Search results

There were at least 150 messages. Meaning you used "Thief" at least that many times. This is good judgement? I never claimed to be sane, though.

If I had called you crazy based on an opinion of yours, that would certainly be insulting. It implies a lack of basic Reasoning skills. I called you crazy based on certain extensive actions you took. It implies a large quantity (as in, you sent me a crazy amount of spam) or lack of good...

So when will someone ask UDE to erase this ruling so that we can take this off of "Unsolved Mysteries"?

So any new points, or will we be locked in a battle of "cannot/can too"? Anyway, how do you mark this for "unsolved mysteries"?

I believe you were making an assertion of a viewpoint and demeaning any opposing viewpoint rather than making an argument. Many on the Internet would take "crazy" as a compliment. I'm offending you by my use of "crazy"?

Occam's razor :P Not true. People CAN be CONVINCED that the false things are true, but they don't necessarily believe them to be true, nor do they have any obligation to. A statement with reasoning behind it has validity, but it is still not right until it is proven. I was asking you not to...

Cyclone Boomerang is something I didn't know about. Of course, I don't keep up with rulings and texts. Anyway, I see six possibilities: 1) The "Explanation" error. Someone at UDE tried to elaborate and extrapolated an incorrect example. 2) A mechanics change. It's happening more and...

"Crazy Spammer" would be considered more an accusation than an insult. I referred to that. It was between your first attempt at poisoning the well and your second attempt. I didn't ask for Reasoning. To reiterate: "How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical...

What? I don't get it.

Barrel Behind the Door requires chaining to the card activation. Kozaky's 1000 damage is an effect activation.

Don't be afraid to ask "obvious" questions.

You gave your reasoning as to why the ruling was illogical, between your first attempt to "poison the well" and your second attempt to "poison the well". You did NOT prove that Konami made an error with the second ruling. Saying that it was an error (i.e. without even the possibility of it...

DaGuy said what needed to be said, so... yeah. I thought I didn't. >_> I said "basically".

Then there is another irregularity. People don't care about this set enough to run hundreds of posts saying how good/bad it is?

Who exactly is this attacking? How boring. I'm still going to counter your argument, though. This doesn't prove that "Destroy all" can't include 0, since the generally accepted reason for why Raigeki can't be activated to destroy 0 is because destroying 0 is basically doing nothing, and a...

Nope, simple fact: We the readers do not have the logical proof of you the proponent. I.e., you gave a statement without logical proof. Valid, perhaps, but not necessarily right. I did find a flaw in your logic. You said that it was an error, therefore the making of another error to correct...

I agree that the ruling makes more sense now. Jason_C is poisoning the well when he says that Konami is changing a ruling to correct an error. How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical proof?

I thought someone would've stolen the translations and reposted them without credit by now. http://www.dmcomet.net/eoj.txt Or am I just not paying enough attention to the deleted threads?

Well, I find me funny. Both rulings are VERY old, by the way. Explain to me exactly how that logic is wrong. Logically, ignoring the specific official rulings. "Destroy all" can include 0. "Destroy the" must mean 1. "Destroy a" can be 1 or 0. The difference between "Dark Hole" (which...

http://edos.siteburg.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=13058#13058 Wait, is this true? Edit: Should've looked it up first. It is indeed true: http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/puppiy/rule/monster/Sp_S/Special_Summon.htm