Alright, I'll give you that. That was my fault. I made a mistake. I'm not afraid to admit I made one. I'm human like the rest of you.
At that point I was mostly referring to his d-smash. I know I didn't specify. U-smash we all know is pretty bad and F-smash is half-decent only because it has very little cooldown lag.
You said he has the best smashes in the entire game. No amount of backpedaling can save you unless you somehow managed to think "smashes" is singularis. And his Dsmash isn't
even the best Dsmash in the game. There are Dsmashes around equally strong that are
semi-spikes.
And then you failed to even double check yourself to see to it that you hadn't made a mistake and claimed I've verbally violated you or something.
It's quick, firm, and spammable. If it's fresh it can kill at 120+. It's not the most powerful smash in the game but, it does get the job done.
But it's not
the best Dsmash in the game. Yet you claimed it was. You are still wrong.
Just out of curiosity, though, who would have better smashes than MK?
Oh, Pikachu, Robot and Fox come to mind.
This part right here was implying that I meant that the tornado beat all:
No it's not. It's a rebuttal to your claim that it beats
almost all moves. Anyone who had read your post (which I clearly
quoted right above my rebuttal) would've known that I was refuting that claim, not implying that you were ever implied the 'Nado beats all moves in the game.
Why would you tell me that some moves beat (or help combat) the tornado if you know that I already know that some things can beat the tornado (regardless of how many).
Because you specifically used the word "
almost"?
... You paid attention to a single word... and left the rest of my post out to dry...
No I didn't. I replied to
every single part of it. A part of your post claimed the 'Nado beat
almost all moves and then went on to describe how good it is.
I replied to this by pointing out how it's not the kind of über-move you and others seem to believe it is. I simoultaneously refuted
two of your points; that it beats out
almost all moves and that it's really, really, really good.
And I
still managed to address everything else in your post.
My point still stands: All you did was nit-pick my post for the tornado. You only looked at the first quote box and only discussed the parts where I mention the tornado.
Because your main argument was the tornado. I still managed to reply to everything else.
And then when I make a mistake, you go to all ends to point it out to everyone and try to make me look like a fool.
Because you didn't own up to it.
You seem very desperate to win an argument, any argument, because people aren't being convinced by your arguments. If your arguments are that great and hold that much validity then why aren't more people agreeing with you?
I
replied to everything you said. What was I to do besides that?
Invent things you said and reply to it?
Still, if MK is now finding ways to make his 50:50s and his 55:45s to 60:40 and 70:30, something is wrong here.
Big words, now elaborate. How is he managing to do this?
So if MK had 60:40 vs everyone, would he be worth banning, despite all (or many) characters having reasonable chances to beat him? Where's the border line here?
If it happens, we'll talk. There is no black and white. Everything is relevant.
once again, read the quote completely and TRY to understand it before you fly off the handle with accusations
Again you do what I've asked you repeatedly not to do. I'm not even bothering
reading that.
Why you'd do that when it requires you to do
more work than simple multi-quoting is beyond me.
Hmm, its a very perplexing situation. The only weakness of metaknight is his range, which can easily be taken advantage of.
No it's not. It's not even a weakness of his.
