Denton Van Zan Vs. the Wood-chipper from Fargo

Originally posted by quanchi112
Knowing he missed, Van Zan jumps off the building to attack the male with his giant axe, but is caught in mid-air and eaten. [B]Attack is key word.

He attacked the site supports me as any reasonable person watching the scene would say.

Nothing supports you. Wiki supports me for starters. 😂 [/B]

Not swinging the axe and thereby not attacking = he didn't attack. This is besides the point that it's still suicide, just as a lone soldier armed with a shovel who charges a platoon of well armed enemy soldiers is suicidal. You of course would call that "badass".

A reasonable person who watched the entire movie and took all of Van Zan's actions into account and how he was portrayed would say he finally lost it completely and did a rage-quit. You have a problem with context, you've repeatedly shown this.

The film supports me, it has from page one. Keep ignoring the film though, it's funny.

Van Zan being rational:

master tactician 🙂

🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
Not swinging the axe and thereby not attacking = he didn't attack. This is besides the point that it's still suicide, just as a lone soldier armed with a shovel who charges a platoon of well armed enemy soldiers is suicidal. You of course would call that "badass".

A reasonable person who watched the entire movie and took all of Van Zan's actions into account and how he was portrayed would say he finally lost it completely and did a rage-quit. You have a problem with context, you've repeatedly shown this.

The film supports me, it has from page one. Keep ignoring the film though, it's funny.

Van Zan being rational:

No, he tried to hurt/kill the dragon. He's a dragon killer obsessed to the point of insanity with bringing them down. Quinn is the survivalist play it safe guy. Zan is lets go kill them. That's how these characters are portrayed.

No, nothing supports you whereas Wiki supports me. Wiki your source of all info you want to ignore now.

😂

Oh the irony.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
master tactician 🙂

🙂

Originally posted by quanchi112
Site disagrees with you. Nothing supports you. You're embarrassing yourself and I haven't begun.

No, he tried to hurt/kill the dragon. He's a dragon killer obsessed to the point of insanity with bringing them down. Quinn is the survivalist play it safe guy. Zan is lets go kill them. That's how these characters are portrayed.

No, nothing supports you whereas Wiki supports me. Wiki your source of all info you want to ignore now.

😂

Oh the irony.

You don't understand what "attack" means.

Repeat: There was no way a small (by comparison) axe would have killed or hurt a huge dragon that can take bullets and pwn a small group of armed men and a tank.

You don't understand how Van Zan was portrayed, you just think he's "badass".

The film > you. I have that 🙂

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't understand what "attack" means.

Repeat: There was no way a small (by comparison) axe would have killed or hirt a huge dragon that can take bullets and pwn a small group of armed men and a tank.

You don't understand how Van Zan was portrayed, you just think he's "badass".

The film > you. I have that 🙂

Again, you are ignoring the character of Zan. He acted as best he could in the situation in character. He's obsessed with bringing them down.

Explain how you believe he was portrayed. Go. Ill then correct you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Do you disagree with my statement ? You seem scared to address it.

try pasting the "statement" instead of the question about the statement. ridiculous chimp.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
try pasting the "statement" instead of the question about the statement. ridiculous chimp.

Sorry, thought you'd remember a question from fifteen minutes ago. My bad.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Was Zan portrayed as a dragons nightmare ?

i believe fear is a requirement for a 'nightmare' in both literal or metaphorical. since they obviously do not experience fear your point is moot and stupid as well.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sorry, thought you'd remember a question from fifteen minutes ago. My bad.

you were acting like you had a point. not a 100% fluff fangirl advert

Originally posted by quanchi112
Grabs an axe jumps at enemy. Wiki agrees. Rob says no he Wasnt attacking. 😂 you're embarrassing.

Again, you are ignoring the character of Zan. He acted as best he could in the situation in character. He's obsessed with bringing them down.

Explain how you believe he was portrayed. Go. Ill then correct you.

So it's possible to attack someone with an axe by not swinging it at them in your mind. Because in the film, the highest source on info we have, Van Zan didn't swing. You're a special one.

Incorrect: Already proven that he had a small window to escape that would have given him a greater chance of survival than the absolute zero of jumping off a tower and direrctly into a dragon's mouth. But you've been ignoring this along with with the rest of the film fact for 80+ pages now.

FFS, you are you thick. I've repeatedly said he was written as a sort of Captain Ahab clone throughout these 80+ pages. Just a poorly written one. You'll have to google "Captain Ahab" first and then realize you can't correct me 🙂

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i believe fear is a requirement for a 'nightmare' in both literal or metaphorical. since they obviously do not experience fear your point is moot and stupid as well.

you were acting like you had a point. not a 100% fluff fangirl advert

Was he portrayed as a dragons worst nightmare ?

Yes or no.

Originally posted by Robtard
So it's possible to attack someone with an axe by not swinging it at them in your mind. Because in the film, the highest source on info we have, Van Zan didn't swing. You're a special one.

Incorrect: Already proven that he had a small window to escape that would have given him a greater chance of survival than the absolute zero of jumping off a tower and direrctly into a dragon's mouth. But you've been ignoring this along with with the rest of the film fact for 80+ pages now.

FFS, you are you thick. I've repeatedly said he was written as a sort of Captain Ahab clone throughout these 80+ pages. Just a poorly written one. You'll have to google "Captain Ahab" first and then realize you can't correct me 🙂

False. Again, in the heat of battle with the options available he chose that method of attack. You'd never take them on being a coward in the first place. Zan was obsessed and was a dragons worst nightmare.

Again, he was exceptional at what he did. Your land of make believe is only your own.

Wiki backs me.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He jumped at the dragon by attacking with the axe. You made it up and cannot back your claim. I just backed mine.

False. Again, in the heat of battle with the options available he chose that method of attack. You'd never take them on being a coward in the first place. Zan was obsessed and was a dragons worst nightmare.

Again, he was exceptional at what he did. Your land of make believe is only your own.

Wiki backs me.

The film backs me up, since he didn't swing the axe, which is what you claimed "he swung the axe". Sorry, film > you.

More of this Chairborne Ranger crap, just stop.. The film facts > your man fantasies.

So I guess you won't correct me, since you dodged. Wiki of Moby-Dick must be huge and in-depth, eh 🙂

Film backs me up. Film = highest source of canon 🙂

Originally posted by quanchi112
You didn't answer the question.

Was he portrayed as a dragons worst nightmare ?

Yes or no.

the answer is and was 'no' because dragons are fearless. you poor poor chimp.

and enough with your stupid 80's fluff rhetoric, please.

he was the dragon's finest meal in a long time. remember that minutes before it was so hungry it turned cannibal.

"best friend to dragons"

YouTube video

Originally posted by Robtard
The film backs me up, since he didn't swing the axe, which is what you claimed "he swung the axe". Sorry, film > you.

More of this Chairborne Ranger crap. The film facts > your man-fantasies.

So I guess you won't prove me wrong, since you dodged 🙂

Film backs me up. Film = highest source of canon 🙂

You don't know what fact means, find a site which supports your viewpoints. You can't. I can.

Yes, the wiki entry discusses the film not a comic or a tv series.

😂

Wiki and Quan>>Robtard.

ah trusty wiki.

the citation dead-end for many varieties of idiots as well as the endangered google-chimp.

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, the film backs me as does wiki.

You don't know what fact means, find a site which supports your viewpoints. You can't. I can.

Yes, the wiki entry discusses the film not a comic or a tv series.

😂

Wiki and Quan>>Robtard.

Keep ignoring the film, it won't change the fact that Van Zan neevr swung the axe, as you claimed.

The film supports my viewpoints; it's all I need here.

FFS, Moby-Dick is a book (movies later) and Captain Ahab is a character from that book. I accept you can't "correct" me, as you claimed. 🙂

Film > you. That is a fact.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ah trusty wiki.

the citation dead-end for many varieties of idiots as well as the endangered google-chimp.

Originally posted by Robtard
Keep ignoring the film, it won't change the fact that Van Zan neevr swung the axe, as you claimed.

The film supports my viewpoints; it's all I need here.

FFS, Moby-Dick is a book (movies later) and Captain Ahab is a character from that book. I accept you can't "correct" me, as you claimed. 🙂

Film > you. That is a fact.

None. Wiki and the film supports mine.

Wiki, Quan, Film>>you.

Cite a source to back you.