Arcker123
He/Him- 8,063
- 6,148
Sounded very passive aggressive.Never said it was. Dont take me so literal next time. Also i already been outside. Its too ******* hot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sounded very passive aggressive.Never said it was. Dont take me so literal next time. Also i already been outside. Its too ******* hot.
Damn thats crazy. Didnt askSounded very passive aggressive.Sounds like copium ngl.
It can have multiple meanings
Please stop Derailing this Crt, it isnt about Byakuya and Yoruichi and are not important.
No rush but how’re things holding up on your end?Will make time to go through the new revisions, hopefully tonight.
Sorry, was busy last night & got wrapped up in a new DBZ revision I started.No rush but how’re things holding up on your end?
Cool. I'll post in this thread later today.I finish finals tonight.
Take your timebut will attempt a detailed explanation.
As I said earlier, the Hikone calc is wrong since it assumes he blitzed Grimmjow, but he could have reacted if he was focused on that.
Yeah says only you, everyone else disagrees and provided reasoning far superior to yours, move on, I don't have time for other's head canon.As I said earlier, the Hikone calc is wrong since it assumes he blitzed Grimmjow, but he could have reacted if he was focused on that.
Pretty sure just about everyone else disagrees with you. Plus, your argument is a "could've," not something of actual certainty.As I said earlier, the Hikone calc is wrong since it assumes he blitzed Grimmjow, but he could have reacted if he was focused on that.
BASED ArcYeah says only you, everyone else disagrees and provided reasoning far superior to yours, move on, I don't have time for other's head canon.
Yeah says only you, everyone else disagrees and provided reasoning far superior to yours, move on, I don't have time for other's head canon.
Pretty sure just about everyone else disagrees with you. Plus, your argument is a "could've," not something of actual certainty.
Given all this, we're moving on from that.
No the author verbatim says they couldn’t react, and furthermore it’s the narrator describing the movement, not the characters witnessing it. I know for a fact Arcker already debunked you on this, and still no one agrees with you. Stop derailing by repeating the same debunked, unaccepted arguments. I’d like to be able to converse with CGM about my calcs without needless clutter.More like, they willingly ignored the text.
It's not could have, is right there that they witnessed the movement.
No the author verbatim says they couldn’t react, and furthermore it’s the narrator describing the movement, not the characters witnessing it. I know for a fact Arcker already debunked you on this, and still no one agrees with you. Stop derailing by repeating the same debunked, unaccepted arguments. I’d like to be able to converse with CGM about my calcs without needless clutter.
The author says anyone that witnessed the movements was too surprised and confused to react.
"Witnessing those movements, which could have been described as beautiful" is not proof they could describe it. The statement doesn't even say they could describe it, it says it could have been described as beautiful. That's clearly from a narrator POV, not a character. The entire statement is from a narrator POV. I've already addressed your "witnessed" argument, and no defeater has been offered. There is still no convincing case they reacted.
Can you stop derailing my thread? This thread has nothing to do with the scaling you’re talking about. You made your own thread for this. This is the last time I’ll ask.“Those who witnessed the movement felt as though time was stopped around them”
The ones that felt that where the alliance, they witnessed the movement.
This is what, at least the third time you’ve repeated this nonsense without actually responding to objections that have been raised multiple times. Quit dodging arguments and actually respond to them, maybe then people will care enough about your arguments to agree with then.“Those who witnessed the movement felt as though time was stopped around them”
The ones that felt that where the alliance, they witnessed the movement.
Arc7Kuroi = Mentally FarmedCan you stop derailing my thread? This thread has nothing to do with the scaling you’re talking about. You made your own thread for this. This is the last time I’ll ask.
Yes. I'll address the 3rd calc seperately. Will respond to the 1st calc first when I can.Anyways, the remaining things to be discussed are the finer details of the first calc and the validity of the third calc?
This is what, at least the third time you’ve repeated this nonsense without actually responding to objections that have been raised multiple times. Quit dodging arguments and actually respond to them, maybe then people will care enough about your arguments to agree with then.
psst, hey, guess what: witnessing something does not mean you can react to it; you can witness a bullet flying right in front of your eyes, but that doesn't mean you can react to it, stop stonewalling and derailing“Those who witnessed the movement felt as though time was stopped around them”
You can’t be this stupid. I’ve already explained to you how you have to prove witnesses (in this context) means “I saw the movement exactly). It could mean “was in the vicinity of the movement.” It was shown how your interpretation was inconsistent, and you gave no response. Pay attention and stop wasting our time.I did respond to them, this post was pretty clear.
“Those who witnessed the movement felt as though time was stopped around them”
There's no ambiguity to the fact they saw Hikone move.
Thanks for putting this better than I did tbh.psst, hey, guess what: witnessing something does not mean you can react to it; you can witness a bullet flying right in front of your eyes, but that doesn't mean you can react to it, stop stonewalling and derailing
Also I’m going to assume Hasch didn’t read my Hikone calc, cuz the accepted end has nothing to do with perceptions, and rather is based on the fact that while he was moving everyone else was “still” like “time had stopped”. So, at least as far as the calc is involved, whether you think they say Hikone or not doesn’t impact the accepted end whatsoever.
psst, hey, guess what: witnessing something does not mean you can react to it; you can witness a bullet flying right in front of your eyes, but that doesn't mean you can react to it, stop stonewalling and derailing
You can’t be this stupid. I’ve already explained to you how you have to prove witnesses (in this context) means “I saw the movement exactly). It could mean “was in the vicinity of the movement.” It was shown how your interpretation was inconsistent, and you gave no response. Pay attention and stop wasting our time.