- 15,440
- 5,027
Can't tell if that's a joke on how badly structured sentences have been so far or if you do disagree with me.I disagree with @Eficiente because he's right
You are missing both a "," there and a pause to think about how you convey what you mean based on what you say. Idk what you mean by "Lirc", it sounded before like you said "iirc", rather than say "you should look" and not explain anything you could link your source and explain what it is that you are talking about, properly.you should look at the photo it is similar and same as the case given to Lirc. The black holes formed by the average Lirc are taken as High 4-C.
But either way, anyone can draw a black hole like that, it doesn't mean anything.
I have no idea at what position you are left because you don't explain anything, did you see how using that image as something that gives the black hole its size was wrong yes or no? Don't divert from that.There are 2 things going on about the black hole. The size of the black hole in the picture and that it can destroy the universe. We have to start with these two.
Please pay attention, I didn't say that you said something "about deflecting the subject", I said you "deflected the subject", and you both don't see it and don't see it as an issue. You rambled about characteristics the black hole didn't have, refused to care when called out twice and portrayed your efforts about it in a positive manner. You are unaware of your own actions.Man, I'm not saying anything about deflecting the subject. I'm using the most probable case there. it has nothing to do with our black hole.
I clearly read it, understood it, and disagreed with it, as anyone would conclude from my comments.Man, I bet you didn't read my thread. The proof of the argument you say "not based on evidence/no evidence" is the video right below.
As before, you are under the impression that since I disagree with you, it must be that I didn't see everything you saw, rather than take in good faith that I saw the things you did show. A black hole that sucks coolness can threaten the fate of the universe w/o destroying the universe itself, the only reason why you said the latter is because you can't conceive how it could threaten the fate of the universe otherwise, as if those were magic words that always have to be "X will be one-shotted" w/o alternatives that fit what the words mean. So it falls back to pure feelings, but we don't work like that.I guess you don't know how it concerns the universe. Finally, the judge said that the fate of the universe depended on it, that is, he could clearly destroy the universe. a black hole created by coolness and capable of destroying everything along with the universe. If it was as you say, it would only destroy coolness, not the universe.
The bit before covers that.The purpose of the topic is to give Mordecai and Rigbye the 3-A level. so it's most logical for me to refer to the evidence the judge said. I have to emphasize that the black hole will destroy the universe along with its coolness. If it destroys the universe, it becomes a real black hole.
Black hole spawn range is enough to destroy the universe. Mordecai and Rigby created this black hole. You say to me that he just attracts coolness, but the ruler says he can destroy the universe.
Even there, be aware that this wouldn't have made them 3-A anyway
- like I said before, that I do have solid reasons to think you didn't see, there is no timeframe for this even if it was going to destroy the universe.
- something can destroy the universe w/o being a true black hole, "it's powerful, therefore it has to follow real life math" is just giving up, the black hole again sucks in coolness and was created by coolness.
- This would have been something Mordecai & Rigbye can do othertime (with prep time) and the tier would be given to the black hole itself, not their regular AP & durability. I don't know if you already knew this or no, which you should please see as an issue to be fixed.