• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Status
Not open for further replies.
For Calculation 1, I need a bit more time to sort through where Method 1 is appropriate. Method 2 might be okay, but I don't actually know if that one is viable either but for different reasons. Finding it a bit difficult to put into words but will attempt a detailed explanation.

For Calculation 2, the new end for Hikone at 0.72c (Rel+) should be fine.
 
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.
 
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.

Given all this, we're moving on from that.
 
I think all that’s left is to iron out the first calc and get into the meat of the debate with the third calc.
 
Yeah. I'm getting a second opinion on my thoughts for the 1st calc, while I'm writing out a more detailed comment for it.

Will post in a few hours when I have time.
 
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.

More like, they willingly ignored the text.


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.

It's not could have, is right there that they witnessed the movement.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
🗿
 
Anyways, the remaining things to be discussed are the finer details of the first calc and the validity of the third calc?
 
“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.
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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
Thanks for putting this better than I did tbh.
 
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.

The actual time of the feat is enough for Hisagi to move, everyone else felt as if time stopped but they are never said to be actually immobile.


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 actually see a bullet, and Bleach characters react faster than they can see, if focused.


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.

Witnessed simply doesn't mean “was in the vicinity of the movement"

You can arguee with a dictionary if you want, it would be your match in stubbornly using words it doesn't understand lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top