(DrProof) Raikiri's Extirpating Aptitude

[DrProof]

This. You are a bit too confident for your own good.

You criticize, yet you know nothing of me? How misguided you are indeed.

 

[Irabear]

You criticize, yet you know nothing of me? How misguided you are indeed.

Eh, I mean you go for risky threads.

 

[DrProof]

Eh, I mean you go for risky threads.

Taking risk is good however.. It's not always good to be "normal" or follow others.. Displaying leadership is the way to success; not that it matters on NB.

 

[Strict]

Taking risk is good however.. It's not always good to be "normal" or follow others.. Displaying leadership is the way to success; not that it matters on NB.

Yet you did it like Varrah. I mean the grammar and font. But I understand you, Candara is nice :b.

 

[Irabear]

Taking risk is good however.. It's not always good to be "normal" or follow others.. Displaying leadership is the way to success; not that it matters on NB.

I feel like I am at a God dam school lecture. I just said the thread was a risk and then you go on to talk about RL. Let us save this debate for a further date, on an appropriate thread <.<

 

[DrProof]

Yet you did it like Varrah. I mean the grammar and font. But I understand you, Candara is nice :b.

It's the Varrah effect, however it was different from my own style; Candara is sexy, I also am trying out Gill Sans MT, and Garamond.

 

[Douryoku]

It's the Varrah effect, however it was different from my own style; Candara is sexy, I also am trying out Gill Sans MT, and Garamond.

'Twas I that coined this term. :scorps:​

​

 

[Khunka]

Good your back Doc !

 

[Jimmyrustler]

Well good day sir. Ok!
1st of all this is common sense, this thread was not needed to prove the obvious. 2nd I really have hard time believing that Kakashi ever cut a lightning bolt. He is just too slow for that and I know for sure that no one in Naruto is fast as light. So it should be simple that Kirin>Chidori/Raikiri.

lolwut lightning=/=light it doesn't travel at the speed of light...

 

[Jimmyrustler]

The moment I read this whole paragraph, I said to myself, "Here we go again. Another piece written by a thesaurus junky." So many words within this piece are written out of context.

I understand that there is a division between many people due to the debate between Raikiri's capability to counter or negate Kirin, but the author using the word "subsection" does not describe the division between the debate. We have no division within a division regarding the stance of the people that participate in this debate.

The author used the word "binomial" to describe both Raikiri and Kirin, and I do not see any relationship between the two jutsus that can regard them to be binomial. Within the mathematical context, the written language will only make sense if "binomial" was used for the addition or subtraction of the two jutsus. In example, "The argument that sets apart the Kakashi aficionados from the Sasuke fanatics is the binomial effect of adding (or possibly subtracting) Raikiri and Kirin when these two jutsu clash in their full potential."

Then, the author mentions, "Raikiri canonically stated to have extirpated a lightning bolt." Upon reading further, the author only states that "Maito Gai astonishingly stated Kakashi severed a lightning bolt with said technique." Please... PLEASE... there is a difference between a canon and an account. The word "Canonically" does not apply as it was only an account of Maito Gai and not a widely accepted dogma by all shinobis (nor even for all the fanbase yet). Furthermore, as the author continues "canonically" with the word "stated," then there should be a general rule not an account that proves his statement. The aforementioned sentence started my judgment that this is clearly an annoying writing.

This is not where the slaughter of many of the words' context ends. I mean seriously, did he just say "bystanders"? Bystanders are spectators, watchers or witnesses of an event. We have seen the use of Raikiri and Kirin on separate episodes of battle, but Kishimoto never illustrated a battle between Kakashi and Sasuke in which Raikiri and Kirin are used against each other. None of us can possibly a spectator nor a witness of such event. As a writer, the word "observers" will suffice.

Moving along, the author writes "for said threads construction." I can bet that other readers were thrown off from this phrase. Before this phrase is introduced, there was no aforementioned thread to to begin with, but rather it comes after this phrase. That tense threw me off which then leads me to question his use of the word "construction." But then fortunately for us, that word was used correctly.

At least, the author did come up with a thesis! Woohoo for us, the author learned something from his writing classes: to write the focal argument of his piece. Then, what was that? A colon? Oh my gosh, he actually learned how to use it too! HOWEVER, his thesis becomes confusing. As the author uses the phrase, "invalidly cannot," this double negative makes it harder for everyone to understand the argument. Additionally, as the author writes "insistently deluding canonical evidence," the two words smack-dab in the middle bother me. The word "deludes/deluding" is used meaning to deceive, but the author fails at recognizing the fact that the direct object of this verb must be a person that is deceived not a thing that is misconstrued. Also, refer to the third paragraph above to read about the author's fallacy for the use of the word "canonical."

But wait, there's more! This guy unduly uses a quote from Albert Einstein, in which Mr. Einstein's quote does not provide evidence nor support his argument. What I see now is a moron who demands respect by portraying himself as an authority of knowledge much like Albert Einstein, thus a doctor of proof from his username DrProof.

--------

In conclusion, your evidence and argument is enough. Just make sure to throw out your style of writing in the garbage.

/thread

 

[BloodSeed]

this thread is full of bullsh!tery!!!!

 

[Vegeta]

Not a good return thread for you. Dig a little deeper next time. Using a few large words that kids your age don't know doesn't change the substance. You could have summed it all up in 1 or 2 sentences....

That being said, I will agree with your theory. BUt.......I think like all other things, it would also require a lot of luck and perfect timing on Kakashi's part.

 

[Rigswattwa]

"224,000 mph -- or about 3,700 miles per second."

224,000 mph=3,700 miles per second

gUYS STOP READING THE THREAD WHEN YOU SEE THIS. DrPROOF REALLY SUCK AT MATHS

 

[Vegeta]

I think it's just a matter of time before he(?) realizes putting ones name in a thread is not a good look. No one else does it, not even the other guy who used to do it.

 

[Heizenberg]

Please try not to write so classy next time dude. We're discussing Naruto, not quantum physics. It just looks so lame when you try so hard...
Sincerely Heizenberg

 

[ChiefHermit]

Is this really Drproof? If so are you ready to get owned again?

rofl gg

 

[Captain Jimjam]

Lurvin' the vocab. Very nice indeed. Anyway, on topic Jimjam, on topic:
Nice comparison, I'm pleased you've got sufficient evidence to back up your statement, unlike lots of other threads... I do agree with you, Raikiri might have the capability to cut through and thereby counter Kirin. Kirin is technically a controlled lightning bolt of immense power, but minus the fact it's very powerful, it's still very much a bolt of lightning. So yes, I don't see why Raikiri wouldn't be able to cut through Kirin, if given the opportunity.

 

[hatake axel]

How'd it go?

I had to leave that thread, it was going nowhere.
They started making up he most weird "arguments".

 

[Unbiased King]

But look what you said, a lightning bolt generally moves at 224k mph or 62 miles per second.

Sure, it can be inferred that he can see the lightning bolt/kirin, but would he be able to react to it at all?

You must be registered for see links

 

[TrollingSage]

The moment I read this whole paragraph, I said to myself, "Here we go again. Another piece written by a thesaurus junky." So many words within this piece are written out of context.

I understand that there is a division between many people due to the debate between Raikiri's capability to counter or negate Kirin, but the author using the word "subsection" does not describe the division between the debate. We have no division within a division regarding the stance of the people that participate in this debate.

The author used the word "binomial" to describe both Raikiri and Kirin, and I do not see any relationship between the two jutsus that can regard them to be binomial. Within the mathematical context, the written language will only make sense if "binomial" was used for the addition or subtraction of the two jutsus. In example, "The argument that sets apart the Kakashi aficionados from the Sasuke fanatics is the binomial effect of adding (or possibly subtracting) Raikiri and Kirin when these two jutsu clash in their full potential."

Then, the author mentions, "Raikiri canonically stated to have extirpated a lightning bolt." Upon reading further, the author only states that "Maito Gai astonishingly stated Kakashi severed a lightning bolt with said technique." Please... PLEASE... there is a difference between a canon and an account. The word "Canonically" does not apply as it was only an account of Maito Gai and not a widely accepted dogma by all shinobis (nor even for all the fanbase yet). Furthermore, as the author continues "canonically" with the word "stated," then there should be a general rule not an account that proves his statement. The aforementioned sentence started my judgment that this is clearly an annoying writing.

This is not where the slaughter of many of the words' context ends. I mean seriously, did he just say "bystanders"? Bystanders are spectators, watchers or witnesses of an event. We have seen the use of Raikiri and Kirin on separate episodes of battle, but Kishimoto never illustrated a battle between Kakashi and Sasuke in which Raikiri and Kirin are used against each other. None of us can possibly a spectator nor a witness of such event. As a writer, the word "observers" will suffice.

Moving along, the author writes "for said threads construction." I can bet that other readers were thrown off from this phrase. Before this phrase is introduced, there was no aforementioned thread to to begin with, but rather it comes after this phrase. That tense threw me off which then leads me to question his use of the word "construction." But then fortunately for us, that word was used correctly.

At least, the author did come up with a thesis! Woohoo for us, the author learned something from his writing classes: to write the focal argument of his piece. Then, what was that? A colon? Oh my gosh, he actually learned how to use it too! HOWEVER, his thesis becomes confusing. As the author uses the phrase, "invalidly cannot," this double negative makes it harder for everyone to understand the argument. Additionally, as the author writes "insistently deluding canonical evidence," the two words smack-dab in the middle bother me. The word "deludes/deluding" is used meaning to deceive, but the author fails at recognizing the fact that the direct object of this verb must be a person that is deceived not a thing that is misconstrued. Also, refer to the third paragraph above to read about the author's fallacy for the use of the word "canonical."

But wait, there's more! This guy unduly uses a quote from Albert Einstein, in which Mr. Einstein's quote does not provide evidence nor support his argument. What I see now is a moron who demands respect by portraying himself as an authority of knowledge much like Albert Einstein, thus a doctor of proof from his username DrProof.

--------

In conclusion, your evidence and argument is enough. Just make sure to throw out your style of writing in the garbage.

My thoughts exactly.