Quake3World

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:32 pm**

People also commonly use the word "then" when they should say "than."

You're an idiot for using that as grounds to deduce that wikipedia is on your side in this argument.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:34 pm**

R00k wrote: You're an idiot for using that as grounds to deduce that wikipedia is on your side in this argument.

what? it says exactly what I said. how is wikipedia not on my side in this? are you retarded?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:36 pm**

Grudge wrote:fuck off ShitSplash.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:03 pm**

I would just like to point out that ShitSplash has destroyed any reputation he might of had at q3w (there was little of it in the first place).

He will now be considered among the Kracuses and Reps, feel free to point and laugh at him at anytime possible.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:05 pm**

shiznit wrote:I would just like to point out that ShitSplash has destroyed any reputation he might of had at q3w (there was little of it in the first place).

He will now be considered among the Kracuses and Reps, feel free to point and laugh at him at anytime possible.

Too bad you never had any reputation to begin with.

And that's just apart from the fact that people generally don't lose reputation for being right.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:08 pm**

Everyone has a reputation, it’s based on the content of there posts. You have failed miserably to state anything worthy in this thread, therefore I welcome you to realm of Kracus.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:10 pm**

SplishSplash wrote:
shiznit wrote:I would just like to point out that ShitSplash has destroyed any reputation he might of had at q3w (there was little of it in the first place).

He will now be considered among the Kracuses and Reps, feel free to point and laugh at him at anytime possible.
Too bad you never had any reputation to begin with.

And that's just apart from the fact that people generally don't lose reputation for being right.

Yeah you are right, people don't loose their reputation for being right, too bad you're wrong.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:12 pm**

another nobody trying to make a name by attacking me, thinking I was in a weak position.

good luck

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:14 pm**

You said superpowers didn't exist prior to WW2, you have been proven wrong numerous times and yet you still pretend you are right. Okay...

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:16 pm**

"superpowers" - according to wikipedia a term commonly used only for the cold war era

thanks for playing. See the difference between me and a nobody like you?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:24 pm**

Just because a term was coined in the 1930s doesn’t mean superpowers didn’t exist prior to that date. You clearly stated that superpowers didn’t exist before this date, when in fact they existed far prior then the cold war era. It seems you’re the only with this horribly inaccurate opinion. In fact wikipedia expands on this if you only continue reading.

The first modern "superpowers" -- although they were not known by that term and are more commonly labeled as "Great Powers" -- arose with the beginning of nation-states which were capable of organizing and enlisting commerce, politics, and standing armies and navies to subdue or control other nation-states and less civilized areas. The Dutch were the first nation-state to do so, followed by the Spanish empire and British empire.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:28 pm**

SplishSplash wrote:"superpowers" - according to wikipedia a term commonly used only for the cold war era

Since according to you it's only for the cold war era, there are no more superpowers?

Whatever, why am I wasting my time with an imbecile like you, you were defeated long ago.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:33 pm**

SplishSplash wrote:
R00k wrote:In other words, Shit-Stache tries to speak authoritatively on a subject, gets called out and shown what an idiot he is, then retreats to the "god! it's just an opinion!" stance.

Nice. :icon14:
Can you read?

They quoted a Wikipedia article which seemingly supported their argument. If you didn't read past the first sentence.

After that, it said exactly what I had stated. Which is, that the term superpower is commonly used only for the cold war conflict.

I thought that was hilarious, because they made complete asses out of themselves by not reading to the end.

But since this is a forum of half wits, everyone thinks that the single guy must be wrong and the herd must be right.

My last post (directed at Tormentius) said that it is only a matter of opinion, which it clearly is. But it's also a fact that Wikipedia agrees with my opinion.

Yet you conveniently ignored the large part of the article that supported Grudge's argument.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:34 pm**

SplishSplash wrote:"superpowers" - according to wikipedia a term commonly used only for the cold war era

thanks for playing. See the difference between me and a nobody like you?

I see it. The difference is, he's right, and you're wrong. And German.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:01 pm**

No I'm right. Now what?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:38 pm**

Let's argue about it some more!

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:56 pm**

Nightshade wrote: Yet you conveniently ignored the large part of the article that supported Grudge's argument.

Not really. I already said that it was ultimately a matter of opinion, only that Wikipedia happened to agree with me (in the end, if you will).

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2005 12:00 am**

I'm telling ya Canada's gonna come right out of left field.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:01 am**

after the exodus of 'yanks'..

Quake3World

next superpower