They weren't destroying the land, they were burning down everything, which you can already do at a great speed in minecraft.
Burning and pulverizing are not the same thing though.Burning everything sounds a lot like destroying...
Burning in massive amounts=destroying)(destroying=pulverizing.Burning and pulverizing are not the same thing though.
OkayBurning in massive amounts=destroying)(destroying=pulverizing.
Okay, but you used transitive logic to change your argument from asking to change the name of the move to trying to get the thread denied, so I MUST not be alone!!!Okay
1. Pulverizing means to reduce to fine particles, which means you would need to burn everything, and then burn the ashes
2. Transitive Property is not acceptable logic anywhere but math.
.Okay, but you used transitive logic to change your argument from asking to change the name of the move to trying to get the thread denied, so I MUST not be alone!!!
Just one of the ways of showing how little thought went into it, so instead of developing ideas into good concepts you decide to start a couple pages of arguments over something easily changeable. That last post of yours seems to have less thought in it then the name..
Do you even know what the transitive property is? It's an algebraic principle that says if A=B and B=C, that A=C. Also, the name is just one of the ways to get it denied. The name is a way of showing how much, or how little thought goes in.
Which one? You mean the question I posted? Something that is a request for information? I guess you wouldn't understand anything that isn't a half baked idea.Just one of the ways of showing how little thought went into it, so instead of developing ideas into good concepts you decide to start a couple pages of arguments over something easily changeable. That last post of yours seems to have less thought in it then the name.
Nice to see you are the type to automatically insult another person in a argument. Are you finding out more about yourself? Oh, by the way I learned a while back that it is simply human nature to argue to win. Would you like me to explain it to you? The people that would argue to win would be the bully's, politicians, etc in society. Those people would be the more likely to gain things such as food, and in turn gain more followers by being the ones to have the food, the followers would help make/get more food, and the cycle would continue. I am trying my best to avoid that simple human nature, may I ask you to do so also?Which one? You mean the question I posted? Something that is a request for information? I guess you wouldn't understand anything that isn't a half baked idea.
I'm just asking you to provide solid evidence like I am. I provide solid evidence and you just retaliate harshly to protect your own interests, may I refer you back to the Jings page?Nice to see you are the type to automatically insult another person in a argument. Are you finding out more about yourself? Oh, by the way I learned a while back that it is simply human nature to argue to win. Would you like me to explain it to you? The people that would argue to win would be the bully's, politicians, etc in society. Those people would be the more likely to gain things such as food, and in turn gain more followers by being the ones to have the food, the followers would help make/get more food, and the cycle would continue. I am trying my best to avoid that simple human nature, may I ask you to do so also?
The name just kind of bothered me. I'm explaining the flaw in concept on Owl's page.Guys stop arguing, it's a name for pete's sake. And not everything has to be exactly exact to the most exact point.
Harshly, like how someone might insult another's intelligence?I'm just asking you to provide solid evidence like I am. I provide solid evidence and you just retaliate harshly to protect your own interests, may I refer you back to the Jings page?
Not harshly, disproportionately.Harshly, like how someone might insult another's intelligence?
Look dude, I am all for helping out the plugin, and improving each other along the way. You have to work on making yourself not get into or make huge arguments, Like how I used to do. I might still do. Even through how loud and different our opinions are, I find we are quite alike.Not harshly, disproportionately.
I agree we're alike, and I find your commitment to the plugin pleasing, its just the way you either misinterpret the canon, or lack of attention to it. I see Balance and Canon as equals. This would be a canon thing, but not equal. I get that the comet is supposed to make firebenders powerful, I do, but this sounds like a WML/G (Weapons of mass lag/grief). Not to mention if they added power augmented for the comet, they would need to do the same for the Avatar as well.Look dude, I am all for helping out the plugin, and improving each other along the way. You have to work on making yourself not get into or make huge arguments, Like how I used to do. I might still do. Even through how loud and different our opinions are, I find we are quite alike.
We could easily counterbalance this by making sozin's comet rarer, just a idea.I agree we're alike, and I find your commitment to the plugin pleasing, its just the way you either misinterpret the canon, or lack of attention to it. I see Balance and Canon as equals. This would be a canon thing, but not equal. I get that the comet is supposed to make firebenders powerful, I do, but this sounds like a WML/G (Weapons of mass lag/grief). Not to mention if they added power augmented for the comet, they would need to do the same for the Avatar as well.
Not really. The frequency isn't the issue here. The issue is, you guys are taking the firebenders who are already getting extra power, a move that's already more powerful than any of the basic moves. I do agree that the comet should add more benefits than just extra power, but this is too far.We could easily counterbalance this by making sozin's comet rarer, just a idea.