, as it is your second language. To make things worse, your not smart to begin with...

"you're"

Again, I really hope English isn't your first language. I feel sorry for you.

Luoya nimu, uy. Buloka...!

Originally posted by Spire
It's a stupid fanboy's dream that it would be effective to hop off your board and try to blindside your opponent in the middle of a KMC fight.

Cuz, well, the Surfer's not been able to do that before, amirite?

Originally posted by Spire
Google it. In English.

I called you out to bring out the definitions of these words that defend your point. Why do you refuse to do so?

Originally posted by Spire
Oh, and lie. Troll. Derail. Dodge.

Which is all you've really done since you've started posting. You've disproved none of my points and have just been resorting to trolling.

Originally posted by Spire
Again, why bring it up. Oh that's right because you were sidestepping and derailing about the meaning of words in a language you know nothing about.

I bring it up because you were starting to imply something that may contradict your previous statement. In forum discussions, people are allowed to bring in these kinds of information.

Originally posted by Spire
Yes, even though they are two completely different characters, I still think Surfer should hop off his board in the middle of combat attempt a blindside attack and he can propel himself while his opponent laughs.

Again, cuz the Surfer's never been able to do that, amirite?

Originally posted by Spire
Pretty much, child.

Prove it then. All you have is a panel showing only his eyes. If you think that is admissible in this debate, then I'm going to just LOL at you the whole time.

Originally posted by Spire
....

He was blindsided.

Regardless of what you may be trying to imply, he's never been shown on-panel to be able to defend himself against that kind of attack (if you do, please show scans). Thus you can't use your ASSUMPTION that he can in a forum debate (nice dodge, btw).

Originally posted by Spire
Did you see anything else in the fight?

That's a stupid dodge-question.

Showings in one fight does NOT completely demonstrate ALL a character's powerset. That's why we have respect threads.

I asked you a question (stop dodging it):

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Are you saying that energy blasts and rushing are all of the Surfer's powersets? Make your point with this statement and stop with all the dodging.

Originally posted by Spire
What first part?

Sigh. The "first part" meaning the first few panels/portions of the fight (w/c are not a CLEAR indicators of how a fight goes).

Originally posted by Spire
What point? Yes you babble about psychotic crap and derail and such, but points? No.

Making stuff up again? Sigh.

Sigh. Let me re-iterate SOME of my points:
1) BRB was unable to cause visible damage to the Surfer.
2) Surfer easily caused BRB to bleed with each hit.
3) The board is an easy, VIABLE and reusable tactic that the Surfer can use in a forum fight.
4) BRB ended in a FETAL position.
5) It was never proven that any plot device/outside interference/PIS was used in this fight, making it a very valid fight.
6) A fight ends when violent action ceases and a clear winner can be determined based on the condition of both fighters.

Disprove any of these please.

Originally posted by Spire
Right, twenty pages later after my still standing original point, and it's my denial and derailing that got us here...

Only the stupidity of your original point still "stands". The only thing that's keeping this debate going is your denial, derailment and trolling.

Originally posted by Spire
Oh that's right that fight actually ended when Surfer failed to block Skuttlebutt's attack and got knocked off his board again. Thanks for reminding me.....

Nice try. Not only did BRB use outside interference to stun the Surfer, but he used it to RUN AWAY.

Originally posted by Spire
All in all, most of this has nothing to do with my original point. I'm not going to be responding to anymore of your derailments.

Nice dodge.

You made this statement:

Originally posted by Spire
Bill rendered stunned, unbalanced, disoriented, vulnerable, etc., by a blindside attack then hit = Not Fighting

I made this:

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Just because the Surfer got the advantage over BRB, doesn't end the fight at all.

And then you refuse to discuss my points because it has "nothing to do with your original point"??

Riiiight...

Lol. Another reply. Also, I notice in your desperation that you have basically copied my posts. Keep it up.

First thing, though.

Why do you feel the need to dodge and throw up a wall of invincible ignorance at every ****ing opportunity?

Answer.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Cuz well the panels where the Surfer was punching BRB into a fetal position just ISN'T fighting, right?

Yep.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
No. His first 2 attacks were [B]defended against. You don't go into a fight, dodge the first two punches and then claim "YAY! I shut him down!" even though you ended up picking your teeth up 20 seconds later.

Think about that please. Geez...[/b]

Denial for the loss. Bill blocked his blasts. Bill reacted to and/or dodged his rush. Bill countered Surfer's attempt to H2H or N/A as Bill was already H2Hing Surfer. Surfer failed to block those two hits.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
He didn't NEED to do anything. He simply used a viable tactic that would end the fight quickly the minute he saw an opportunity (anyone would have done the same). The fact that you would imply (without proof) that he NEEDED TO speaks of bias.

Take this one really, really slow troll, ok.

Surfer was shutdown. Apparently... Surfer then felt the need to use blindside.

Or rather, since this shit isn't real, the writer wanted to show Surfer was going to need to find another way to win as he was not going to accomplish this via a scrap with Bill. Hence the blindside.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You can't prove he was shutdown and just going "he was shutdown" a million times isn't really going to change that fact.

He was though. You just in denial. Move on.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Funny. You speak of English definitions but refuse to bring them out to defend your points. Maybe there's something like a "Spire's Imaginary Dictionary and Thesaurus" that you keep in your head. Sadly, that is not a universally accepted piece of reference material.

"you're"

Again, I really hope English isn't your first language. I feel sorry for you.

Luoya nimu, uy. Buloka...!

Ah, yes. A simple typo after having to read and respond to a psychotic person's derailments, who now needs to reply with two posts at a time.

Also, concession noted.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Cuz, well, the Surfer's not been able to do that before, amirite?

Lol so doing something in a comic means it automatically works with KMC rules in play? No it doesn't.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I called you out to bring out the definitions of these words that defend your point. Why do you refuse to do so?

For one, you're not intelligent. Also, I know you are not serious. I am sure you have already wiki or googled the terms and meanings. You just want to derail as much as possible.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Which is all you've really done since you've started posting. You've disproved none of my points and have just been resorting to trolling.

You don't have any points though. However, I have shitstomped all your dodges and derailments. Derailments and dodges you felt necessary to put forth as you couldn't handle my first post.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I bring it up because you were starting to imply something that may contradict your previous statement. In forum discussions, people are allowed to bring in these kinds of information.

Not what happened at all. You brought it up because you can not understand English and you were derailing and dodging. So let me point out your typical bullshit doings:

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I disagree on your frequent use of the word: "blindside" (implying to the possibility that it could have been a cheap trick tat allowed the Surfer to win), if you keep focusing on a guy's hands and didn't notice his kick (w/c was outside your current view), would that be a blindside?

Originally posted by Spire
Blindside is in the realm of cheapshots, ambushes, etc., however wasn't really one considering the context in which it happened.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Then maybe select a better word for it? Like feint. Even though you've made no direct mention that it was a cheapshot, the use of the word "blindside" implies it.

Originally posted by Spire
How about, no. Deal with it. Learn English.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
As for it being "cheap" or not, you've already stated in one of your previous posts that you did not consider that tactic "cheap" so I'll hold you to that statement (unless you wish to recant it).

Originally posted by Spire
Which is why you bringing this up is pointless. If you would just stop your distracting sidestepping crap...

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Prove it then. All you have is a panel showing only his eyes. If you think that is admissible in this debate, then I'm going to just LOL at you the whole time.

So then you saw the panel where he starts talking....

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Regardless of what you may be trying to imply, he's never been shown on-panel to be able to defend himself against that kind of attack (if you do, please show scans). Thus you can't use your ASSUMPTION that he can in a forum debate (nice dodge, btw).

Showings in one fight does NOT completely demonstrate ALL a character's powerset. That's why we have respect threads.

Did you see Surfer use anything else in the fight? Simple yes or no. Since we base things on what happened in a fight... Not hard to see how you are in denial.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Sigh. The "first part" meaning the first few panels/portions of the fight (w/c are not a CLEAR indicators of how a fight goes).

Again, what first part? The fight was very short and ended when the board hit, so...

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Sigh. Let me re-iterate SOME of my points:
1) BRB was unable to cause visible damage to the Surfer.
2) Surfer easily caused BRB to bleed with each hit.
3) The board is an easy, VIABLE and reusable tactic that the Surfer can use in a forum fight.
4) BRB ended in a FETAL position.
5) It was never proven that any plot device/outside interference/PIS was used in this fight, making it a very valid fight.
6) A fight ends when violent action ceases and a clear winner can be determined based on the condition of both fighters.

Lolz. Derailment off topic comments to satisfy your hurt for Surfer's poor showings. Even though they have nothing to do with my original point and serve no purpose, I'll address them again.

1. Because Surfer's bruises are easily visible. Does he bleed? Does he not bleed? Is it up to the writer? A lot of variables. Also I never argued stats. Ever. So moot point.
2. After hitting him with a blindside attack to the back of the head. Also The bleeding stopped in the next panel. Wow. Also isn't Surfer supposed to be powerful or something? Should an attack like that kill someone?
3. Lol. Also, that is truly and excellent point. Seriously.
4. Um, ok. What that has to do with anything....
5. Um, ok. Again.
6. Wrong.

You're a master thinker.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Nice try. Not only did BRB use outside interference to stun the Surfer, but he used it to RUN AWAY.

Missing the point. Once again, you prove your intelligence.

I'll give you a hint: It has something to do with your lol position on when fights end.

Originally posted by Spire
Lol. Another reply. Also, I notice in your desperation that you have basically copied my posts. Keep it up.

First thing, though.

Why do you feel the need to dodge and throw up a wall of invincible ignorance at every ****ing opportunity?

Answer.

I'm neither dodging nor throwing up a wall of w/e you're trying to imply. There is little relevance to this question. Honestly, grow up.

Is this your best debating style? To just stomp your feet and act like a complete juvenile going: "Youuu're duuumb! Nyahnyahnyahnyah!". Really, this only really worked in pre-school. Grow up.

Originally posted by Spire
Denial for the loss. Bill blocked his blasts. Bill reacted to and/or dodged his rush. Bill countered Surfer's attempt to H2H or N/A as Bill was already H2Hing Surfer. Surfer failed to block those two hits.

So what? The fight didn't end there. The Surfer suffered no damage, compensated and won the fight with ridiculous ease. The only person in denial here is the one who thinks BRB owned the Surfer in this fight.

Originally posted by Spire
Surfer was shutdown. Apparently... Surfer then felt the need to use blindside.

Stop making stuff up. There was NOTHING on panel that signified ANY sort of "need" that the Surfer felt throughout the whole fight. His first two attacks were defended against so he COMPENSATED with a different kind of attack. What is so hard to understand about that?? JEE-ZUS are you taking stupid pills or what?

Originally posted by Spire
Or rather, since this shit isn't real, the writer wanted to show Surfer was going to need to find another way to win as he was not going to accomplish this via a scrap with Bill. Hence the blindside.

The board attack was a achieved via a feint that allowed the Surfer to use his board in an angle Bill couldn't defend against. Also, so what if it struck him at the back of the head, he should know that the Surfer may possibly use his board offensively like this. His failure to defend against it shows that he is either a poor fighter or couldn't defend against its speed.

And exactly HOW does the board striking BRB at the back of the head somehow invalidate the segments of the fight that came after it?

Originally posted by Spire
He was though. You just in denial. Move on.

No he wasn't. You have no proof. Put up or shut up, buddy.

Originally posted by Spire
Ah, yes. A simple typo after having to read and respond to a psychotic person's derailments, who now needs to reply with two posts at a time.

The irony of this is that you became accusatory towards my proficiency with the English language. THEN accuse me of being stupid only to fall flat on your face with a very basic use of 2 very basic ENGLISH words. You're not all too bright, are you?

Your self-ownage makes me LOL.

Originally posted by Spire
Also, concession noted.

You've made no points to concede to, but I understand you just like to use this whenever you get owned and you just wanna run away and hide.

Originally posted by Spire
Lol so doing something in a comic means it automatically works with KMC rules in play? No it doesn't.

Are saying is that the board attack from the Surfer is NOT a usable tactic in a KMC VS forum fight?

Originally posted by Spire
For one, you're not intelligent. Also, I know you are not serious. I am sure you have already wiki or googled the terms and meanings. You just want to derail as much as possible.

Well, at least you've learned your "your"'s and "you're"'s.

Again, you've yet to prove what definitions of "shutdown" and "fight" support your arguments. Put up or shut up, buddy.

Originally posted by Spire
You don't have any points though. However, I have shitstomped all your dodges and derailments. Derailments and dodges you felt necessary to put forth as you couldn't handle my first post.

Your first post wherein you exaggerate the first portions of the fight THEN try to invalidate the parts of the fight following the board attack by simply implying without proof that the board attack (for no apparent reason) ended the fight somehow? Wow. That's a GREAT point that DIDN'T get shitstomped like 10000 times already (note the sarcasm?).

Originally posted by Spire
Not what happened at all. You brought it up because you can not understand English and you were derailing and dodging. So let me point out your typical bullshit doings:

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I disagree on your frequent use of the word: "blindside" (implying to the possibility that it could have been a cheap trick that allowed the Surfer to win), if you keep focusing on a guy's hands and didn't notice his kick (w/c was outside your current view), would that be a blindside?

Originally posted by Spire
Blindside is in the realm of cheapshots, ambushes, etc., however wasn't really one considering the context in which it happened.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Then maybe select a better word for it? Like feint. Even though you've made no direct mention that it was a cheapshot, the use of the word "blindside" implies it.

Originally posted by Spire
How about, no. Deal with it. Learn English.

However, I do like what you're poking at. That the board was a cheap or bullshit thing.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
As for it being "cheap" or not, you've already stated in one of your previous posts that you did not consider that tactic "cheap" so I'll hold you to that statement (unless you wish to recant it).

Note the underlined area w/c you so CONVENIENTLY edited out? That was what I was replying to. In case you didn't understand, I simply pointed out that you were implying that it was somehow cheap (without proof, of course, as is your debating style). I simply responded by reminding you that you shouldn't contradict yourself.

You've gone from editing the crucial parts of the fight to try and invalidate the results to editing the crucial parts of your posts to try and invalidate my replies.

Niiiice.

Originally posted by Spire
So then you saw the panel where he starts talking....

See? Yet another one of your posts where you imply without either making a point OR stating proof. Sheesh. This is getting old.

Originally posted by Spire
Did you see Surfer use anything else in the fight? Simple yes or no. Since we base things on what happened in a fight... Not hard to see how you are in denial.

Um, No, he didn't need to. :-/ While he had many other options at his disposal, the board attack was the most efficient way to take the advantage in that fight, so he used it. Unless you can prove that it was stated ON PANEL that the Surfer was out of options, then this argument is just a base ASSUMPTION.

We can't say someone got shutdown until he's exhausted ALL his available options. We then base a character's AVAILABLE options on what he has demonstrated in the past. Again, respect threads.

Originally posted by Spire
Again, what first part? The fight was very short and ended when the board hit, so...

Counting only the early parts (where BRB looked good) and then invalidating the later parts (where BRB got owned) is really a crappy argument.

Also:

Originally posted by Spire
The fight was very short

Is yet ANOTHER reason why it was an ownage.

Originally posted by Spire
Lolz. Derailment off topic comments to satisfy your hurt for Surfer's poor showings. Even though they have nothing to do with my original point and serve no purpose, I'll address them again.

1. Because Surfer's bruises are easily visible. Does he bleed? Does he not bleed? Is it up to the writer? A lot of variables. Also I never argued stats. Ever. So moot point.
2. After hitting him with a blindside attack to the back of the head. Also The bleeding stopped in the next panel. Wow. Also isn't Surfer supposed to be powerful or something? Should an attack like that kill someone?
3. Lol. Also, that is truly and excellent point. Seriously.
4. Um, ok. What that has to do with anything....
5. Um, ok. Again.
6. Wrong.

1. Meaning: You cannot prove that the Surfer suffered any damage, so you'll just chalk it up to your ASSUMPTION that it was due to a lot of variables like writer's interpretation. Denial.
2. The board hit does not invalidate what happened after. The fact that the bleeding stopped has nothing to do with the Surfer's showings. Also, I don't know, shouldn't getting hit with a hammer kill someone (hint: this is comics)?
3. Well it IS a good point. Especially since you've yet to disprove it.
4. It demonstrates BRB's utter defeat (aka. his OWNAGE).
5. Valid fight means that it can be used to demonstrate what can occur in a forum fight. Also, the fact that it is valid means that if the result shows an ownage, then the result was not due to anything that was introduced outside what may occur on a normal fight. Get it now?
6. Prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Spire
You're a master thinker.

Sadly, the same can't be said for you. :-/

Originally posted by Spire
Missing the point. Once again, you prove your intelligence.

I'll give you a hint: It has something to do with your lol position on when fights end.

Again, you imply a million things, do NOT offer a direct explanation of your point (w/c can be misconstrued) and then whine when people didn't get what your meaning was. ALL you do is imply things since you can't prove any of them. Make a point, present your proof and stop acting like a tool.

In response to what you MAY be saying, like I said, a fight is valid until PIS/Plot devices/outside interference is introduced. It stopped becoming BRB vs SS when Skuttlebutt interfered (so you can't use that as an example for ANYTHING in this debate).

So, my position with how the fight went is valid. Yours is not.

I tire of this circular debate (we're going round and round with the exact same arguments and points). Stop acting like a 10 year old and present ALL your points the way I did mine (enumerated) and lets just let the forum readers decide WHO exactly is in denial here.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
2 pages of crap

You're an absolute fool. Now your pumping out 2 posts full of mindless babble for each reply.

I'm not gonna reply to all your crap anymore. Firstly, because you were owned and acknowledged it long ago when you first started putting your foot in your mouth. Secondly, I know you will just reply with 3 more posts full of 378 new irrelevant statements and I'm not putting up with that.

However, I will point out a couple things.

Nitpicking a typo, shows 'you're' desperation.

Next:

Originally posted by Spire
How about, no. Deal with it. Learn English.

However, I do like what you're poking at. That the board was a cheap or bullshit thing.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Well, it was more of a "feint" than anything else. If you don't like to use the proper wording, it's up to you.

As for it being "cheap" or not, you've already stated in one of your previous posts that you did not consider that tactic "cheap" so I'll hold you to that statement (unless you wish to recant it).

I'll simplify this for you, even though English is your first language and you haven't misinterpreted anything so far.

Look at the underlined word, "you're" in my quote.

You're = You are. 'You'

Understand yet? Probably not yet. Oh well. Now, look at your quote. Why in **** are you talking about what I said? I'm talking to you about something you said.

You are completely oblivious. Simple stuff like this is why you have continued to vomit replies for 14 pages.

Also I'm just going to continue to ignore your interpretation of blindside = feint...

You guys should do a battlezone and just settle this shit.

It has been settled.

I just shouldn't have respond to all his crap.

Originally posted by Spire
You're an absolute fool. Now your pumping out 2 posts full of mindless babble for each reply.

I reply to your every reply because you go: "Concession accepted" every time I miss ANY of your "arguments". Blame yourself.

As for it being mindless, read it a bit more and maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say (aka. your argument = stupid).

Originally posted by Spire
I'm not gonna reply to all your crap anymore. Firstly, because you were owned and acknowledged it long ago when you first started putting your foot in your mouth. Secondly, I know you will just reply with 3 more posts full of 378 new irrelevant statements and I'm not putting up with that.

Concession Accepted (See? Annoying isn't it?).

Originally posted by Spire

However, I will point out a couple things.

Nitpicking a typo, shows '[b]you're' desperation. [/B]

You nitpick my interpretation and criticize the fact that English isn't my primary language then insult my intelligence only to fall flat on your face on 2 very basic English words ALL in the same reply.

No, it isn't desperation. I just love the irony. Maybe if you didn't act like such a tool, I wouldn't rub it in.

Originally posted by Spire
Next:

I'll simplify this for you, even though English is your first language and you haven't misinterpreted anything so far.

Look at the underlined word, "you're" in my quote.

You're = You are. 'You'

Understand yet? Probably not yet. Oh well. Now, look at your quote. Why in **** are you talking about what I said? I'm talking to you about something you said.

I merely REMINDED you of your position as you showed interest in the possibility that the use of (according to your biased interpretation) the word "blindside" may imply that it is "cheap". I did this so as to not waste time (for BOTH of us) debating a point that was not in disagreement so that we can simply proceed to the next point. People are allowed to do that in a forum debate. Again, if you don't like it, then maybe you're in the wrong place?

Originally posted by Spire
You are completely oblivious. Simple stuff like this is why you have continued to vomit replies for 14 pages.

You're left to just whining now? Geez, I already stated that you should just enumerate your points and leave it at that.

Originally posted by Spire
Also I'm just going to continue to ignore your interpretation of blindside = feint...

Yeeeaaap, w/c is exactly what your problem is. You ignore other ppl's points and then vomit some assumptions and then offer little proof. OR you just imply things and not go direct to the point about it.

Originally posted by Spire
It has been settled.

I just shouldn't have respond to all his crap.

I would say "concession accepted" again but you're bound to whine about me saying that, too. But I guess your refusal to reply does settle this. Just not in your favor.

Now run along, kid.

Concession Accepted (See? Annoying isn't it?).

It's the newest fad on the internet.

Here we go again. It's like you enjoy trolling and looking like a fool. Oh well. to each his own.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I reply to your every reply because you go: "Concession accepted" every time I miss ANY of your "arguments". Blame yourself.

As for it being mindless, read it a bit more and maybe you'll get what I'm trying to say (aka. your argument = stupid).

Concession Accepted (See? Annoying isn't it?).

Funny, since you were the first to throw it around, after you gave me a weak interchangeable reply(concession) to my first post.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You nitpick my interpretation and criticize the fact that English isn't my primary language then insult my intelligence only to fall flat on your face on 2 very basic English words ALL in the same reply.

Wrong. Pointing out a fool that likes to run his mouth, even after owning himself on the subject repeatedly, is entirely different than pointing out a typo in someone's response to a large double post desperation reply.

This is just another example of how you're not smart enough to grasp simple concepts (Which has nothing to do with whatever language happens to be your first<--- thought I'd put that in since you're crying about it.)

If you can't make that distinction, then you shouldn't be using the internet.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210

No, it isn't desperation. I just love the irony. Maybe if you didn't act like such a tool, I wouldn't rub it in.

It is desperation. Because you really have nothing else.

Tell you what, I'll purposely misuse your/you're once in every post. All you have to do is find it. I'll even underline it to make it easier for you.

There. I am giving you something in which you can be assured to use that against me, since I pity you so very much.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
I merely REMINDED you of your position as you showed interest in the possibility that the use of (according to your biased interpretation) the word "blindside" may imply that it is "cheap". I did this so as to not waste time (for BOTH of us) debating a point that was not in disagreement so that we can simply proceed to the next point. People are allowed to do that in a forum debate. Again, if you don't like it, then maybe you're in the wrong place?

Lol. Your oblivious. There is no salvageable position for you. Stop replying to this one and let it go. Just a heads up.

For next time, I'll educate you on the lolz of your blindside=feint misinterpretation.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
You're left to just whining now? Geez, I already stated that you should just enumerate your points and leave it at that.

Yeeeaaap, w/c is exactly what your problem is. You ignore other ppl's points and then vomit some assumptions and then offer little proof. OR you just imply things and not go direct to the point about it.

I would say "concession accepted" again but you're bound to whine about me saying that, too. But I guess your refusal to reply does settle this. Just not in your favor.

Now run along, kid.

Since your oblivious and somehow you feel that can benefit by drawing out your theatrics for another twenty pages, try to keep your rebuttal short. Oh, and under two posts, and no more than forty new irrelevant arguments.

Thanks.

do u guys realize that in ur last couple of posts to each other u havent mentioned any characters, or even refferenced anykind of balltle/fight instead have just attacked eachother endlessly. i think there has been a little deviation from the topic.

Originally posted by Spire
Here we go again. It's like you enjoy trolling and looking like a fool. Oh well. to each his own.

Ahhh. See? I place 2 full posts of replies and arguments and all you can do is reply with juvenile insults. We both know you've already lost here.

Originally posted by Spire
Funny, since you were the first to throw it around, after you gave me a weak interchangeable reply(concession) to my first post.

I used it a few times ONLY when you refused to reply to ANY of my arguments (to force you to come up with a reply). YOU use it on many of your posts where you made little/no arguments in order to escape having to do any kind of logical rebuttal or when I've replied to about 90% of you posts and missed one or two points.

Funny thing was, you , I merely explained why I reply to EVERY one of your posts since you're NOW whining about the length of my posts.

BTW, as a reminder, I posted like TWO full posts of rebuttals. The fact that you refuse to reply to ANY of them means that you REALLY have little/nothing else to say that will refute all the points that I've mentioned.

Originally posted by Spire
Wrong. Pointing out a fool that likes to run his mouth, even after owning himself on the subject repeatedly, is entirely different than pointing out a typo in someone's response to a large double post desperation reply.

This is just another example of how you're not smart enough to grasp simple concepts (Which has nothing to do with whatever language happens to be your first<--- thought I'd put that in since you're crying about it.)

If you can't make that distinction, then you shouldn't be using the internet.

You criticize the fact that English isn't my first language and THEN call me stupid for misinterpreting your meaning on a reply ONLY to fall flat on your face on basic English ALL within a few sentences of each other. I find the irony of that funny.

I guess not all of us can appreciate the irony of what occurred. Though I never really DID see you as someone who can laugh at himself, you're just too pigheaded.

Originally posted by Spire
It is desperation. Because you really have nothing else.

Whhaaat? Seriously??? 😮 Nothing else??? I have TWO FULL FREAKIN POSTS of SOMETHING ELSE. TWO FULL FREAKIN POSTS that you HAVEN'T replied to, btw. And you ACCUSE me of being desperate?? LOL.

Man up and PROVE me wrong. What are you so afraid of?

Originally posted by Spire
Tell you what, I'll purposely misuse your/you're once in every post. All you have to do is find it. I'll even underline it to make it easier for you.

There. I am giving you something in which you can be assured to use that against me, since I pity you so very much.

LOL. Again, if you can't appreciate the humor and irony of your intellectual faceplant, then that's not really my problem.

Originally posted by Spire
Lol. Your oblivious. There is no salvageable position for you. Stop replying to this one and let it go. Just a heads up.

LOL. You want me to stop replying because all you really have now are groundless insults and accusations. If you want a debate, I'll argue down your points with my own. Thing is, you've already refused to do that and simply resorted to acting like a tool.

I have TWO FULL POSTS of rebuttals. Are you: A) man enough to take them on or are you B) just gonna hide behind insults and accusations like a 10 year old would?

Originally posted by Spire
For next time, I'll educate you on the lolz of your blindside=feint misinterpretation.

Why don't you? We've all got time. I've been daring you to prove my interpretation wrong since like 4-5 pages ago.

MAKE YOUR POINT. Again, what are you afraid of?

Originally posted by Spire
Since your oblivious and somehow you feel that can benefit by drawing out your theatrics for another twenty pages, try to keep your rebuttal short. Oh, and under two posts, and no more than forty new irrelevant arguments.

Thanks.

Um. Do you even READ your own posts? Who throws around insults/accusations/theatrics with more than 50-60% of his posts? My posts were rebuttals to your so-called "arguments". You like to accuse people of something you are FAR FAR more guilty of. There's a word for people like you.

The sad part about all this is that I believe that you don't even read my posts. You just go "I wonder what insulting thing can I say?" and then go "that XXX argument is irrelevant so I won't answer it!!". Sad really. If you can't debate points, then you're really in the wrong place.

Once you plan on growing up and want to go back to the debate at hand, I'm still here. Sadly, all I'm seeing is you throwing a tantrum.

Reminder: TWO FULL POSTS of rebuttals there buddy. Man up and take them on or run along and let it go. Your choice.

It's a close fight, but supes and SS just have the edge in overall capcity.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
TWO FULL POSTS!

You're still oblivious. I basically just skimmed over it, as I've seen all of you're babble before. I lol'd at your TWO FULL POSTS argument attempt.

"How many posts?"
"TWO FULL POSTS!"

"How many arguments?"
"TWO FULL POSTS!"

"Longest yet?"
"TWO FULL POSTS!"

"Point after point made?"
"TWO FULL POSTS!"

"What are you talking about again?"
"TWO FULL POSTS!"

Lawl. Well, since you refused my advice, I'll go ahead and demonstrate just how oblivious you really are.

Originally posted by Spire
I use the term blindside to describe unexpected attacks that hit the 'side' of the person they are 'blind' to.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Well, it was more of a "feint" than anything else. If you don't like to use the proper wording, it's up to you.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/blind-side

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/feint

Disconnect your modem.

Originally posted by Spire
You're still oblivious. I basically just skimmed over it, as I've seen all of you're babble before. I lol'd at your TWO FULL POSTS argument attempt.

If you're not going to proplerly read and reply to someone's posts, then maybe you shouldn't go around and say stuff like:

Originally posted by Spire
It is desperation. Because you really have nothing else.

Cuz, well, it makes you look dumb.

Originally posted by Spire
Lawl. Well, since you refused my advice, I'll go ahead and demonstrate just how oblivious you really are.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/blind-side

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/feint

"an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack: military feints; the feints of a skilled fencer."

An energy attack aimed at the front to distract BRB from the real point of attack (the rear) by the board. IF you'd look closer at the scan, you can easily see that this was the case.

I see feint as the better description of the attack as the term "blindside" often implies a certain level of "cheap"-ness to the attack (w/c you already agreed wasn't the case). A "feint" is more of a smart tactic than any sort of cheapshot.

Geez, I wish you would give your replies a bit more thought. I'm sure deep beneath your layers of ass there lies a smart debater waiting to get out.

I'll no longer reply to your flaming. I'm going back to discussing BRB vs SS and how BRB was OWNED in that fight.

As to the debate on why it was proven that BRB got OWNED:

My points:
1) BRB was unable to visibly harm the Surfer in his 2 succesful attacks.
2) The Surfer visibly damaged BRB in his 3 attacks. BRB ended up bloodied and in a fetal position (w/c visibly demonstrates the extent of ownage that was done to him).
3) The Surfer using his board is a valid tactic that is part of his powerset. He used it because it was the smartest tactic at the time, not due to any sort of implied need.
4) There is NO PROOF that the Surfer was EVER in a position where he needed to "resort" to anything (even tho some would try to imply this).
5) There is NO PROOF that BRB stopped/hesitated in his attack (even tho some would try to imply this).
6) The fight did not END when the board struck, it merely gave the Surfer the advantage, allowing him to finish BRB off. Furthermore, stating "when the fight ended" is subjective as well as irrelevant as it has little to no bearing on BRB's Ownage.
7) The Surfer was not "shutdown". The fact that he still had his board as an option CLEARLY and DECISIVELY proves this.

Now, those are some relevant arguments to the debate. Are you going to man up and debate these points?

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
"an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack: military feints; the feints of a skilled fencer."

An energy attack aimed at the front to distract BRB from the real point of attack (the rear) by the board. IF you'd look closer at the scan, you can easily see that this was the case.

I see feint as the better description of the attack as the term "blindside" often implies a certain level of "cheap"-ness to the attack (w/c you already agreed wasn't the case). A "feint" is more of a smart tactic than any sort of cheapshot.

Geez, I wish you would give your replies a bit more thought. I'm sure deep beneath your layers of ass there lies a smart debater waiting to get out.

Originally posted by D_Dude1210
Now, those are some relevant arguments to the debate. Are you going to man up and debate these points?

😆

Your so oblivious it is unbelievable.

A lame backpedal, then several stupid irrelevant assertions that have nothing to do with anything.