Crossposted from Gunblade thread.
Lithpy said:
No it isn't. The fact that my argument never ONCE commented on the Gunblade makes it explicitly NOT "fair game."
Except you are kvetching about a problem you claim buster has that the gunblade would also have in a thread devoted to the gunblade.
Saying nothing at all about it=/=saying the same problem wouldn't apply. That's what I mean: You put words in my mouth.
No, lithpy, I said nothing of the sort. I said you were not holding this against the Gunblade, and in essence applying different standards to the two different weapons.
You're doing it wrong. I'm not defending the Gunblade, which you'd know if you would read the damn thread instead of rabidly trying to shoot down every little thing I say. Actually, quite ironically, probably the only weapons mentioned here that WOULDN'T suffer from this problem are the Keyblades or Sephiroth's Masamune.
Except in the post where you derided Buster and mentioned that claimed issue, which you acted like was a major dealbreaker for Buster, you spoke well of the gunblade. See how this omission works? "This is a major problem for X, but not for Y, even though Y has the same problem." It's a matter of double standards.
You don't know basic WORDS. Proportionally, it would be the same damn thing. Seriously. Scale the Buster Sword's components down, & it would look a lot like that. Especially since you use the dimension of "width" as flat to flat in the case of the Buster Sword, but from blade to blunt in the case of the example swords.
No. it would not. If you scaled those rattails up so that the tang was the length/width of Buster's handle, they'd be about 10ft long or so.
And if I've been imprecise with my words, then oh well. Certainly CONTEXT should have been sufficient to understand...
How about my request, then, where we take this to numbers instead of words.
Not that you'll probably understand what I just said....
Aww, isn't that cute. It has a superiority complex and thinks I don't understand it when I understand it all too well...
And you've deconstructed NOTHING.
And I don't HAVE TO! YOU SUFFER THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO VALIDATE YOUR CLAIM FIRST.
Yeah. You say I'm being "inconsistent" when I've pointed out a DOZEN FUCKING TIMES that all I was doing was countering someone who said the Buster Sword would work when the Gunblade wouldn't, & I'M the one who's being inconsistent.
Because you aren't being consistent. Just because you called someone else out on being inconsistent doesn't mean you can't be yourself. You don't gain immunity, kid.
One reason I've decided to leave the board: The mods are all a bunch of hypocrites.
And you wonder why they're all mad at you. Shit, kid, I've been on forums- GOOD forums- where saying that shit would be worth an insta-ban. It's only because we are as lenient as we are that you're not out on your ass for shit like that.
I'm mostly referring to the flaming you just did, but in general, you're a massive hypocrite.
What massive flaming, lithpy?
And
In some dimensions, yes, in others, no. But even though you've FINALLY demonstrated knowledge of proportions, there's still a massive difference in weight.
'Finally', litphy? I'm not the one who thought buster was 3in thick.
One decent argument, & now you're back to your same-old-same-old. You aren't even using this term correctly. I gave you outside sources, you just keep sitting here & hoping that your insistences that I'm wrong will prove to be enough.
You're accusing me of something- namely, not providing relevant sources- that you are guilty of as well. Providing sources isn't worth much when they're blatantly irrelevant. It seems perfectly valid to point out the pot and the kettle.
Which they will, because I only gave you those links so that gathering them wouldn't be wasted. I am officially done treating this argument, and any other on this board, as being serious.
You've not been treating this like a serious argument from the beginning, since you've been whining about being flamed and hypocricy and crying foul left and right.
In a serious argument, kiddo, 'because I'm mean' is no excuse, and the conduct of your opponent outside of their intellectual rigeur and consistency is irrelevant.
Pot/Kettle/Black. THAT is how you use that term, because you've provided none of those things either, & a lot of your proportions are still in question.
I don't suffer the burden of proof until such a point as you provide something substantial and I must provide a coherent counterargument, or I actively try and prove it as a viable handle. Hell, my ONLY point is 'It would not snap as you claim it would'.
So, it would be more accurate of you to claim that my argument is "as weak" as yours.
No, because I'm sitting on the default argument of 'no you cannot demonstrate that', not trying to prove that Buster would work, since I'm not even so hubristic as to know what it's made of and what mechanical durability said material has.
But you can't, because as I said, you just want to rabidly shoot down anything I say.
Which is more than I can say for you. The best thing you have is the meat cleaver example, which we didn't have time to get into.
We will, eventually.
You just keep telling yourself that.
I will, because they are. They express two valid points, but points which you have not coherently connected to the current topic since you've neither established that Buster's material strenth is poor, or that the connection between tang and handle is poorly or loosely made, which is the actual point that movie made since the tang did not snap.
I wouldn't even bother typing up a counter-argument. I probably won't ever come back to this topic to read it, anyway.
I'll just crosspost in your goodbye thread.
