www.ditl.org

I wasn't challenging hir at all. I was pointing out that we'd been through that debate before, and that we'd shown hir position to be wrong. Shi was the one who brought up hir position again, I was just pointing out that we'd already disproven it.

Rochey wrote:I wasn't challenging hir at all. I was pointing out that we'd been through that debate before, and that we'd shown hir position to be wrong. Shi was the one who brought up hir position again, I was just pointing out that we'd already disproven it.

Feel better?

Rochey wrote:I wasn't challenging hir at all. I was pointing out that we'd been through that debate before, and that we'd shown hir position to be wrong. Shi was the one who brought up hir position again, I was just pointing out that we'd already disproven it.

How is that not a challenge? You try something like that and the average guy will pop ya one.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:

Rochey wrote:I wasn't challenging hir at all. I was pointing out that we'd been through that debate before, and that we'd shown hir position to be wrong. Shi was the one who brought up hir position again, I was just pointing out that we'd already disproven it.

How is that not a challenge? You try something like that and the average guy will pop ya one.

A lot of obnoxious smugness passes around here because it's the internet. It's just a higher brow version of misspelled flaming.

Dusk wrote:Feel better?

What?

Blackstar wrote:How is that not a challenge?

Since when was pointing out you're bringing up an already debunked topic a challenge?

Rochey wrote:

Blackstar wrote:How is that not a challenge?

Since when was pointing out you're bringing up an already debunked topic a challenge?

You don't think going "Ha ha, I beat you before" isn't going to get someone rilled up? Normally I would've risen to the challenge, but I'm just tired of that topic, escpecially since a lot of it doesn't make sense.

You don't think going "Ha ha, I beat you before" isn't going to get someone rilled up?

Of course it would. Good thing I never actualy said that, then.

Rochey wrote:

You don't think going "Ha ha, I beat you before" isn't going to get someone rilled up?

Of course it would. Good thing I never actualy said that, then.

Nevertheless you were being prodding and immature, and you know it. Just drop it.

*sigh*
How was pointing out we'd debunked that claim being "immature"?

Rochey wrote:*sigh*
How was pointing out we'd debunked that claim being "immature"?

Because that's the adult equivient of going, "Ha ha, I beat you." I know it, Dusk knows it, and you know it, so stop playing innocent.

Rochey wrote:*sigh*
How was pointing out we'd debunked that claim being "immature"?

Well...

Yes, I can see why you might not want to get back into that debate again. What with being shown to be wrong, and all that.

If you don't see how this is immature, then I don't know how to enlighten you.

I wasn't in the mood for going back into that debate, hence my rather blunt pointing out that it had already been finished. Happy?

I like chili dogs.















Sorry for the abrupt change of direction, but that needed to stop.

Rochey wrote:I wasn't in the mood for going back into that debate, hence my rather blunt pointing out that it had already been finished. Happy?

Depends. Are you admitting you were acting immature? (And before you say something about me being immature, I'm only 19. I'm allowed to be immature )

The drone KE-shield argument is probably the oldest on the forum - IIRC, it was a similar debate between Graham and me that derailed the original TR-116 thread. That's how old it is.