Homecoming Best final battle?

[LizardMan07]

Uhh, usually the splits are only helpful if they serve a purpose.

Not sure if so many were neccessary this time. Joker's are usually on point but they've missed the mark as of late I feel.

Still pretty solid overall, but a bit sloppy. More relevant when arguing actual movie points. Or comics, which I'd never be dumb enough to argue with Joker as I'd get completely destroyed.

 

[The Joker]

You had no reason to split that post into multiple bits. That's the problem, you're not addressing the overall point of the post. You're nit-picking or "arguing", quite poorly I might add, individual parts of individual points, ever decreasing the size of an argument. It's an odd debating style and one I've never seen used in a real life debate, you usually argue the whole point somebody is trying to make. I fail to see how splitting up posts is useful except in the case where the points or discussion points are fundamentally different. There's only really two essential splits and the rest seem to be your attempt to simplify my arguments, as I don't make one argument per sentence, they bounce off each other as its part of forming a coherent response. Buuuut, it's not real life, its not verbal, I'm happy to debate verbally if you want (Skype Chats are fun, I'd buy you a ticket to Australia but it's pretty hot here) , but if you want to stick to the way you do it, sure, your posts, your rules.

I had every reason to to split up the post because I wanted to address each remark you made, even the last silly one, individually.

If you don't like it then don't respond. I don't need to go on Skype (I'd never give you my Skype address btw) with you debate this issue. Here will do perfectly fine, where everyone can read what we're saying.

Well, you can read them how you want, perhaps you're projecting your inner narrative onto them, I wouldn't know, I'm not you. But I'm telling you as me that a forum doesn't agitate me. Bugs agitate me, wombats on occasion, rain does, when I accidentally mess up a sample, that agitates me.

But a name on the internet? Doesn't phase me, can tell you that with 100% certainty. Perhaps a slight emotional response, maybe. Not relevant.

The agitation and irritated remarks in your posts, combined with the huge slanging match in your SHH Six group, and then you all vacated to Skype when you realized I was reading it, shows I have an uncanny knack for getting under your skin, and I don't even be trying. That's the most amusing part.

Oh good, the next part of my post should be fine then!!

I doubt it. But lets see...

Ahhhhhh. Wonderful.

This is where I start to get a bit confused, because just a second ago you said that "People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something" was a correct summation of your premise.

So my argument then flows into this point that you felt the need to split up, but regardless, we DO know you like Tobey.

What does my liking of Tobey have to do with this point of people disliking actors getting replaced? You're talking in riddles.

We know, and don't be disingenuous because I have thousands of pro Raimi anti Webb posts to prove this, that you were upset at the idea of Tobey being replaced.

Show me where I was upset that Tobey got replaced. Find me one single post where I expressed outrage at the idea.

This is an official challenge and I expect you to rise to it.

Of course you have loads of pro Raimi and anti Webb posts from me because I've seen the movies, judged them for what they are, and seen which one is the better ones.

What exactly is wrong with that?


EDIT: Here have a look at this, dated from when the Raimi movies were STILL happening, before we'd even seen SM-3, and after we'd gotten the brilliant Spider-Man 2: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=10668177&postcount=159

And defending the idea of Tobey being replaced after Spider-Man 3: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=15057654&postcount=29

Me deriding the idea that Tobey is the only Spider-Man: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=19194381&postcount=2449

Me thinking TASM has a good shot at being as good as Raimi's first Spider-Man and better than SM-3: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22970575&postcount=54

I hope you noted the dates on all of those.

You're way off about me, BRAB, as usual. Being totally unfair. I was never against Tobey being replaced, and I gave the TASM reboot a fair chance to impress me.

We know, that you have not gotten over it, and still hate Andrew Garfield.

When you provide some proof that I was outraged Tobey got replaced then I will concede to this point.

Still disliking Andrew Garfield doesn't mean I have something to get over. You don't like Tobey Maguire, so by your silly logic you (and anyone else who doesn't like him) haven't gotten over that either.

So your own experience with a reboot series debunks the premise that you confirm just above this post.

This doesn't make a lick of sense. How does my existence prove such a thing?

You were annoyed at Tobey being recasted for Andrew, but you have NOT gotten over it.

Again show me the post or posts where I said I was annoyed Tobey got replaced. I know you won't be able to that's why I am pushing you so hard on this.

Again, its incredibly relevant to the point you're making. The premise we're working from is one you confirmed to be your argument.

A premise which is 100% true. You have failed to prove otherwise.

You split this post up and then said it wasn't relevant. But you didn't say why, you just ranted about Brosnan and Routh. You bring up a new point about big actors and the effect of petitions, but that is a straw man as that is NOT what I'm arguing. As you can see below (this all ties in but it's split), I treat petitions as an amount of people that say they will not accept the new over the old, in other words, people like you Joker.

I did say why. You keep bleating on and on that I am a Tobey fan and it has nothing to do with your inane point about all these fans making petitions to keep Garfield.

You have lost your point along the way, if you even had one to begin with. It seems to be lost in the tangle of babble about me being a Tobey fan.

I'm experiencing Dejavu again, a post has been needlessly unsplit.

Get used to it. Plenty more to come.

Do I think all Andrew Garfield protesters are going to dissapear?. unequivocally no. Where's my proof you may ask? Well, he's talking right to me. A fan that still hasn't gotten over a rebooted character. Are you saying TASM fans don't have your resolve. Do you think yourself above them? Cause I certainly don't, and I can see them fighting for Andrew for years to come.You can say "Tobey's good though, Andrew is bad." But this rebuttal won't hold as these people already prefer Andrew to Tobey.

I never said all Garfield protesters will disappear. Another inane irrelevant point to bring up. I even stated as such in my post that every iteration of a character has fans.

Now what is all this BS about me thinking they don't have my resolve or I'm above them? I'm telling you straight, and provided other factual examples in situations similar to this, that these protesters, these thousands of fans you keep champing on and on with their petitions, fan videos etc will most likely diminish (not disappear) just like they did in my aforementioned examples.

I have explained why several times, and you respond with points that were never even said by me. You have clearly lost what ever point or train of thought you had originally.

In regards to the rest of your post that is really only tied to my split up post incidentally, your examples are cute, but not sure what you're attempting to achieve with them. Are you saying all reboot characters are superior to their former actors?

No, I'm saying actors who were replaced, and thousands of fans protested against it (or against them) are now either diminished heavily in popularity, or forgotten by and large by the fan community.

That is where your other two examples point, if you're trying to say fan petitions are worthless I'm saying they're a quantifiable measure of people who in the future may not accept a new spider-man.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Fan petitions are worthless. You wait and see. There will be barely a peep from these protestors when the new Spidey actor is cast and he''s good.

Count on it.

Yes, thankyou for proving something as happened but you haven't even come close to disproving the essence of my arguement. This is what happens when you split posts mate. Now we're arguing if petitions are real. You already know what petitions mean, I've told you 3 times now.

When were we ever arguing if petitions are real? The splitting of posts has only affected your mind, not mine.

"Tiny storm in an even tinier teacup"

How on earth does that work? How does the storm occupy the space of the cup if the cup is smaller then the storm? Don't say the storm can occupy space outside the teacup because you explicitly said the storm was "in" the teacup. What you said sounded cool but it is actually impossible. What's that phrase you love, style over substance?

Do you live under a rock or something that you are so unfamiliar about common sayings and phrases? This is the second one today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_in_a_Teacup

Batfleck hasn't even happened but I can assure you there will be Joker's around regardless of his performance. Some will always say that Bale was better. Just like you say that Tobey is better than Andrew. That 97,000 meme will not be irrelevant, it will be a sign forever more of the first rise of Bale fans, through and through. Just like this petitition is "PROOOOF" of people who will love Garfield over any new spidey, and any old one. Just like you love Tobey over Andrew.

I know Batfleck has not happened yet. My point with him is IF he is good then the majority of all those thousands of petitioners will shut their yaps and be all over him. You should have seen the reaction when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker.

Of course there will still be people who prefer Bale. There's still people who prefer Nicholson over Ledger as Joker. No iteration of a character is universally preferred or loved.

So I don't know why you mention such an irrelevant point.

Is it? Because to me you're just the same as people who sign those petitions, you're living proof that people will still be Garfield fanboys.

For the umpteenth time I never said all Garfield fans will fade from existence.

Petitions are a new quantifiable way to not only measure fan reaction to a new reboot but even influence it.

Like they did with Bond, Superman, and countless others? Yes they really work a treat.

Joker, I'm sorry, but you're existence disproves your premise.

What premise? A premise you made up that I never even said?

Also, you missed bits I added to my other posts but I forgive you.

If I missed anything in your post it was deliberate and not worth a response..

Main problem with this post was that by splitting it up you failed to rebut my dismissal of your main premise, and unfortunately added some pretty irrelevant stuff into your post.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Again, it's the nature of debate, we'd save more time if you ever wanted to speak in person. Anyone else smell podcast?

A few days ago I'd have gladly Skyped with you. I Skype with several members here. But after reading the remarks about me from you and several other members, well no offense but I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire. I address you here because it's a public forum and I'll always defend my opinions from anyone, even people I don't care much for.

But I would never engage you outside this forum.

(Also I'm going to bed so I won't reply to your post for probably 10ish hours. Much love.

I'll be here ready and waiting to dissect.

 

[LizardMan07]

I had every reason to to split up the post because I wanted to address each remark you made, even the last silly one, individually.

If you don't like it then don't respond. I don't need to go on Skype (I'd never give you my Skype address btw) with you debate this issue. Here will do perfectly fine, where everyone can read what we're saying.

The agitation and irritated remarks in your posts, combined with the huge slanging match in your SHH Six group, and then you all vacated to Skype when you realized I was reading it, shows I have an uncanny knack for getting under your skin, and I don't even be trying. That's the most amusing part.

No Joker, you're still not understanding the basics. All the "remarks" are linked together mate, they're not individual arguements and work cohesively as one. All I'm telling you is its bleedingly obvious to me what you're doing, you like to split things up as it's nice filler for the fact you don't actually argue arguements but semantics. That's fine if you won't debate on skype, I was suggesting it but perhaps you're out of your comfort zone.

Well love, I'm here to tell you it's all in your head. I don't hate you, you don't bother me. You can talk yourself up all you want, but you're not getting under my skin. Are you projecting your own feelings on to me? Cause I'm getting that vibe.

What does my liking of Tobey have to do with this point of people disliking actors getting replaced? You're talking in riddles.

Show me where I was upset that Tobey got replaced. Find me one single post where I expressed outrage at the idea.

This is an official challenge and I expect you to rise to it.

Of course you have loads of pro Raimi and anti Webb posts from me because I've seen the movies, judged them for what they are, and seen which one is the better ones.

What exactly is wrong with that?


EDIT: Here have a look at this, dated from when the Raimi movies were STILL happening, before we'd even seen SM-3, and after we'd gotten the brilliant Spider-Man 2: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=10668177&postcount=159

And defending the idea of Tobey being replaced after Spider-Man 3: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=15057654&postcount=29

Me deriding the idea that Tobey is the only Spider-Man: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=19194381&postcount=2449

Me thinking TASM has a good shot at being as good as Raimi's first Spider-Man and better than SM-3: http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=22970575&postcount=54

I hope you noted the dates on all of those.

You're way off about me, BRAB, as usual. Being totally unfair. I was never against Tobey being replaced, and I gave the TASM reboot a fair chance to impress me.


When you provide some proof that I was outraged Tobey got replaced then I will concede to this point.

Still disliking Andrew Garfield doesn't mean I have something to get over. You don't like Tobey Maguire, so by your silly logic you (and anyone else who doesn't like him) haven't gotten over that either.


This doesn't make a lick of sense. How does my existence prove such a thing?

Again show me the post or posts where I said I was annoyed Tobey got replaced. I know you won't be able to that's why I am pushing you so hard on this.

I did say why. You keep bleating on and on that I am a Tobey fan and it has nothing to do with your inane point about all these fans making petitions to keep Garfield.

You have lost your point along the way, if you even had one to begin with. It seems to be lost in the tangle of babble about me being a Tobey fan.

Essentially this is all moot, (you're right) as you didn't publicly express your disdain for a reboot. I'll conceede that. Before you go dancing on the streets, finding people you like, setting them on fire and urinating on them, (seriously, I've already read that comment, what was with that? Way too far mate) I would like to point out that it's a moot point.

You've done a good job rebutting my first attempt at an example. Luckily, you're not the only human being on earth.

So let's make this clear, 100% points to Joker for disproving that he indeed, was super happy about a reboot and wasn't at all upset that his favourite franchise was gone. However, if you've been in a real debate you'd know that'd you've knocked back an example I've made, not a premise. So we go on. Until I disprove the premise or you defend it. We're debating proper now.

Good point on the Tobey thing, props for that. I know you'd like to watch me die in a fire csad but still, I can point out you did good.

Luckily for me, the premise still stands.

So, moving on; You claim that;

A premise which is 100% true. You have failed to prove otherwise.

Just in case you forgot, the basic premise of your arguement is

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

You confirmed this. Now it's time to back down from your premise (and therefore, the arguement) or, if you wish, attempt to defend it.

technically you're disproving your premise through the inverse, you didn't get annoyed. That's semantics though.

For your premise to be correct, not one person can be upset about Tobey Maguire getting the sack, and still be upset about it to this day.

I respect you, so, I'm giving you a chance to recant from the premise (and arguement) before I give you countless examples of the above.

Here's example #1

NSFW and NSFB, nasty language there, so don't go if you can avoid it.

http://deadline.com/2010/01/urgent-...-and-cast-out-franchise-reboot-planned-21993/

plentyyy more, so I'm wondering if you want to recant your arguement? Joker Joker was the first but there's 1000's of other forum members here and a few of them would contradict your arguement. Do you want to save me the time of looking for it? Because we both know it's there.

Get used to it. Plenty more to come.

Doesn't make it any less redundant mate.

I never said all Garfield protesters will disappear. Another inane irrelevant point to bring up. I even stated as such in my post that every iteration of a character has fans.

I'm telling you straight, and provided other factual examples in situations similar to this, that these protesters, these thousands of fans you keep champing on and on with their petitions, fan videos etc will most likely diminish (not disappear) just like they did in my aforementioned examples.

That's fine, but it doesn't follow your premise if they're all gone. If you go with the logic you're showing now you disagree with your premise. You either give up the arguement or this point.

I have explained why several times, and you respond with points that were never even said by me. You have clearly lost what ever point or train of thought you had originally.

Pretty simple. You have Premise.

You contradict Premise

I tell you.

That's my train of thought, what's yours when you keep contradicting yourself?

No, I'm saying actors who were replaced, and thousands of fans protested against it (or against them) are now either diminished heavily in popularity, or forgotten by and large by the fan community.

Which is fine, but your original premise doesn't acutally cover this? So are you changing your mind again? (Instantly conceeding your premise and thus the arguement) Quantity of a result doesn't change if a result occured and since we cannot know the exact quantity, only the result, again, this point will contradict your overall arguement.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Fan petitions are worthless. You wait and see. There will be barely a peep from these protestors when the new Spidey actor is cast and he''s good.

Count on it.

Could have said this in 2010 and I've heard more than a peep.

Other than that, contradicts your other posts unless you argue that "diminish" refers to "barely a peep". This would imply almost null, which for some reason seems to contradict your other arguements contradicting your base arguement. Quite literally circles here. Your posts seem quite inconsistent. I've just laid out 4 (soon to be 5) in a row that prove this.

When were we ever arguing if petitions are real? The splitting of posts has only affected your mind, not mine.

You started talking about this "definitive proof" being the existence of the petitions, not the context behind them. The WHOLE ARGUEMENT has been centred around the fact that petitions exist and now you're parading around as some talking point? That's where my point came from, sorry you couldn't comprehend that at first, hopefully I explained it a tad better for you.

Do you live under a rock or something that you are so unfamiliar about common sayings and phrases? This is the second one today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_in_a_Teacup

This is hillarious.

I know what "Storm in a teacup" is.

I also know that the analogy works with the storm and teacup being of equal proportion. I found it hillarious that you said tiny storm in an even tinier teacup

I feel you said it because it sounds really funny, but it actually makes no sense in any context, because the storm is bigger than the teacup, and thus a bigger problem or issue. Free to roam the world of issues.

I don't live under a rock. I'm sure if I threw half the slang I used daily at you you'd turn your head sideways and be a tad confused. It's all to do with slightly different cultures. Never seen Kool Aid in my life. However, nobody's probably ever said that someone has a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock to you, have they?

I know Batfleck has not happened yet. My point with him is IF he is good then the majority of all those thousands of petitioners will shut their yaps and be all over him. You should have seen the reaction when Heath Ledger was cast as the Joker.

Of course there will still be people who prefer Bale. There's still people who prefer Nicholson over Ledger as Joker. No iteration of a character is universally preferred or loved.

So I don't know why you mention such an irrelevant point.

How is it irrelevant it is literally the basis of your premise

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

BALE IS OLD, BATFLECK IS NEW

NICHOLSEN IS OLD, LEDGER IS NEW (not really, new Joker coming)

literally

the

point.

For the umpteenth time I never said all Garfield fans will fade from existence.

Yeah, just most of them. Haha. Again, premise, blah.

Like they did with Bond, Superman, and countless others? Yes they really work a treat.

Premise

What premise? A premise you made up that I never even said?

Literally contradicting yourslef

A premise which is 100% true. You have failed to prove otherwise.If I missed anything in your post it was deliberate and not worth a response..

That's what you said man, you acknowledged your premise and now you don't even have one?

Just in case we forgot what your premise was

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I dunno man at least I stay relatively consistent.

A few days ago I'd have gladly Skyped with you. I Skype with several members here. But after reading the remarks about me from you and several other members, well no offense but I wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire. I address you here because it's a public forum and I'll always defend my opinions from anyone, even people I don't care much for.

But I would never engage you outside this forum.

Disgraceful comment. "Wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire" You would watch someone die willingly over something they alledgedly said on an internet forum? That's quite literally one of the worst things I've ever seen anyone say to someone on these parts of the forums. Also, you must have realised as you changed it to "spit". No offence ain't good enough mate. Absolutely disgusting and I'm suprised you think you can portray yourself as some victim. Goes without saying, but I've asked people to have a good look at that one. You can't justify insulting somebody by preceeding it by "are you" or "no offence"

Also, I was wrong, you did just get under my skin, severely, because you just wished literal death upon me. For an arguement over Spider-Man Petitions.

This is all I can find that I've said about you on SHH6

We actually get along quite well even when arguing Spidey stuff

He's a nice guy, he just had a arguing style that can come across as a bit condescending but I don't think he means it.

I'm sorry if that offended you.

Anyway, pretty low commment and with the swearing bans on SHH it's pretty much one of the worst things you can say with spitting in the face of the rules.

I remember once you mentioned that you shouldn't have to resort to personal insults in a debate. I'm sad that's changed.

I'll be here ready and waiting to dissect.

I've cut a fair chunk out cause the Maguire thing floored me. So good effort on that.

Other than that, we're back to the basic premise and I don't think you can defend it. Sorry.

Also I lost an hour of sleep for this... Woops

 

[JOE]

TF is going on? What if we was on fire after getting stung by a jellyfish?

 

[LizardMan07]

I'd love to hear how somebody got stung by a jellyfish and then set on fire

Does it have anything to do with your uncle Ben death origin Michael?

 

[The Joker]

No Joker, you're still not understanding the basics. All the "remarks" are linked together mate, they're not individual arguements and work cohesively as one. All I'm telling you is its bleedingly obvious to me what you're doing, you like to split things up as it's nice filler for the fact you don't actually argue arguements but semantics. That's fine if you won't debate on skype, I was suggesting it but perhaps you're out of your comfort zone.

No, you're not understanding. I prefer to address each point you're making, whether it's all under the same umbrella heading topic or not doesn't matter a jot. A discussion can consist of several related points, and each one can stil be addressed individually.

You actually making a fuss over this is just another example of you making mountains out of....I won't even say molehills. Out of nothing.

I said I Skype with several members here, so it's not out of my comfort zone at all. I only Skype with people I like. You're not one of them.

Well love, I'm here to tell you it's all in your head. I don't hate you, you don'
t bother me. You can talk yourself up all you want, but you're not getting under my skin. Are you projecting your own feelings on to me? Cause I'm getting that vibe.

BRAB, you just denied yourself three hours of beauty sleep (what time is it in Australia now?) just so you could go searching the depths of the SHH archives trying to prove me wrong, and make this post.

To say you have some kind of hateful obsession with me is an understatement. I can reel you in and keep you up nights without even trying to.

Essentially this is all moot, (you're right) as you didn't publicly express your disdain for a reboot. I'll conceede that. Before you go dancing on the streets, finding people you like, setting them on fire and urinating on them, (seriously, I've already read that comment, what was with that? Way too far mate) I would like to point out that it's a moot point.

You've done a good job rebutting my first attempt at an example.

Good.

Luckily, you're not the only human being on earth.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.

So let's make this clear, 100% points to Joker for disproving that he indeed, was super happy about a reboot and wasn't at all upset that his favourite franchise was gone. However, if you've been in a real debate you'd know that'd you've knocked back an example I've made, not a premise. So we go on. Until I disprove the premise or you defend it. We're debating proper now.

I've knocked back your premise, too. Twice.

Just in case you forgot, the basic premise of your arguement is

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

You confirmed this. Now it's time to back down from your premise (and therefore, the arguement) or, if you wish, attempt to defend it.

You've lost me. What about that quote somehow hurts the premise of what I'm saying?

Techniqually, you're disproving your premise through the inverse, you didn't get annoyed. That's semantics though.

For your premise to be correct, not one person can be upset about Tobey Maguire getting the sack, and still be upset about it to this day.

Exactly where did I state nobody can be upset about Tobey getting the sack? You'll have to find that quote, too.

I respect you, so, I'm giving you a chance to recant from the premise (and arguement) before I give you countless examples of the above.

I recant nothing. Bring on your examples.

Here's example #1

NSFW and NSFB, nasty language there, so don't go if you can avoid it.


plentyyy more, so I'm wondering if you want to recant your arguement? Joker Joker was the first but there's 1000's of other forum members here and a few of them would contradict your arguement. Do you want to save me the time of looking for it? Because we both know it's there.

Two things:

1. Posting a link that has nasty language in it is a bannable offense. I suggest you remove it before a Mod sees it.

2. Where on earth did I say nobody could be upset that Tobey Maguire was replaced? I've been saying all along that fans can get upset and make huge petitions and then be perfectly happy when the new guy comes alng and he's good.

You are so far off point misreading, I am assuming intentionally because no words I've said say this.

Doesn't make it any less redundant mate.

It does when it's not redundant. Which it isn't.

That's fine, but it doesn't follow your premise if they're all gone. If you go with the logic you're showing now you disagree with your premise. You either give up the arguement or this point.

Who's all gone? What the hell are you talking about?

Pretty simple. You have Premise.

You contradict Premise

I tell you.

That's my train of thought, what's yours when you keep contradicting yourself?

My train of thought: I never said any of the nonsense you think I said. Ergo there is no contradiction.

That's fact.

Which is fine, but your original premise doesn't acutally cover this? So are you changing your mind again? (Instantly conceeding your premise and thus the arguement) Quantity of a result doesn't change if a result occured and since we cannot know the exact quantity, only the result, again, this point will contradict your overall arguement.

What original premise? My argument has never changed. Not once. Did I ever say different.

Could have said this in 2010 and I've heard more than a peep.

What peeps have you heard? Where? There is no huge outcry to bring Tobey back. Even his fans know he's too old now to play the part. The complaints you hear against this franchise are not about Garfield's casting, but the writing of his character and the movies he's in.

Not that Tobey Maguire was replaced.

Other than that, contradicts your other posts unless you argue that "diminish" refers to "barely a peep". This would imply almost null, which for some reason seems to contradict your other arguements contradicting your base arguement. Quite literally circles here. Your posts seem quite inconsistent. I've just laid out 4 (soon to be 5) in a row that prove this.

You have laid out nothing other than a bunch of posts that are totally 100% untrue to what I've been saying. All you've demonstrated is that you are either not paying attention, or incapable of reading properly, or trying to skew what I'm saying to strengthen your own weak argument.

Which of these three do you choose to be?

You started talking about this "definitive proof" being the existence of the petitions, not the context behind them. The WHOLE ARGUEMENT has been centred around the fact that petitions exist and now you're parading around as some talking point? That's where my point came from, sorry you couldn't comprehend that at first, hopefully I explained it a tad better for you.

No, I started this by showing you examples of petitions similar to this with Garfield, and how they ended up being meaningless and having no effect at all, just like the Garfield one will very likely to be. It was raised to put you in perspective of how you keep waving your 24'000 signature petition like it's some revolutionary document that has huge significant meaning, never seen before.

All points you are wrong. I have shown you with proof why this sort of this means nothing. There's only so many times you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it.

This is hillarious.

I know what "Storm in a teacup" is.

I also know that the analogy works with the storm and teacup being of equal proportion. I found it hillarious that you said tiny storm in an even tinier teacup

I feel you said it because it sounds really funny, but it actually makes no sense in any context, because the storm is bigger than the teacup, and thus a bigger problem or issue. Free to roam the world of issues.

You're making a big deal out of me saying a tiny storm in a tinier teacup?

You really are getting desperate now.

I don't live under a rock. I'm sure if I threw half the slang I used daily at you you'd turn your head sideways and be a tad confused. It's all to do with slightly different cultures. Never seen Kool Aid in my life. However, nobody's probably ever said that someone has a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock to you, have they?

Is that a saying that gets thrown around the internet commonly like the other two sayings? No.

Bad analogy.

How is it irrelevant it is literally the basis of your premise

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

BALE IS OLD, BATFLECK IS NEW

NICHOLSEN IS OLD, LEDGER IS NEW (not really, new Joker coming)

literally

the

point.

What are you babbling about? I never made any point that says the old version, or the new version loses all it's fans? No. Total opposite. I said every iteration of a character has fans.

Again you have no clue what argument you're even arguing against. You're making one up in your head and writing it down here.

Yeah, just most of them. Haha. Again, premise, blah.

You've said the word premise so much you've lost all meaning of what it even means.

Premise

See?

Literally contradicting yourslef

Yes you are.

That's what you said man, you acknowledged your premise and now you don't even have one?

I have the same premise I have always had. Only changed in your mind, not in reality with the rest of us.

Just in case we forgot what your premise was

"People get annoyed when a current actor for something is about to get axed, but then get in line and enjoy the new something"

Exactly. Where is the contradiction or change here?

Please don't tell me you are being so desperate and pedantic that you think I mean every single solitary person on earth who was unhappy? Tell me that is not the basis for your contradiction argument.

I dunno man at least I stay relatively consistent.

Consistently missing the point.

Disgraceful comment. "Wouldn't pee on you if you were on fire" You would watch someone die willingly over something they alledgedly said on an internet forum? That's quite literally one of the worst things I've ever seen anyone say to someone on these parts of the forums. Also, you must have realised as you changed it to "spit". No offence ain't good enough mate. Absolutely disgusting and I'm suprised you think you can portray yourself as some victim. Goes without saying, but I've asked people to have a good look at that one. You can't justify insulting somebody by preceeding it by "are you" or "no offence"

Oh my god, you are so dramatic and literal. It's a term of phrase.

When a parent says they could kill their kids for making a mess, or not doing their homework, they don't literally mean they could murder their children for it. It's an expression to show how annoyed they are with them.

Same as when I say I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire, it's an expression to show how much I dislike you. Not that I would literally let you burn to death.

This is all I can find that I've said about you on SHH6

I'm sorry if that offended you.

Rubbish. You lot deleted most of your comments when you realized I had been reading them. That's why you all flew off to Skype.

Anyway, pretty low commment and with the swearing bans on SHH it's pretty much one of the worst things you can say with spitting in the face of the rules.

I remember once you mentioned that you shouldn't have to resort to personal insults in a debate. I'm sad that's changed.

That's not a personal insult. That's me telling you I don't like you. Which I have every right to say.

I've cut a fair chunk out cause the Maguire thing floored me. So good effort on that.

Other than that, we're back to the basic premise and I don't think you can defend it. Sorry.

The premise defends itself. There is almost no effort needed on my part here.

Also I lost an hour of sleep for this... Woops

Three hours. Three hours ago you said you were going to bed.

http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=30496787&postcount=199

That's racist. You don't need to, there's lots of people here that BRAB can count with, nobody is expecting anything good coming from you.

Racist? How is that racist? There's no slurs against skin color, ethnicity, or anything like that there.

Stick to your barfing smilies, Andrew. You don't know what you're talking about there.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Guys, guys, back to topic.

I don't think any of the final battles is any less than good, all 5 of them are eye candies.
Spider-Man's ending is the simplest in action, not too many fancy moves and stuff, but the atmosphere and the attitude make up for that.
I honestly did not know it was a hospital before this thread.

I expect good things from The Joker, and everyone else here.

 

[LizardMan07]

Joker, I spent an hour replying to you

I spent the other hour and a half abruptly woken up by a drunken friend who needed a lift.

That's all I'm clarifying for now.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Because you know what you're talking about, Clown. Gimme a break

 

[The Joker]

Joker, I spent an hour replying to you

I spent the other hour and a half abruptly woken up by a drunken friend who needed a lift.

That's all I'm clarifying for now.

No you didn't, BRAB. Because I saw you consistently active on-line for the last three hours. You never left the Hype.

 

[JOE]

Andrew Lucas and BRAB vs. The Joker... Still better than the TASM 2 finale.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

Wow, looks like a bunch of stuff went down while I was absent.

 

[JOE]

No you didn't, BRAB. Because I saw you consistently active on-line for the last three hours. You never left the Hype.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Stalker alert.

Be careful guys. We never know who's in front of the computer.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

Stalker alert.

Be careful guys.

Well he is the joker

 

[The Joker]

Stalker alert, yeah when he's plainly visible to everyone on-line on the main page of the forums

 

[LizardMan07]

No you didn't, BRAB. Because I saw you consistently active on-line for the last three hours. You never left the Hype.

Mate I know it's difficult to grasp but there's a MASSIVE GAP BETWEEN MY POSTS

I don't have to lie for you

SHH isn't my only form of sustanance

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Well he is the joker

Expect that this one isn't funny.

 

[The Joker]

Mate I know it's difficult to grasp but there's a MASSIVE GAP BETWEEN MY POSTS

I know. I'm betting that's because you spent most of it trenching through the Hype archives trying to find posts of me saying how upset I am Tobey's getting replaced.

The Hype logs you out if your account remains inactive for 20 minutes. You have been on-line continually since you made that last post three hours ago. So who's been keeping your account active if not you?

I don't have to lie for you

You just told me two posts ago that was all you were going to clarify for me, and you're back again, still up at god knows what time in Australia, posting here arguing with me.

If you were Pinocchio your nose would be ten inches long now

Expect that this one isn't funny.

Comedy's tricky like that. Not everyone gets the joke.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

TASM2 ending battle is just soooo freaking awesome!! To electros design, to spidermans AMAZING AWESOME suit, to all of the colors, to the EPIC SLOW MOTION, to the little quips Spider-Man makes here and there "A god named Sparkles??" XDDD I laughed my a** off out loud in the theater there. I loved how Max Dillon played the it's bitsy spider and spiderman goes "argh I hate this song" XD I thought that was funny because it was Peters ringtone.

 

[LizardMan07]

ITS LIGHT HERE NOW JOKER THE BIRDS ARE SINGING IM AWAKE

Is it possible you're lying about seeing my name there then? Because I've got the DRUNKEN DRUNK BUM SMELL IN MY CAR AND ITS NOT GOING FOR WEEKS NOW

Have you never gone out in the middle of the night to save your friend from a drunken awful crash?

I'm sorry I can't dedicate more time to you. There's no analogy for what I'm thinking and there's a no swearing policy

You know what?

I'm finding my inner zen

Ignore list for a month for you joker. You want to call me a liar and wish death upon me, well you'll have to find someone else to artificially boost your ego.

Perhaps a hamster

Goodbye

 

[Andrew Lucas]

Now that was funny.

Funny in a bad way. Try again Jokey.

 

[Andrew Lucas]

ITS LIGHT HERE NOW JOKER THE BIRDS ARE SINGING IM AWAKE

Is it possible you're lying about seeing my name there then? Because I've got the DRUNKEN DRUNK BUM SMELL IN MY CAR AND ITS NOT GOING FOR WEEKS NOW

Have you never gone out in the middle of the night to save your friend from a drunken awful crash?

I'm sorry I can't dedicate more time to you. There's no analogy for what I'm thinking and there's a no swearing policy

You know what?

I'm finding my inner zen

Ignore list for a month for you joker. You want to call me a liar and wish death upon me, well you'll have to find someone else to artificially boost your ego.

Perhaps a hamster

Goodbye

Hamsters are great. They deserve someone better.

 

[ThatSpiderGuy]

Comedy's tricky like that. Not everyone gets the joke.

Joker, the rule for comedy is: if its not funny then sit down. XD
C'mon you're the joker you should know this lol

 

[The Joker]

ITS LIGHT HERE NOW JOKER THE BIRDS ARE SINGING IM AWAKE

I bet you're feeling really refreshed, too

Is it possible you're lying about seeing my name there then? Because I've got the DRUNKEN DRUNK BUM SMELL IN MY CAR AND ITS NOT GOING FOR WEEKS NOW

I have nothing to gain by lying about such a thing. If you want to stay up all night on here that's no skin off my nose.

Have you never gone out in the middle of the night to save your friend from a drunken awful crash?

Yes actually. Twice. Motorcycle and car.

I'm sorry I can't dedicate more time to you. There's no analogy for what I'm thinking and there's a no swearing policy

Sticks and stones, BRAB.

You know what?

I'm finding my inner zen

Ignore list for a month for you joker. You want to call me a liar and wish death upon me, well you'll have to find someone else to artificially boost your ego.

I never wished death on you, but yes you are lying about this. Unless we have two BRAB usernames on here.

Goodbye

Talk to you in a month.

Now that was funny.

Funny in a bad way. Try again Jokey.

I'm not here to perform for you. Batman is my captive audience. He completes me

Joker knows his jokes are funny in a bad way:

[YT]SkXSh7EHkpk[/YT]

So thanks for the compliment. I really feel like the Joker now