Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Magmar vs. Scyther vs. Electabuzz


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic

Magmar vs. Scyther vs. Electabuzz
Magmar
31%
 31%  [ 7 ]
Scyther
45%
 45%  [ 10 ]
Electabuzz
22%
 22%  [ 5 ]
Total Votes : 22

Author Message
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"
Back to top
hawt



Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

craze craze craze
Back to top
DaveK



Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fuk dem Electabuzz haters :'(
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"


Well if that was your intention, you should have said "exhibit A", because "evidence 1" is not legally or grammatically correct. Its easy to get confused when the person you are talking to doesn't know english.
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"


Well if that was your intention, you should have said "exhibit A", because "evidence 1" is not legally or grammatically correct. Its easy to get confused when the person you are talking to doesn't know english.


Except that fact that there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Evidence 1" as it was used as a title(aka a name).
Also I'm aware the courts say "Exhibit A" but the word "Exhibit" implies that it can be challenged as evidence and thus concluded not to be. Thus I used the title "Evidence 1" because this isn't a court of law and I declare it unchallengeable.

I'm declaring your idiotic need to argue with me as Evidence 2.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"


Well if that was your intention, you should have said "exhibit A", because "evidence 1" is not legally or grammatically correct. Its easy to get confused when the person you are talking to doesn't know english.


Except that fact that there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Evidence 1" as it was used as a title(aka a name).
Also I'm aware the courts say "Exhibit A" but the word "Exhibit" implies that it can be challenged as evidence and thus concluded not to be. Thus I used the title "Evidence 1" because this isn't a court of law and I declare it unchallengeable.

I'm declaring your idiotic need to argue with me as Evidence 2.


When you say something like "I declare this evidence 1" you are clearly making reference to a court of law. Now you are dodging that to try and make it look like you aren't an ignorant tool. You are as bad as people who say "stupid americans" to canadians and then dodge with "well I meant North America!!!"
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"


Well if that was your intention, you should have said "exhibit A", because "evidence 1" is not legally or grammatically correct. Its easy to get confused when the person you are talking to doesn't know english.


Except that fact that there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Evidence 1" as it was used as a title(aka a name).
Also I'm aware the courts say "Exhibit A" but the word "Exhibit" implies that it can be challenged as evidence and thus concluded not to be. Thus I used the title "Evidence 1" because this isn't a court of law and I declare it unchallengeable.

I'm declaring your idiotic need to argue with me as Evidence 2.


When you say something like "I declare this evidence 1" you are clearly making reference to a court of law. Now you are dodging that to try and make it look like you aren't an ignorant tool. You are as bad as people who say "stupid americans" to canadians and then dodge with "well I meant North America!!!"


I wasn't denying I got the reference from legal proceedings, I merely stated that in an actual court of law you can't call it "Evidence" because the law states that the opposition has the right to refute all potential evidence. However I can call anything I want Evidence, because while yes you can refute it, no one is to declare it otherwise outside through personal opinion.

Perhaps you should give up your needless flames, as you aren't very good at it, and kinda make yourself look more and more stupid per new post.


Last edited by Craze on Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
blitzer2k7



Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 412

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And the winner is....

Craze in a landslide!
Back to top
FreshVeggies



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We should really debate this in terms of the gameplay.

Electrabuzz can learn thunderpunch, thundershock, and thunder; Magmar can learn firepunch, ember, and flamethrower; Scyther can learn a bunch of useless attacks that won't help you beat the elite 4 or your friend's level 99 pikachu (gogogo missingno).

Therefore, your choice is between magmar and electrabuzz. Since fire pokemon are honestly useless in the game (they have less advantages than disadvantages, for example, fire pokemon are good against grass, bug, and ice [even though all ice types in the origional games are also water which halves fire damage) so I would go with Electrabuzz and it's electrical attacks.

However, to choose Electrabuzz is to not catch a pikachu in Viridian forest, which is quite silly unless you opted for the Bulbasaur which is the lesser of the starting 3 (behind Charmander, but atleast you can trade a Charizard to yellow to teach if fly with alleviates the need for a flyer in the late game).

So my point is, all 3 of the pokemon suck.

Edit: I forgot that Jynx is an Ice/Psychic pokemon, but who the fuck would use one of those.
Back to top
dv8r



Joined: 15 Oct 2005
Posts: 239

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FV: sorry you're wrong on 3 counts

a) in the original red/blue charizard can't actually learn fly

b) the only starting pokemon you should ever get on red/blue is bulbasaur for the simple reason that the other 2 are outclassed by other pokemon that share a type with them in the game. blastoise is worse than gyrados, lapras and arguably starmie, charizard is worse than moltres and arguably arcanine (because of the whole weak to rock/electricity issue). and you never want more than 1 of each type in your party in red/blue.

c) in terms of tcg, scyther was easily the best card (0 retreat much?). in terms of the game, they're all useless, but at least magma can learn more powerful moves than the other two
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:
Craze wrote:
To those who wonder if we are being to harsh when saying that 9 out of every 10 MLer is an idiot, I present this thread as Evidence 1.


You mean the thread that only has 3 people who have posted in it? Lrn2mathz.


You assume that I use this thread as a basis to the 9/10 thing rather then just a point of the stupidity to existing. See thats why it's called "Evidence 1"


Well if that was your intention, you should have said "exhibit A", because "evidence 1" is not legally or grammatically correct. Its easy to get confused when the person you are talking to doesn't know english.


Except that fact that there is nothing grammatically wrong with "Evidence 1" as it was used as a title(aka a name).
Also I'm aware the courts say "Exhibit A" but the word "Exhibit" implies that it can be challenged as evidence and thus concluded not to be. Thus I used the title "Evidence 1" because this isn't a court of law and I declare it unchallengeable.

I'm declaring your idiotic need to argue with me as Evidence 2.


When you say something like "I declare this evidence 1" you are clearly making reference to a court of law. Now you are dodging that to try and make it look like you aren't an ignorant tool. You are as bad as people who say "stupid americans" to canadians and then dodge with "well I meant North America!!!"


I wasn't denying I got the reference from legal proceedings, I merely stated that in an actual court of law you can't call it "Evidence" because the law states that the opposition has the right to refute all potential evidence. However I can call anything I want Evidence, because while yes you can refute it, no one is to declare it otherwise outside through personal opinion.

Perhaps you should give up your needless flames, as you aren't very good at it, and kinda make yourself look more and more stupid per new post.


Actually you can call it evidence, but when you are submitting physical pieces of evidence you title them exhibit A, B, etc. Don't try to lawyer a law student, it won't work.
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:

Actually you can call it evidence, but when you are submitting physical pieces of evidence you title them exhibit A, B, etc. Don't try to lawyer a law student, it won't work.


Watching Law & Order doesn't make you a law student. Have you ever heard someone say "I present this [whatever] as Evidence"?
They say this because Evidence is fact, it's indisputable. And in a court of law you can unofficially present things AS evidence but it's not legally considered Evidence. Thats why things are labeled "Exhibit A" or "Exhibit B" as to say "This is an item that I will present to the court to be disputed and hopefully deemed as Evidence in this crime."

Now what I was doing by saying "Evidence 1" was labeling this thread as joke evidence that is not disputable(as their is no actual court) in a court like manner.

I hope you understand this now, cause I'm not sure I can dumb it down anymore.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
coolcreep wrote:

Actually you can call it evidence, but when you are submitting physical pieces of evidence you title them exhibit A, B, etc. Don't try to lawyer a law student, it won't work.


Watching Law & Order doesn't make you a law student. Have you ever heard someone say "I present this [whatever] as Evidence"?
They say this because Evidence is fact, it's indisputable. And in a court of law you can unofficially present things AS evidence but it's not legally considered Evidence. Thats why things are labeled "Exhibit A" or "Exhibit B" as to say "This is an item that I will present to the court to be disputed and hopefully deemed as Evidence in this crime."

Now what I was doing by saying "Evidence 1" was labeling this thread as joke evidence that is not disputable(as their is no actual court) in a court like manner.

I hope you understand this now, cause I'm not sure I can dumb it down anymore.



I am not sure how I can dumb this down anymore: YOU. ARE. WRONG. This is completely and utterly incorrect. There is not a modicum of truth to what you are saying. You have a fundamental lack of understanding of how the court system works. Everything presented before the court is evidence, the judge or jury, depending on the severity of the case, has to deem the credibility of each piece of evidence. This includes testimony, items, video-tapes, etc. Evidence's legal definition is this: "The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law." Admissable and irrefutable are completely different. If a criminal who struck a deal with the Prosecution testifies, for example, his statements are evidence. They are not, however, irrefutable. Now, for the second time, do not try to lawyer a law student, as it will not work.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dv8r wrote:
FV: sorry you're wrong on 3 counts

a) in the original red/blue charizard can't actually learn fly

b) the only starting pokemon you should ever get on red/blue is bulbasaur for the simple reason that the other 2 are outclassed by other pokemon that share a type with them in the game. blastoise is worse than gyrados, lapras and arguably starmie, charizard is worse than moltres and arguably arcanine (because of the whole weak to rock/electricity issue). and you never want more than 1 of each type in your party in red/blue.

c) in terms of tcg, scyther was easily the best card (0 retreat much?). in terms of the game, they're all useless, but at least magma can learn more powerful moves than the other two



as to point b) you forget one small thing. Video games are most enjoyable when challenging, and if you get bulbasaur first the game is a fucking cake-walk. If you get charmander first, while still fairly easy, the game actually takes an iota of effort to get through. If your goal is to make the game as easy as possible, however, then I do agree bulbasaur is the correct choice.
Back to top
snoopster



Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Posts: 758
Location: nj

PostPosted: Sun Jan 04, 2009 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

guys can we stop fighting and talk about pokemon?!?!!!
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy