Superman heat vision vs Black Bolt scream

Originally posted by Delta1938
Actually, you do. Your argument goes against a mod ruling and doesn't fit the criteria of what Bada stated.

His comment was directed at carver and was rather reasonable considering how poorly carver presented his points. He, however, hasn't seen the points I've brought forward.

His mod ruling aimed at the general posting community was the item regarding "lowballing" and "playing dumb" to further an argument, neither of which I'm violating here.

Originally posted by Delta1938
Yes, I know this type of thing has happened before. Problem with your argument is those examples have follow-ups that SHOW the case. Like in SUPERMAN/BATMAN #4, we know Hawkman didn't actually KO Superman, despite that's the scene we see, because the following issue has a narration from Superman stating they were playing possum. It's your job to provide evidence similar to Superman showing he wasn't really KOed, and you've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is nitpick to point-out it's possible that she was still conscious.

Citing irrelevant instances is just that, irrelevant.

Actually, when a person says someone is KOed, the burden is up to them to prove it, you might want to follow my link on "burden of proof" it'll help you lots.

Originally posted by Delta1938
I'm assuming this due to the fact that there's no follow-up disputing this assumption. Unless you know of something from the two issues being cited that contradicts it? Perhaps a tie-in? I've been a good sport and even offered to post the scans if you give the issue reference and page number. You ignored it, perhaps because all you have is "she might not be KOed 'cuz it's possible she wasn't?"

And that is your mistake. You're assuming.

Assumptions cannot prove anything and cannot be used as proof in any kind of argument.

Originally posted by Delta1938
That's your opinion. My opinion is you're the one who's getting Bada wrong. Much like you appeared to get me wrong by saying Diana's KO/TKO isn't irrefutable when I never said it was.

When did I ever said that you said that Diana's KO/TKO was irrefutable? I said that since it is not irrefutable, it is not proof never made mention of you saying that it was, though.

Seeing as you seem to keep getting what I said wrong, you can forgive me if I don't buy your interpretation of said mod ruling either?

Originally posted by Delta1938
It's not a typo, it's the wrong word completely. See? Isn't nitpicking fun? Oh, it's not when you're the one getting it? By the way, it's irrelevant if you corrected it before I posted or not, I quoted it before you corrected it. You editing it doesn't magically mean you didn't make the mistake. Just like the mistake of calling it a typo. You see my point?

People type incorrectly all the time, the fact that I realized my error and corrected it via edit means that I do know when I'm wrong and to fix things.

Not really sure what you're trying to do here beyond trying to drag the discussion to something irrelevant. So I'll just let skip going any further with this.

Originally posted by Delta1938
Your failure to provide evidence beyond your interpretation of the scan.

You're asking for further evidence on an interpretation of a single scan where the single scan is already provided....

.......

I'm sorry, I don't think you're getting this at all....

Originally posted by Delta1938
Am I? I'm not so sure when you claimed a scan when it was a quote, claimed a typo when it was the wrong word, and said I argued something was irrefutable when I never said so. See what I'm doing? Scrutinizing every single mistake you make. Nitpicking is fun, huh?

The difference between your attempt at "nitpicking" and my scrutiny and search for truth is that my scrutiny is actually in line with the topic at hand and is relevant to the discussion.

Your "nitpicking" is simply finding small mistakes in the use of words that has since been corrected and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

See the difference now?

Glad we have that cleared up.

Oh, and I never said that you argued anything was irrefutable. In fact this is what I said:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, a person not being seen for a while is simply proof of a person not being seen for a while. Anything else outside that is pure speculation. Pure assumption.

Is it possible? Sure! Is it likely? Maybe. Is it irrefutable? No, it is an assumption. And in logic, we cannot use an assumption as verification or proof.

See the underlined sentence? I was pointing out what was needed to make a verification, not accuse you of saying anything was irrefutable.

You make mistakes, too. But I'm mature enough simply to point it out and not dance around it even when it's been corrected.

Originally posted by Delta1938
You're claiming other evidence beyond your nitpicks are not needed, despite the fact that you cited examples of others appearing to be KOed without providing a follow-up that Wonder Woman was not KOed like in examples you cite.

1) The proof is in the scan itself (w/c I've already posted and re-posted many times).
2) What examples did I site of anything? Your paragraph was poorly constructed and would need to be explained further before I can reply to it.

Originally posted by Delta1938
So basically you're saying that your interpretations are just as valid as those of others

If you stopped right here, you woulda gotten it right.

Originally posted by Delta1938
despite your argument would require evidence of a follow-up to show she wasn't actually KOed, so you're arguing maybe she wasn't because she might not have been, and this is a stronger argument than what has been brought to your attention. Gotcha.

Then you add this nonsense not realizing that the other side provided almost identical type of evidence (that I've since presented a rebuttal against) only demonstrates the double standards that you harbor.

You are right about one thing, tho. You are biased.

Originally posted by Delta1938
And it's true. You're nitpicking the scans and not providing a follow-up example, even after offers to post the scans if you're unable to.

Posting scans that are irrelevant to the actual argument I made, is just that, irrelevant.

And you asking for irrelevant scans only means that you don't really understand what I was trying to say here.

Smh.

Originally posted by Delta1938
Look above. Any time someone takes damage, has their eyes closed, and isn't seen for a while is more likely to be a KO/TKO without a follow-up showing otherwise like in examples you're randomly citing.

So randomly citing unrelated instances = evidence now?

Pardon me while I roll my eyes.

Originally posted by Delta1938
And how hilarious that I'm clinging to Abhi's "nitpick" and blahty blahty blahty BLAH. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and acts like a duck, the chances are it's a duck. You look like you're nitpicking, talk like you're nitpicking, act like you're nitpicking, but you're just providing evidence?

Yes, it is hilarious that you cling to fallacious reasoning. And double standards.

On a completely "unrelated" note (or is ti? 😱) if something looks like a sock, talks like a sock and acts like a sock, the chances are, it's a sock...

😂

I'm not sure you even know for sure what "nitpicking" is. I've always been on topic with everything I've said, and have taken pains to present important details.

Which only means that I have just been thorough, you see, this is what "nitpicking" is:

nit·pick (ntpk)

To be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nitpick

The key word there is "insignificant" as defined as:

1. Not significant, especially:
a. Lacking in importance; trivial.
b. Lacking power, position, or value; worthy of little regard.
c. Small in size or amount.

Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/insignificant

When I've been pretty much on topic with the details I presented, kinda points to the fact that you just don't really know what you're talking.

Originally posted by Delta1938
He stated without proof or further evidence. Your interpretations certainly aren't proof and is not further evidence. Your arguments are based off your take on the scans already presented, not further evidence.

As it was in the same paragraph wherein he was addressing carver, it is reasonable to assume that he was directing it at carver at the time. Also, as he has not read my arguments or at the very least posted anything after I've posted my arguments, it would be best to simply either wait for his reply and not put words in his mouth as you're not him?

Originally posted by Delta1938
By the way, looking at the scan again, seems Superman's firing multiple heat vision bursts. So, looks like Wonder Woman's KOed and then we see the rest flying.

Seriously, some Superman fans.....

😂

Originally posted by Delta1938
But really, your better bet is to provide a follow-up at least implying that she's still conscious, otherwise you should admit that you citing other examples of characters not being KOed is a strawman

I'm not sure you know what a strawman is. Or nitpicking. Might wanna avoid big words if you don't know how to use them...

facepalm

Originally posted by Delta1938
and your argument is solely that you're pointing-out that it's possible she's not KOed. No matter how much you say you're scrutinizing the scans, that's exactly what your argument comes down to. She might not be KOed because it's possible she wasn't. The nitpicking is just to make it look like you have a solid argument.

FFS. Let me re-post what I said AGAIN from the very beginning for your benefit:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not saying she wasn't KOd by it, but going by the scan it is more a "thrown by the force of something" than it is "she's lying on the ground KOd".

Which means that I wasn't asserting that she wasn't KO'd just that the scan is not proof that she was as there are actually better ways to interpret it.

From the very beginning.

How the heck do you keep missing that?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Her lying there eyes closed.

And I've presented my (by your standards) evidence as well.

That her the eyes and arms along with the position of her mount and state of her surroundings point to it being more than a "thrown back" than a "lying down".

Your rebuttal?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Its your strawman. Why are you arguing that she was just thrown then if you think she wasn't KOED? What's your argument anyway? Sum it up in one line.

That the scan seems to show her being tossed back rather than lying down already KOd and should only be used as proof of thus.

Originally posted by abhilegend
I've actual proof.

You presented the same type of "proof" I did, only you refuse to argue it point for point.

So no, you don't.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Nope.

Yup.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Sure, buddy. Whatever helps you sleep.

It's exactly what you did. /shrug

Originally posted by abhilegend
Hahaha, you're like a parrot at this point.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You keep repeating the same tired argument that I've already offered rebuttal for and all you did in response was go "blah blah blah". So you can forgive me if I simply point you to the very argument that you glossed over and offered no counterargument to.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And what's your proof that she wasn't KOED there? Did she got herself up anywhere?

Strawman. Not my argument at all.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, there is. Her eyes being closed.

I already refuted that.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
What's with the "thrown to the ground" when we didn't see that either in wonder woman's case.

Not the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, everyone is human there. Wonder Woman isn't. You are simply ignoring her durability.

You'll excuse me if I don't think that her natural durability would protect her from being tossed by the very blast that you say easily KOd her in the first place while she is not conscious or bracing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Shut up seriously.

Don't be mad, bro.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes. That's how the scene folded out. Its not your make-believe scenarios.

You say mine is make believe, I say yours is made up because you want Superman to look good.

shrug

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because you're just moving in circles about that scan where the argument is that she was KOED in the whole scenarios. Who gives a **** about how she landed or just thrown?

Apparently you do, as you could have taken my point for what it was and moved the debate forward instead of ranting page by page.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then you're just arguing for arguing's sake. It can be explained by her having a PMS and just lying there too. You can make whatever explanation you want to believe.

I argue for accuracy's sake. I made my point pages ago and this back and forth has simply turned into you ranting and repeating things I've already refuted.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Then why are you writing essays about it?

Because it's fun.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You are just taking a portion of the whole reply and made an essay about it. I don't know how anybody can be this clueless. This argument isn't about where she landed or how she landed, its about whether she was KOED or not. You are just taking one scan and discarding all other evidences.

Something that I made no definite claims about. In fact, I made it a point to mention that WW could very well be KOed.

My entire argumentation was based on the proper interpretation of this one scan, nothing else.

Not my fault you get all upset over it.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Lulz.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Who died and made you a mod? A mod clarified that she was KOED btw.

You don't need to be a mod to argue about character/scan interpretations in these forums. You just need to present your points and arguments.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And you like to nitpick it untill everyone gets tired and says STFU to you.

At least I'm honest. /shrug

And I actually don't like it when ppl get tired and says STFU, I think it's very impolite...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
No, its just you being a total jackass and obnoxious about it. I've no problem with debating someone or calling me out on scans.

I've been as polite to you as I can, though, admittedly, right now, the argument is getting heated.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Sure nabisco, sure.

Awww, that hurts Abhilying.

I can make up names, too you know.

:wink:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
In this case it is.

Nope. Just stubborn.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
So in essence, only you can be right.

Funny you would say that when in the same sentence I said that I could be wrong....

Originally posted by Nibedicus
That's not my task. PM him or whatever.

Didn't say it was.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You just want the attention. SMH.

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Because it was too convoluted for its own good. No, I can't forgive you.

It was actually quite simple. You refusing to read something doesn't make anything "convoluted" you know.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I'm not on a literature forum, so **** off.

Hey, not my fault that it was poorly written. Don't be mad.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You are just an attention whore at this point, writing essays or shit like that.

😛

Maybe I'm a scan police officer dressed up as an attention whore going undercover to catch scan con artists.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not writing essays.

Nothing wrong with essays, tbh.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes or no. And not based on just this scan.

I already posted my reply to this:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not saying she wasn't KOd by it, but going by the scan it is more a "thrown by the force of something" than it is "she's lying on the ground KOd".

To break it down, yet again, I made no specific claim(s) about her being KOd or not in this comic. But in this specific scan in particular, her current body position is more likely her being thrown back than KOd as corroborated by the indicators I cited.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not a nice try at trying to obfuscate the main argument by only replying to a portion of the whole argument. I'm going to use a mod ruling at this point, since there is no use "essaying" with you.

What obfuscating of the main argument? The only point I made is that small argument in page 6 about what I think happened here. You're the one who focused on it and made it extend this long. You DO know that you'd most prolly have several other scans of the HV doing nifty things than this one scan don't you?

^What the phuck is up with you responding to your own posts?

Quote function problems?

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
^What the phuck is up with you responding to your own posts?

Quote function problems?

Nabisco has that last word syndrome, this can go on for awhile now.

But That post is comedy gold though. 😂

😂 😂 I phucking can't stop laughing.

Originally posted by Diesldude
But That post is comedy gold though. 😂

This is getting annoyingly long, so I'm just going to address the relevant parts I noticed.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
His comment was directed at carver and was rather reasonable considering how poorly carver presented his points. He, however, hasn't seen the points I've brought forward.

His mod ruling aimed at the general posting community was the item regarding "lowballing" and "playing dumb" to further an argument, neither of which I'm violating here.

It doesn't matter what you say, your argument goes against his ruling. Your entire argument has been based on your own interpretations of the scan already provided. You pointing-out a bunch of nitpicks that shows your argument for why she COULD still be awake is not proof. You've provided no follow-up evidence. You're utterly failing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Citing irrelevant instances is just that, irrelevant.

And THIS is where you lose all credibility. You randomly and vaguely cite examples of characters being gone for a while but not being KOed with no explanation or issue references, which is citing irrelevant instances since you never gave details to back why they're supposedly relevant. Then I cite a specific instance, give issue reference and tell why it wasn't really Superman being KOed, to point-out WHY you have to provide follow-up evidence, and you say I'm citing irrelevant instances? Then you have the NERVE to say I'm being a hypocrite? El. Oh. El.

So your entire argument is based on nitpicking a scan to back your unsubstantiated interpretation of it, when presented that the most likely outcome of taking damage and not appearing for a while is a KO, you "counter" with random name throwing and no actual examples of why they're relevant and are examples that support your interpretation, get an actual example that supports why I point-out you need to provide follow-up evidence and say it's citing irrelevant instances, consistently miss the point of my nitpicking of you despite I'm saying "isn't nitpicking fun?" and all that, regularly making mistakes like calling your saying Bada's quote is a scan as a "typo," ect., and I'm the hypocrite that misinterprets things. 😆

By the way, I used "strawman" about you randomly citing examples because of the fact that you randomly threw out names and didn't give actual instances. Compared to me giving a specific instance, explanation for what happened and issue reference, you randomly spouting things is a strawman.

First of all, talking to yourself now?

mmm

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And I've presented my (by your standards) evidence as well.

You DO know that you'd most prolly have several other scans of the HV doing nifty things than this one scan don't you?

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
^What the phuck is up with you responding to your own posts?

Quote function problems?

Twas 6am. Happens. 😛

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Twas 6am. Happens. 😛

Originally posted by TheGodKiller
Happens to the best of us. 😎

Originally posted by Delta1938
This is getting annoyingly long, so I'm just going to address the relevant parts I noticed.

It doesn't matter what you say, your argument goes against his ruling. Your entire argument has been based on your own interpretations of the scan already provided. You pointing-out a bunch of nitpicks that shows your argument for why she COULD still be awake is not proof. You've provided no follow-up evidence. You're utterly failing.

Your entire foundation for PASSING the buck on burden of proof while maintaining that is a single mod comment in reply to carver which I'm not really fully convinced was an actual mod ruling rather than a mod's comment on what occurred in a scan

You do know, sans the "mod ruling" you keep clinging to, that's exactly what you're doing, right? Passing the burden of proof and requiring irrelevant "proof" unconnected to the actual scan being interpreted?

The fact that you still don't understand what "nitpick" means even after I've posted the meaning to you (with sources) doesn't really help your case either....

Originally posted by Delta1938
And THIS is where you lose all credibility. You randomly and vaguely cite examples of characters being gone for a while but not being KOed with no explanation or issue references,

Wait... what?

Are you high? When did I ever cite random examples of characters being gone for a while and specifically said they were not KOed??? Please post in quotes where I said this...

You're freaking literally making crap up now....

Stop lying.

Originally posted by Delta1938
which is citing irrelevant instances since you never gave details to back why they're supposedly relevant.

Never happened.

Stop lying.

Originally posted by Delta1938
Then I cite a specific instance, give issue reference and tell why it wasn't really Superman being KOed, to point-out WHY you have to provide follow-up evidence, and you say I'm citing irrelevant instances?

Because they are irrelevant. People can post random examples all day. It has ZERO to do with the specific scan being discussed. With literally tens of thousand out there, I'm sure one can find random examples of just about anything happening to a character. It boils down to one this: they're all irrelevant as we're discussing one specific scan and what the correct interpretation of it is. They all have nothing to do with what is being discussed.

How are you not getting this?

When discussing one specific scan, what is important is pointing out actual indicators found within the specific scan itself that proves your interpretation is correct.

Originally posted by Delta1938
Then you have the NERVE to say I'm being a hypocrite? El. Oh. El.

You say that further proof is required by one side of the argument while considering "your side" of the argument to have presented sufficient proof when both sides presented almost identical "kinds" and almost equal levels of proof (interpretation of said scan via physical position/condition of WW's body parts).

That is the double standards debating which one form of hypocrisy.

You see, I would have been ok with you telling me that I've not convinced you with the proof I've provided (I even admitted that the scan itself is a bit vague in one of my posts), but stating that I need to provide proof while accepting the level of proof provided by the "WW is KO'd" side is right about equal in terms of type (and is less properly explained to boot) screaaaams double standards and bias, and I simply had to point it out to you.

Originally posted by Delta1938
So your entire argument is based on nitpicking a scan to back your unsubstantiated interpretation of it,

Then I'm sure you can offer a rebuttal to the point I made (you can find it at the bottom of page 6) and point out what the logical flaws is there instead of going on a senseless diatribe rife with made up crap, irrelevant crap and stupid crap which stemmed from your crappy understanding of what I posted and crappy understanding of logical reasoning in general so we can end this off topic back and forth?

Originally posted by Delta1938
when presented that the most likely outcome of taking damage and not appearing for a while is a KO, you "counter" with random name throwing and no actual examples of why they're relevant

No, I pointed out that getting struck and not appearing for a few pages/panels happens to characters all the time.

"Not coming back for a few pages/panels" is NOT proof of them being KO'd. It is an assumption.

Thus you cannot use them as direct proof in debates to prove that the character was KOd.

You seem to have a crappy understanding on how logic works...

Originally posted by Delta1938
and are examples that support your interpretation,

They were not provided to "support my interpretation", they were provided to stress that you providing them is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

I'm literally spoon feeding you the meaning of everything I said, you seem to constantly get it wrong....

facepalm

Originally posted by Delta1938
get an actual example that supports why I point-out you need to provide follow-up evidence and say it's citing irrelevant instances,

I don't really need to provide an example that has no relevance on the point I'm trying to make, soooo nah.

Originally posted by Delta1938
consistently miss the point of my nitpicking of you despite I'm saying "isn't nitpicking fun?"

You mean your -goal- of trying to get a rise out of me?

A goal isn't really a point. Thus, I stated that I can't see your point on doing so as you made none.

As you don't seem to know the correct meaning of the word "nitpicking", one wouldn't really put any weight on any "point" you might try to make.

Originally posted by Delta1938
and all that, regularly making mistakes like calling your saying Bada's quote is a scan as a "typo," ect., and I'm the hypocrite that misinterprets things. 😆

People make typing mistakes all the time (I happen to have spotted and corrected mine within minutes). You trying to somehow use it as a means to reduce my credibility is both laughable and kind of immature and completely fallacious from a logical standpoint.

If anything, it just kills your credibility altogether as it makes you look like you can't seem to formulate a proper argument so you resort to childish antics to try and get people (only Superman fans really) to think you're clever. Bad form, really.

I already pointed out actual examples of you misinterpreting the things I posted as well as the sheer hypocrisy within your entire debating position, none of which you've addressed btw.

So, yes, you ARE a hypocrite that misinterprets things.

Originally posted by Delta1938
By the way, I used "strawman" about you randomly citing examples because of the fact that you randomly threw out names and didn't give actual instances. Compared to me giving a specific instance, explanation for what happened and issue reference, you randomly spouting things is a strawman.

ROFLOL.

That's not a strawman. You might want to look up what a strawman fallacy is.

OMG, if you don't know what the big words mean, please don't try to use them and make yourself sound completely foolish....

😆

Edit. In closing, you don't seem to know what "nitpicking" is, you don't seem to know what a "strawman" is, you don't seem to understand how logic works and you don't seem to properly understand the points I'm making even when I'm literally spoonfeeding it to you...

smh.

Originally posted by Diesldude
Nabisco has that last word syndrome, this can go on for awhile now.

But That post is comedy gold though. 😂

Originally posted by Diesldude
😂 😂 I phucking can't stop laughing.

Contain yourself Diesldouche, I'm sure you've never made quoting mistakes in the past.

🙄

Originally posted by abhilegend
First of all, talking to yourself now?

mmm

Meh. Cut/paste Quote mishap. Happens at 6am.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Where? Post the link of that scan.

SMH. It's funny that since you're the one who posted the scan that's being argued about, that you see yourself as the one presenting the proof (which is the scan being argued about).

Circular reasoning fallacy much?

Originally posted by abhilegend
That's not a scan. Its your random explanation.

Which is the same as what you've provided.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Nothing, I don't think your words are scans. You do? But you talk to yourself too.

No rebuttal to my reasoning only shows that you know can't refute it. I'll chalk that up as a win then.

Originally posted by abhilegend
And where is the proof of this theory? Any statement alluding to this? I think she was PMSing there so she just lied there. The scan seems to show that too.

I've already presented indicators within the scan. You just constantly choose ignore it since you can't refute it.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Hahaha, seriously? You are delusional.

Lulz.

Not really. You present ass up/eyes closed. That's the entire foundation of your argument, w/c I've already presented counterpoints against.

W/c you chose to ignore.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Its going to be ok. We'll sort you out too.

Well, go on ahead and cling to my quoting/pasting error for dear life. We both know that's all you've got.

/shrug

Originally posted by abhilegend
You're excused.

Another point I made that you didn't refute and chose to ignore. Another win, right there. 👆

Originally posted by abhilegend
Mad? This is comedy gold. Just wait for bada.

You sure fooled me, I was almost worried for your blood pressure at one point.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Superman looked already good. Nothing to add there.

I do agree, Superman looks good a lot of times. He has badass "feats". What I don't find necessary is when some people actually downright mislead and misrepresent said "feats" to make them even seem better when they should already be good enough to stand on their own.

Don't you agree?

/shrug

Originally posted by abhilegend
Who the **** is ranting?

You are bro. But don't worry, I think my quoting error brought your spirits back up so it's all good now.

Originally posted by abhilegend
You don't. Prove it by proofs since you need proofs for everything.

Say what?

Originally posted by abhilegend
It sure is seeing you made an ass out of yourself.

Eh. Quoting mistakes happen to the best of us. If this is enough for you to celebrate and feel vindicated, well then I'm glad I managed to make your day.

Originally posted by abhilegend
So you're just arguing for arguing's sake. Got it.

Arguing for accuracy's sake.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Bada, me, Biensalsa and Delta all disagree. How is it proper interpretation again if only you are seeing things and talking to yourself?

Biensalla? who's biensalla? I don't see him anywhere here. Please quote him so I can read thru his posts in case I glossed over them/missed them (as I've been busy debating with the two of you). Bada hasn't really expressed his disagreement with anything I said so, I don't think that's the case either.

It's just you and Mr. I-don't-know-what-the-words-I'm-using-means Delta from what I've seen so far.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Upset? Irritated, sure.

If you say so.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Not if someone refuses to see logic and talks to himself though.

Ahhh the quote error again. Is that really all you can come up with as an argument?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Any more shrugs and your shoulders would fall off.

What can I say you're very shruggable.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Serves you right though.

Meh. You take ppl's opinions in stride. It isn't a perfect world after all, what's important is that you don't let it change you for the worse.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Polite and being extremely annoying. You can be as impolite with me as you want, I wouldn't mind. Don't be an annoying primadonna though.

I try to be polite in all my posts, that's just me.

If you feel annoyed when someone challenges your interpretations, then I apologize but you're gonna have to live with that since you're in a forum where debating things like scan interpretation happens.

Originally posted by abhilegend
If that's your best, kill yourself.

I don't know, it kinda suits your budding rep quite well.

Originally posted by abhilegend
I know.

Good to know that you agree with me about your type of "consistency" simply making you stubborn and not right.

👆

Originally posted by abhilegend
You would never admit that. Point me to one thread where you ever conceded.

It's been a while since I've posted around here and I really don't remember 90% of what I've posted and the damned search function is not working.

I think I conceded to zop's point vs Nekron in the Galactus vs Nekron thread, at one point. I also remember conceding to a few good points in the movie vs thread (before I moved here full time to the inactivity there).

So, how about you? Have you ever conceded in a Superman debate? Because I remember you literally insisting some pretty out there stuff.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Being a passive aggressive primadonna again?

No, literally, I didn't say it was your task. So I don't see why you feel the need to say "that's not my task".

Originally posted by abhilegend
No, its just simple.

No, it's actually quite sophisticated.

😛

Originally posted by abhilegend
To you maybe. But hey, you talk to yourself too.

Well, if you can't keep up, let me know, I'll talk slow.

Originally posted by abhilegend
You complaining about "poorly written".

Well it was, you tried to make "satire" so you said but failed to provide any humor or irony or anything clever about it.

Or you could just go back to my quoting mishap as I'm sure it makes you feel all warm and vindicated inside.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Maybe I'm a scan police officer dressed up as an attention whore going undercover to catch scan con artists.👆

Maybe I am an attention whore. Or maybe not.

What does it say about you who's still here? An attention John?

Originally posted by abhilegend
If you're in fifth grade.

Seeing as you're having trouble reading my "essays" that must put you in the 3rd grade then?

Originally posted by abhilegend
Its still just a random explanation pulled out of your ass.

If you think it's so, offer a rebuttal.

Originally posted by abhilegend
So you're just wasting our time. No, its not. Post the scan which states such.

Why should I when you've already posted it?

Originally posted by abhilegend
I'm not the one who started writing essays.

Hey, like I said, I'm passing the time. I'm off work for a few weeks and I've got time to burn.

Originally posted by abhilegend
I have but you'll start nitpicking them too.

Only if you misrepresent them.

Nibedicus, just stop. I made a ruling. Deal with it. Trolling, bashing and writing dissertations is not helping. If this continues then I will strictly enforce the forum rules.

Just to be clear, this isn't up for discussion. So don't reply to my post. A reply will be considered arguing with a mod and dealt with accordingly.

Everybody else joining in this bash/troll-fest will also be dealt with according to forum rules.

I suggest everybody get back to the topic and accept what I've said.

Everyone please stop

Originally posted by Raisen
Everyone please stop

phuck you. who the phuck do you think you are?

Originally posted by Raisen
phuck you. who the phuck do you think you are?

obvious hulk wanker. your sig is tarded

Just read bada's post. I would stop here.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Just read bada's post. I would stop here.

good advice. I was just trolling at my expense tho.