I basically went even with wes's diddy playing for about an hour and a half (about 25 minutes after d1 got there, nevermind the fact that I did better with a FAR worse character), said I was annoyed with the game right now, and yes, went home because I was on the phone with rookie. But news flash, I'm usually discontent with something when it comes to the game. Next time instead of trying to throw ad-hominem at an argument because someone can articulate their point FAR FAR better than you can you can do yourself a favor and just not say anything.
If you couldn't actually read half of that: "ur rong"
First, the word is hypocrite. Yes, I'm annoyed with the game regardless of result but if you remember even HALF of the conversation I had with d1 you'd also realize that I stated I didn't have a problem with the game's engine, just that I wasn't big on playing right now because my attitude was letting every little thing annoy me. How are you gonna sit there and act like I was angry at the gayness of characters when I went ike for the first dozen or so matches and won most of them? My snake had a harder time with diddy than my ike did, which is why I ended up breaking basically even by the end of the matches.
My point was that yes's loss was due to his mindless aggression and acting before thinking costing him his last stock in 2 matches (which could have been circumvented had he just chosen a different flat stage) and that if I WERE as narrow-sighted as you I'd base the whole game on that. BUT I didn't so surprise, it was rhetoric. I was saying such a line of thinking was logically unsound and as a result one would be better off not doing it.
My point was that you threw in an essay and a half of unreadable crap to **** talk something you didn't even go to, get over yourself.