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.
The "damage eality" was said to not be a thing, it needs to be removed and the text changed. It was said to be wrong like I said and how they disagreed on, that's not the same conclusion. I feel much more comfortable with that text out of the way but I'm gonna look up the context myself just in case to see if what's being accepted as a Low 2-C feat isn't actually a 3-A by only spreading across the present point in time of the physical matter of the universe, or something notably lesser.That's what it is rated as:
"Universe level+ over time (Performed enough sit-ups to damage reality and punch a hole outside the universe, which would continue to spread around the universe)"
What in there was dishonest? He said that the feat should be Low 2-C overtime which it was listed as on the profile.What GiverOfThePeace said was dishonest;
The "damage eality" was said to not be a thing, it needs to be removed and the text changed. It was said to be wrong like I said and how they disagreed on, that's not the same conclusion. I feel much more comfortable with that text out of the way but I'm gonna look up the context myself just in case to see if what's being accepted as a Low 2-C feat isn't actually a 3-A by only spreading across the present point in time of the physical matter of the universe, or something notably lesser.
It was sloppy, AKM sama said no to the hole in reality being a thing here, you were ok with keeping it here and here, I pointed out that the text needed to be removed here. Can you see what's dishonest now? Also, I said that I slightly suspect that the tactic of expanding this thread needlessly to make it harder to read was being used here. If what's happening is more innocent than malicios then one should know when the option to not contribute does the opposite of helping.What in there was dishonest? He said that the feat should be Low 2-C overtime which it was listed as on the profile.
Here. And I must say, I did ask for the context around those 3 images. I took the lack of any answer to that as the context being neutral for both sides (and as suspicious). I believe the correct thing would have been to tell me "idk about it" at the time.Can you send the scans instead of just stating this? It's weird to me how you haven't sent the scans for the context but just claimed the context.