" No.I felt it necessary to respond with the same sarcasm that I was subjected to. I took the defensive/retaliatory route. His question was equally as sarcastic as mine and equally as "insulting". You are simply as biased and subjective as your "school-mates". I have observed the four of you attacking lone viners often and have myself dealt with all four of you on many occasions. Ot ends with the four of you getting emotional and spammy and sending posts to each other with suspect laughter. "Retaliating (whether it be sarcasm or insult), in general, wasn't necessary from the start. Again, it would have been better to lose the condescending attitude, as well as the superior complex, and continue to debate with him and voice your opinion in a respectable manner. Simply turning the other cheek, or something. But, some people are incapable. To assume that there's emotion behind my responses to you makes you equally subjective and biased.
Daredevil (w/ symbiote) vs. Black Panther!
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You can also say that i'm stupid or not smart enough to connect the dots, you might be right. But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are.
=]
@Static Shock: I read the posts you referring to. Based on those, I have actually come to the conclusion that this is an intentional attempt to start a flame war.
" @Enigman said:The initial sarcasm was not necessary either. Perhaps you should take you own advice on losing the condescending attitude and superiority complex. You are guilty of sarcasm and retaliatory remarks as well as insults. So save the holier than thou speech. You should follow your own advice about turning the other cheek and spare me the messiah act. My assumptions of your emotional content are the result of observation of and interaction with you. Save the 5th grade reverse psychology for someone who will actually fall for it. I have dealt with you before and know all of your hypocritical tactics." No.I felt it necessary to respond with the same sarcasm that I was subjected to. I took the defensive/retaliatory route. His question was equally as sarcastic as mine and equally as "insulting". You are simply as biased and subjective as your "school-mates". I have observed the four of you attacking lone viners often and have myself dealt with all four of you on many occasions. Ot ends with the four of you getting emotional and spammy and sending posts to each other with suspect laughter. "Retaliating (whether it be sarcasm or insult), in general, wasn't necessary from the start. Again, it would have been better to lose the condescending attitude, as well as the superior complex, and continue to debate with him and voice your opinion in a respectable manner. Simply turning the other cheek, or something. But, some people are incapable. To assume that there's emotion behind my responses to you makes you equally subjective and biased. "
" @Silver2467: He actually did that. I don't get why people act so immature sometimes. =[ And i won't let this thread be locked because someone wants to start a flame war. I will just leave an opinion about the outcome of the battle and i believe that DD can win. =] "I can agree with this.
" @Enigman: If you actually even know who Vance or Static or Silver is, then you would realize how stupid will be from you to insult their intellect and credibility. You can also say that i'm stupid or not smart enough to connect the dots, you might be right. But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "I actually do "know them" as I have read their posts as you have and had conversations with them.
I never stated that you were stupid. Those are your words. I stated you weren't smart enough to connect the dots.
Nice logic. "by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
" @spidey 15 said:Acusing someone who you know nothing of, of being stupid does show your ignorance." @Enigman: If you actually even know who Vance or Static or Silver is, then you would realize how stupid will be from you to insult their intellect and credibility. You can also say that i'm stupid or not smart enough to connect the dots, you might be right. But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "I actually do "know them" as I have read their posts as you have and had conversations with them. I never stated that you were stupid. Those are your words. I stated you weren't smart enough to connect the dots. Nice logic. "by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? "
I actually do "know them" as I have read their posts as you have and had conversations with them.
Then i don't understand why is it so hard to realize that they are intelligent people since you have read their posts and you had conversations with them.
I never stated that you were stupid. Those are your words. I stated you weren't smart enough to connect the dots.
Neither i stated that you said that i'm stupid. I just said that you can call me stupid. I don't really care.
Nice logic. "by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
When you can actually reply with maturity then we can talk.
=]
The initial sarcasm was not necessary either.Retaliating to it makes it just as bad, if not worse. Noting what was said to you initially doesn't really save you, nor does it make it OK for you.
@Enigman said:
"Perhaps you should take you own advice on losing the condescending attitude and superiority complex. You are guilty of sarcasm and retaliatory remarks as well as insults.Telling me to take my own advice after putting your insecurities on me doesn't really work, either.
@Enigman said:
"You should follow your own advice about turning the other cheekI did that. In our last discussion. Now, it's your turn.
@Enigman said:
" My assumptions of your emotional content are the result of observation of and interaction with you. Save the 5th grade reverse psychology for someone who will actually fall for it. "
Right. They are nothing but assumptions (as you've admitted), not even remotely close to being necessarily true, anyway. Your observations of me would be better if they were actually bound by truth. But, all I see is subjectivity, still. There's no reverse psychology present. All it takes is admittance. You clearly don't have it, I'm afraid.
I never accused anyone of being stupid. You are not correctly interpreting the context of my post. Please try to read more carefully and understand what you read. What was that you stated concerning ignorance? Also I know of them and have observed them and had conversations with them often." @Enigman said:
Acusing someone who you know nothing of, of being stupid does show your ignorance. "" @spidey 15 said:
I actually do "know them" as I have read their posts as you have and had conversations with them. I never stated that you were stupid. Those are your words. I stated you weren't smart enough to connect the dots. Nice logic. "by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? "" @Enigman: If you actually even know who Vance or Static or Silver is, then you would realize how stupid will be from you to insult their intellect and credibility. You can also say that i'm stupid or not smart enough to connect the dots, you might be right. But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
this:
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? "
Is my interpretation of this statement made by him :
@spidey 15 said:
" But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
Please try to read more carefully and understand what you read. What was that you stated concerning ignorance?
"@Static Shock: I read the posts you referring to. Based on those, I have actually come to the conclusion that this is an intentional attempt to start a flame war. "Great minds think alike.
I would like to point out a few flaws in your logic.
1. DD and BP have faced off IIRC about 6 times (only 3 were battles and there wasn't an all out from either in those), and so far neither has really gotten the upper hand. All of these have been without the Vibranium armor
2. your assertion that BP somehow has greater intellect is also incorrect. DD's intellect was enhanced as a result of the accident that also increased his senses. It's the reason that he was able to get all A's throughout his education (right through to law degree)despite spending most of his time training. He uses a larger portion of his brain than the average human (canon since the Miller years). It is because of this intellect that he has been able to beat the Avenger, Xmen, and many other vastly more powerful opponents 9much like BP)
3. Sonics involve a little more than just loud noise
4. How do you propose that BP is going to maintain a lead on a DD enhanced by the symbiont who was able to evade him across city roof tops for days (when he wasn't enhanced).
Sorry but these are only four out of about 15 holes in the logic you present.
Current BP (with Vibranium Suit and anti metal claws) should win at least 9/10 against DD. But in the scenario presented with DD being enhanced by the symbiont this one goes to DD 6-7/10 (there are I believe a few opportunities where BP could get lucky and take it out). With Prep I'd say it just goes teh other way.
" @Enigman said:I am not trying to save myself. Nor am i trying to justify myself to you. I am sorry (here be sarcasm) if you got that impression as I dont feel a need to justify anything to you. Again, i was simply correcting their error on who initiated the sarcasm and insults. It was not an attempt at justification. it was simply a correction of the facts.The initial sarcasm was not necessary either.Retaliating to it makes it just as bad, if not worse. Noting what was said to you initially doesn't really save you, nor does it make it OK for you.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:"Perhaps you should take you own advice on losing the condescending attitude and superiority complex. You are guilty of sarcasm and retaliatory remarks as well as insults.Telling me to take my own advice after putting your insecurities on me doesn't really work, either.
I was not "putting " my insecurities on you. I was once again highlighting your hypocrisy as I have to do every time we have a discussion.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:No. That is not what you did at all. You were proven wrong on every aspect of our conversation and when none of your tactics worked you typed "aight" and logged. It happens that way every time yet you still persist."You should follow your own advice about turning the other cheekI did that. In our last discussion. Now, it's your turn.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:" My assumptions of your emotional content are the result of observation of and interaction with you. Save the 5th grade reverse psychology for someone who will actually fall for it. "Right. They are nothing but assumptions (as you've admitted), not even remotely close to being necessarily true, anyway. Your observations of me would be better if they were actually bound by truth. But, all I see is subjectivity, still. There's no reverse psychology present. All it takes is admittance. You clearly don't have it, I'm afraid. "
They are assumption based on fact and not blind assumptions as you were attempting to label them as. And now you're attempting to paraphrase a response i gave you in our other conversation. If all you're seeing is subjectivity then you are looking subjectively and are yourself being subjective so you cant say i'm subjective because you are. <---We can go on that merry-go-round all day. I don't have admittance to what? youre using the word improperly. I believe you meant "the ability to admit" "or incapable of admitting". The context you're using it in refers to entering. I have watched you so many times use other peoples thoughts, ideas, communication techniques etc and pretend as if they are yours originally. It causes me to lose respect for you each and every time i see you do it.
"1. DD and BP have faced off IIRC about 6 times (only 3 were battles and there wasn't an all out from either in those), and so far neither has really gotten the upper hand.I only recall two fights they've had. One where T'Challa was brainwashed, and the other were Daredevil wanted to stop Wheeler from committing suicide. What's the third?
Again you are having difficulty understanding things. I didn't call you stupid." @Enigman: It seems that you like to make up things and put words in my mouth. I didn't call you stupid. I just said that you don't know anything about them, that doesn't mean that you are stupid. =] "
this:
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? "
Is my interpretation of this statement made by him :
@spidey 15 said:
" But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
Please try to read more carefully and understand what you read.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? "
Read what i've just underlined.
You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid.
And i've just explained that i never called you stupid.
=]
" @Enigman: I would like to point out a few flaws in your logic. 1. DD and BP have faced off IIRC about 6 times (only 3 were battles and there wasn't an all out from either in those), and so far neither has really gotten the upper hand. All of these have been without the Vibranium armor 2. your assertion that BP somehow has greater intellect is also incorrect. DD's intellect was enhanced as a result of the accident that also increased his senses. It's the reason that he was able to get all A's throughout his education (right through to law degree)despite spending most of his time training. He uses a larger portion of his brain than the average human (canon since the Miller years). It is because of this intellect that he has been able to beat the Avenger, Xmen, and many other vastly more powerful opponents 9much like BP)3. Sonics involve a little more than just loud noise 4. How do you propose that BP is going to maintain a lead on a DD enhanced by the symbiont who was able to evade him across city roof tops for days (when he wasn't enhanced). Sorry but these are only four out of about 15 holes in the logic you present. Current BP (with Vibranium Suit and anti metal claws) should win at least 9/10 against DD. But in the scenario presented with DD being enhanced by the symbiont this one goes to DD 6-7/10 (there are I believe a few opportunities where BP could get lucky and take it out). With Prep I'd say it just goes teh other way. "1.) DD is wearing a symbiote and it can be ffected by sound as can he and he will not be as mentally sharp while wearing it anyway.
2.)BPs intellect is greater than a DD with a symbiote on and barraged by sound.
3.) Sonics ARE sounds.
4.) BP will set off car alarms by striking them and banging objects together to disorient and slow DD thereby staying ahead of him usingthese as well as speed and agility as Bp isn't chasing he himself is evading.
Black panther isn't trying to defeat dd conventionally. He is luring him onto an electronics store where he will turn up the boomboxes and stereos to max and drive the symbiote from dd.
My logic is not flawed. Theoretically it could work.
" @beatboks1 said:I could be wrong about six but at least five. As I said they weren't all "fights", but I remember two others . One DD was delaying BP from someone (cant for the life of me remember who) because he believed them innocent of what ever. The other was more of a chase across rooftops because DD was trying to bring in one of T'challas subjects (something like that) and T'challa couldn't get near him"1. DD and BP have faced off IIRC about 6 times (only 3 were battles and there wasn't an all out from either in those), and so far neither has really gotten the upper hand.I only recall two fights they've had. One where T'Challa was brainwashed, and the other were Daredevil wanted to stop Wheeler from committing suicide. What's the third? "
" @Enigman: It seems that you are the one that should read more carefully.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? " Read what i've just underlined. You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid. And i've just explained that i never called you stupid. =] "
@spidey 15 said: " But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
Again you are having a difficult time grasping the concepts of sarcasm and metaphor. When i use the word "stupid" in that portion of the sentennce that you underlined its a metaphor for "you know nothing about them". Now that i have spelled it out for you, didn't you make the commitment to stay on topic?
If it were me, I would be afraid to admit it, too."I am not trying to save myself.
@Enigman
said:Yes, you were, and you're bothered by the fact that you think I'm being a hypocrite, mainly because you don't like it when others tell you about yourself when your back is against the wall. As always." I was not "putting " my insecurities on you. I was once again highlighting your hypocrisy as I have to do every time we have a discussion.
@Enigman
said:The end result is how I normally concede to an argument around here. I thought it was obvious. I don't have to say 'I concede' for you to get it. But, if you can't take my 'aight' as turning the other cheek, so be it."No. That is not what you did at all. You were proven wrong on every aspect of our conversation and when none of your tactics worked you typed "aight" and logged.
@Enigman
said:"They are assumption based on fact and not blind assumptions as you were attempting to label them as. And now you're attempting to paraphrase a response i gave you in our other conversation. If all you're seeing is subjectivity then you are looking subjectively and are yourself being subjective so you cant say i'm subjective because you are. <---We can go on that merry-go-round all day. I don't have admittance to what? youre using the word improperly. I believe you meant "the ability to admit" "or incapable of admitting". The context you're using it in refers to entering.
They are more like assumptions based on your opinions, feelings, and/or views. Either way, they aren't true. I'm not paraphrasing anything that you said in our last discussion (I'm not even reading it), either. All I'm seeing is subjectivity, because that's what it is. Your opinion of me. Nothing more. You caught yourself being subjective of me from the start, so I just thought I'd let you know. We don't have to get on the merry-go-around, at all, though. But, I can always buy you a season pass. Admittance doesn't just refer to entering, but it refers to the act of admitting. The latter meaning to allow or concede as valid. I was right the first time in using it (since you wouldn't admit to be being based and subjective in relevance to getting emotion out of responses). But, you probably won't admit to that, either.
@Enigman
said:More subjectivity. I respect your opinion of me."I have watched you so many times use other peoples thoughts, ideas, communication techniques etc and pretend as if they are yours originally.
@Enigman
said:Your respect isn't required, and to be honest, you aren't of any importance to me. I'm not here for you to respect me. Nonetheless, I will continue to respect you." It causes me to lose respect for you each and every time i see you do it. "
3.) Sonics ARE sounds.Sorry "sonic" refers to being of sound or a having a speed of sound through air
"sonics" refers to the study of mechanical vibrations in matter.
SO "sonics" are not just sound (sound is the result of vibrations in matter but sonics involve much more)
"I could be wrong about six but at least five. As I said they weren't all "fights", but I remember two others . One DD was delaying BP from someone (cant for the life of me remember who) because he believed them innocent of what ever. The other was more of a chase across rooftops because DD was trying to bring in one of T'challas subjects (something like that) and T'challa couldn't get near him "Do you remember what book it was in?
" @spidey 15 said:Let me know when someone will be able to understand sarcasm through the internet.Again you are having a difficult time grasping the concepts of sarcasm and metaphor. When i use the word "stupid" in that portion of the sentennce that you underlined its a metaphor for "you know nothing about them". Now that i have spelled it out for you, didn't you make the commitment to stay on topic? "" @Enigman: It seems that you are the one that should read more carefully.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? " Read what i've just underlined. You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid. And i've just explained that i never called you stupid. =] "
@spidey 15 said: " But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
=]
" @Enigman said:You see. Therein lies your mistake. You assume that everyone is motivated by fear as you are. I have no problem admitting my error or being honest. Fear nor insecurity does not rule me."I am not trying to save myself.If it were me, I would be afraid to admit it, too.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:" I was not "putting " my insecurities on you. I was once again highlighting your hypocrisy as I have to do every time we have a discussion.Yes, you were, and you're bothered by the fact that you think I'm being a hypocrite, mainly because you don't like it when others tell you about yourself when your back is against the wall. As always.
No. I was not bothered. It was and observation and nothing more. I do feel pity for you at times. This actually seems to be you projecting because i have typed something that hurt your feelings. My back is actually against the back of a chair and we both know that in the allegorical sense you have never "placed my back against the wall" and that I believe bothers you a great deal.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:"No. That is not what you did at all. You were proven wrong on every aspect of our conversation and when none of your tactics worked you typed "aight" and logged.The end result is how I normally concede to an argument around here. I thought it was obvious. I don't have to say 'I concede' for you to get it. But, if you can't take my 'aight' as turning the other cheek, so be it.
That was not a concession at all. I firmly believe that your ego and insecurity prevents you from ever actually conceding. "Aight" is more like pouting than conceding and turning the cheek in my opinion. A man admits his errors, a child pouts. Someday you will understand the difference.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:They are assumptions based on thing that i have read that you posted and interactions that I have with you. I never stated that you were reading it, i stated that you were paraphrasing it. The inference is that you were doing so from memory. And since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thank you. Season pass. Your attempt at being clever i take it. Admitting refers to the act of admitting. Admittance refers to entering. Sorry. The latter may mean to allow or concede but the former refers to entering. But, you probably wont admit that either."They are assumption based on fact and not blind assumptions as you were attempting to label them as. And now you're attempting to paraphrase a response i gave you in our other conversation. If all you're seeing is subjectivity then you are looking subjectively and are yourself being subjective so you cant say i'm subjective because you are. <---We can go on that merry-go-round all day. I don't have admittance to what? youre using the word improperly. I believe you meant "the ability to admit" "or incapable of admitting". The context you're using it in refers to entering.
They are more like assumptions based on your opinions. Either way, they aren't true. I'm not paraphrasing anything that you said in our last discussion (I'm not even reading it), either. All I'm seeing is subjectivity, because that's what it is. Your opinion of me. Nothing more. You caught yourself being subjective of me from the start, so I just thought I'd let you know. We don't have to get on the merry-go-around, at all, though. But, I can always buy you a season pass. Admittance doesn't just refer to entering, but it refers to the act of admitting. The latter meaning to allow or concede as valid. I was right the first time in using it. But, you probably won't admit to that, either.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:"I have watched you so many times use other peoples thoughts, ideas, communication techniques etc and pretend as if they are yours originally.More subjectivity. I respect your opinion of me.
You have used subjectivity and subjective many times since I have. Again, I am flattered by your imitations of me.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:If I am of no importance then prove it an dont respond to this not or respond or reply to anything i type on comicvine in the future. This wil prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "i am not of any importance to (you)"." It causes me to lose respect for you each and every time i see you do it. "Your respect isn't required, and to be honest, you aren't of any importance to. I'm not here for you to respect me. Nonetheless, I will continue to respect you. "
Thats it? That's all you have? You're going to troll over an "s"?" @Enigman said:
3.) Sonics ARE sounds.Sorry "sonic" refers to being of sound or a having a speed of sound through air "sonics" refers to the study of mechanical vibrations in matter. SO "sonics" are not just sound (sound is the result of vibrations in matter but sonics involve much more) "
So you mean to tell me that you erroneously assumed that I meant that Black panther was going to attack DD with the study of vibrations in matter? You couldn't infer the context?
He is going to Attack the symbiote sonically. There. Is that easier for you to comprehend?
@spidey 15 said:
" @Enigman said:" @spidey 15 said:Let me know when someone will be able to understand sarcasm through the internet. =] "Again you are having a difficult time grasping the concepts of sarcasm and metaphor. When i use the word "stupid" in that portion of the sentennce that you underlined its a metaphor for "you know nothing about them". Now that i have spelled it out for you, didn't you make the commitment to stay on topic? "" @Enigman: It seems that you are the one that should read more carefully.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? " Read what i've just underlined. You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid. And i've just explained that i never called you stupid. =] "
@spidey 15 said: " But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
I could point out to you that many people can infer sarcasm from text and from the written or typed word but i fear it will be in vain as you seem to have difficulty grasping even the most basic of concepts.
" @beatboks1 said:The ones I've got it in was an Australian edition Daredevil. Afrais that could mean anything. Pre 1985 less than 10% or so of comics were imported directly into the Australian market due to "protection laws". Allegedly they were meant to ensure that our freedom and free speech couldn't be controlled by outside influences. All bunk off course because it was quite acceptable for Australian publishers to reprint foreign work unchanged and market. So basically we got a lot of "anthology" type titles that were Australian reprints of American comics. All Australian comics were originally 90 page bi monthlies (some colour some most black and white with colour covers). Only Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Justice League, Avengers, Xmen, Doom Patrol, and Teen Titans had regular monthly titles. DD, Hulk, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and others would get a title every now and then. Most others were in anthologies only or back up features in team books."I could be wrong about six but at least five. As I said they weren't all "fights", but I remember two others . One DD was delaying BP from someone (cant for the life of me remember who) because he believed them innocent of what ever. The other was more of a chase across rooftops because DD was trying to bring in one of T'challas subjects (something like that) and T'challa couldn't get near him "Do you remember what book it was in? "
" @beatboks1 said:And you have the audacity to accuse other of becoming emotionally charged in their posts. Interesting since your the only one using antagonistic vernacular directed at the individual rather than the content or context of what they have to convey. Your flagged by the way.Thats it? That's all you have? You're going to troll over an "s"?" @Enigman said:
3.) Sonics ARE sounds.Sorry "sonic" refers to being of sound or a having a speed of sound through air "sonics" refers to the study of mechanical vibrations in matter. SO "sonics" are not just sound (sound is the result of vibrations in matter but sonics involve much more) "
So you mean to tell me that you erroneously assumed that I meant that Black panther was going to attack DD with the study of vibrations in matter? You couldn't infer the context?
He is going to Attack the symbiote sonically. There. Is that easier for you to comprehend?
@spidey 15 said:" @Enigman said:I could point out to you that many people can infer sarcasm from text and from the written or typed word but i fear it will be in vain as you seem to have difficulty grasping even the most basic of concepts. "" @spidey 15 said:Let me know when someone will be able to understand sarcasm through the internet. =] "Again you are having a difficult time grasping the concepts of sarcasm and metaphor. When i use the word "stupid" in that portion of the sentennce that you underlined its a metaphor for "you know nothing about them". Now that i have spelled it out for you, didn't you make the commitment to stay on topic? "" @Enigman: It seems that you are the one that should read more carefully.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? " Read what i've just underlined. You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid. And i've just explained that i never called you stupid. =] "
@spidey 15 said: " But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
I accused them of letting their emotions cloud their view of the events and not looking at things objectively just as you are failing to do. He typed a sarcastic post and i reciprocated. He called an answer of mine stupid and i responded in kind. I am not nor was i the only one using "antagonistic vernacular". You are biased and quite mistaken. If you have flagged me then you are in error and have to deal with your own conscience, such as it is." @Enigman said:
And you have the audacity to accuse other of becoming emotionally charged in their posts. Interesting since your the only one using antagonistic vernacular directed at the individual rather than the content or context of what they have to convey. Your flagged by the way. "" @beatboks1 said:
Thats it? That's all you have? You're going to troll over an "s"?" @Enigman said:
3.) Sonics ARE sounds.Sorry "sonic" refers to being of sound or a having a speed of sound through air "sonics" refers to the study of mechanical vibrations in matter. SO "sonics" are not just sound (sound is the result of vibrations in matter but sonics involve much more) "
So you mean to tell me that you erroneously assumed that I meant that Black panther was going to attack DD with the study of vibrations in matter? You couldn't infer the context?
He is going to Attack the symbiote sonically. There. Is that easier for you to comprehend?
@spidey 15
said:" @Enigman said:I could point out to you that many people can infer sarcasm from text and from the written or typed word but i fear it will be in vain as you seem to have difficulty grasping even the most basic of concepts. "" @spidey 15 said:Let me know when someone will be able to understand sarcasm through the internet. =] "Again you are having a difficult time grasping the concepts of sarcasm and metaphor. When i use the word "stupid" in that portion of the sentennce that you underlined its a metaphor for "you know nothing about them". Now that i have spelled it out for you, didn't you make the commitment to stay on topic? "" @Enigman: It seems that you are the one that should read more carefully.
"by saying they're stupid it proves that you're stupid cuz they always show that their not stupid". Wow. Did you come up with that all by yourself? " Read what i've just underlined. You said that i called you stupid because you called other people stupid. And i've just explained that i never called you stupid. =] "
@spidey 15 said: " But insulting other intelligent user's credibility just proves that you know nothing about them. Because constantly they prove how intelligent they are. =] "***
Yet, you're actually under the impression that I'm motivated by fear. Another blind assumption. You can stop lying to yourself, too." You see. Therein lies your mistake. You assume that everyone is motivated by fear as you are. I have no problem admitting my error or being honest. Fear nor insecurity does not rule me.
@Enigman said:
An observation based on subjectivity. You forgot to mention that. Things aren't always what they seem to be, I'm sure." No. I was not bothered. It was and observation and nothing more. I do feel pity for you at times. This actually seems to be you projecting because i have typed something that hurt your feelings.
@Enigman
said:That's the sad part. It's your opinion, yet again, and meaningless at best. 'Aight' being the derivative term of 'alright,' meaning fine or okay. giving satisfaction. What's even more sad is you thinking that you actually make people pout in their discussions with you, believing yourself to be imposing and intimidating towards others over the internet (what most like to call, 'e-thugging;' not a good look for you), and acting if you have some superhuman ability to tell emotion through your computer screen. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself." "Aight" is more like pouting than conceding and turning the cheek in my opinion.
@Enigman
said:Well, then. Don't worry, my son. We're almost finished. Would you like a lollipop?" A man admits his errors, a child pouts.
@Enigman
said:Nevertheless, still based on opinion, anyway. I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't paraphrasing, and I know exactly what you said (since I addressed it already, but maybe you didn't read it). Your inference is erroneous."They are assumptions based on thing that i have read that you posted and interactions that I have with you. I never stated that you were reading it, i stated that you were paraphrasing it. The inference is that you were doing so from memory. And since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thank you.
@Enigman
said:I'm flattered by your opinion."You have used subjectivity and subjective many times since I have. Again, I am flattered by your imitations of me.
@Enigman
said:Merriam-Webster helps, you know?" Admitting refers to the act of admitting. Admittance refers to entering. Sorry. The latter may mean to allow or concede but the former refers to entering. But, you probably wont admit that either.
Definition of ADMITTANCE
1 a : the act or process of admittinghttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admittance
Definition of ADMIT
transitive verbTold you that you wouldn't admit to it. I was never wrong from the start.
@Enigman said:
" If I am of no importance then prove it
ROFL !!!!!!!!"I accuse them of letting their emotions cloud their view of the events and not looking at things objectively just as you are failing to do. He typed a sarcastic post and i reciprocated. He called an answer of mine stupid and i responded in kind. I am not nor was i the only one using "antagonistic vernacular". You are biased and quite mistaken. If you have flagged me then you are in error and have to deal with your own conscience, such as it is. "
bi·ased 1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
from my first post
@beatboks1
Current BP (with Vibranium Suit and anti metal claws) should win at least 9/10 against DD. But in the scenario presented with DD being enhanced by the symbiont this one goes to DD 6-7/10 (there are I believe a few opportunities where BP could get lucky and take it out). With Prep I'd say it just goes the other way.
Considering I seem to be leaning all over the place and not solely "in a particular direction" unfair or otherwise, the facts in evidence would seem to prove your point in error.
You stated that you would be afraid too. Your words, not mine. I am sure you would like to believe that everyone is ruled by fear and insecurity as you are. This is not the case no matter how much you want it to be." @Enigman said:
Yet, you're actually under the impression that I'm motivated by fear. Another blind assumption. You can stop lying to yourself, too." You see. Therein lies your mistake. You assume that everyone is motivated by fear as you are. I have no problem admitting my error or being honest. Fear nor insecurity does not rule me.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:The inference was already there with the word "seems". Anything more would be redundant My apologies. I assumed you could understand what I meant. I guess I expected to much of you.An observation based on subjectivity. You forgot to mention that. Things aren't always what they seem to be, I'm sure." No. I was not bothered. It was and observation and nothing more. I do feel pity for you at times. This actually seems to be you projecting because i have typed something that hurt your feelings.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:
That's the sad part. It's your opinion, yet again, and meaningless at best. 'Aight' being the derivative term of 'alright,' meaning fine or okay. giving satisfaction. What's even more sad is you thinking that you actually make people pout in their discussions with you, believing yourself to be imposing and intimidating towards others over the internet (what most like to call, 'e-thugging;' not a good look for you), and acting if you have some superhuman ability to tell emotion through your computer screen. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself." "Aight" is more like pouting than conceding and turning the cheek in my opinion.
I didn't mean to make you sad. Tissue? I do not believe myself imposing. I believed and still believe that you haven't grown up yet and pout when you lose. Superhuman ability to read emotion through text and context? If all humans can do this then it isn't superhuman. Looks like I hit the nail on the head. Time to grow up little fella.
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:
Well, then. Don't worry, my son. We're almost finished. Would you like a lollipop?" A man admits his errors, a child pouts.
Hit a nerve again didn't I? :)
@Static Shock said:
@Enigman said:
Nevertheless, still based on opinion, anyway. I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't paraphrasing, and I know exactly what you said (since I addressed it already, but maybe you didn't read it). Your inference is erroneous."They are assumptions based on thing that i have read that you posted and interactions that I have with you. I never stated that you were reading it, i stated that you were paraphrasing it. The inference is that you were doing so from memory. And since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, thank you.
" Your inference is erroneous". You aren't even bothering to paraphrase anymore you're using verbatim quotes now huh? Do you ever have any original thoughts or type any original ideas? I bet you steal your smart friends ideas and pass them off as your own when they aren't around as well don't you?
@Static Shock said:
You're like an intellectual doppleganger. You simply imitate others. Like a parrot. But you have no real intellect of your own. (let me guess...youre going to use the word subjective or subjectivity in your response)
@Enigman
I'm flattered by your opinion."You have used subjectivity and subjective many times since I have. Again, I am flattered by your imitations of me.
@Static Shock said:
I am mistaken and in error. See how easy that is?@Enigman said:
Merriam-Webster helps, you know?" Admitting refers to the act of admitting. Admittance refers to entering. Sorry. The latter may mean to allow or concede but the former refers to entering. But, you probably wont admit that either.
Definition of ADMITTANCE
1 a : the act or process of admitting
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admittanceDefinition of ADMIT
transitive verb
1
b : to concede as true or valid <admitted making a mistake>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/admitting?show=0&t=1283433148
Told you that you wouldn't admit to it. I was never wrong from the start.
@Enigman
said:" If I am of no importance then prove it
"
This seems to me , and yes it's subjective, like something a pre-teen or someone in junior high would do. It seems quite juvenile.
If It were really that unimportant you would not even have bothered to respond with this post. And. Gross. The Chris Brown"Deuces" song is about him leaving his girlfriend. Sorry buddy, I don't roll that way.
Wow.
" @Enigman said:Eight exclamation points? Phony. Way Melodramatic. People still type ROFL?ROFL !!!!!!!!"I accuse them of letting their emotions cloud their view of the events and not looking at things objectively just as you are failing to do. He typed a sarcastic post and i reciprocated. He called an answer of mine stupid and i responded in kind. I am not nor was i the only one using "antagonistic vernacular". You are biased and quite mistaken. If you have flagged me then you are in error and have to deal with your own conscience, such as it is. "
bi·ased 1. To influence in a particular, typically unfair direction; prejudice.
@beatboks1 said:
@beatboks1
Current BP (with Vibranium Suit and anti metal claws) should win at least 9/10 against DD. But in the scenario presented with DD being enhanced by the symbiont this one goes to DD 6-7/10 (there are I believe a few opportunities where BP could get lucky and take it out). With Prep I'd say it just goes the other way.
Considering I seem to be leaning all over the place and not solely "in a particular direction" unfair or otherwise, the facts in evidence would seem to prove your point in error. "
My reference to you being biased was of course pertaining to your view of the chain of events and dialogue between myself and the other posters. How you figured i meant you were biased about BP I will never know as we were not even discussing that at the time.
" The ones I've got it in was an Australian edition Daredevil. Afrais that could mean anything. Pre 1985 less than 10% or so of comics were imported directly into the Australian market due to "protection laws". Allegedly they were meant to ensure that our freedom and free speech couldn't be controlled by outside influences. All bunk off course because it was quite acceptable for Australian publishers to reprint foreign work unchanged and market. So basically we got a lot of "anthology" type titles that were Australian reprints of American comics. All Australian comics were originally 90 page bi monthlies (some colour some most black and white with colour covers). Only Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Justice League, Avengers, Xmen, Doom Patrol, and Teen Titans had regular monthly titles. DD, Hulk, Aquaman, Wonder Woman and others would get a title every now and then. Most others were in anthologies only or back up features in team books. "I'm assuming you would have a hard time finding the instance. Right? LOL.
"WTF ..... o_O. Do I even want to read all this. "
NO!
Okay warnings handed out, now im locking this since the last 5-6 pages have not even been debating, if anyone wan'ts me to reopen it! please pm me and I will consider opening it again in a few hours so it's a little more chilled.
Daredevil should win this.
He was able to hold his own against Black Panther before.
With the symbiote, he will be physically better, stronger faster etc....
Also since DD will have the venom symbiote, he will be also able to shot webbing. This is a big advantage.
Now DD's skills, physical advantages and webbing will let him to beat Black Panther IMO.
=]
In order for Black Panther to win absolutely everything would have to go his way.We all know in life nothing works like that.DD will easily take T'Challa out.
A guy with enhanced hearing (among other sensory enhancements) with an alien organism bonded to him that is sensitive and vulnerable to super loud noises and sonics... versus a genius wearing a strong and powerful suit and lord knows what kinds of gadgets in it? I'm honestly pulling for Black Panther whom I believe will know the weaknesses (fire and sonics) the symbiote possesses.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment