What?! And you call her a good FV!

MAN OF SIN

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
8,281
Reaction score
430
I guess Hiruzen is a bad hokage since it worked on him in chapters. Seriously, she hasn't gotten a dicking in thousands of years. She misses her baby daddy holding her horns well hitting from the back.
 

Zol

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
1,803
Reaction score
94
I liked how she was completely "WTF?!" for a split second:flirty:. You have to remember she is a princess, from a noble heritage, she was completely taken off-guard by such a frivolous jutsu.

Furthermore, I have a feeling Kishi references early series elements for some full-circle nostalgia since the series is ending soon. Two chapters ago we had a land of waves flashback of Naruto/Sasuke's first real mission. Also, the reintroduction of Byakugan after all those years of hyping the Sharingan/Rinnegan.
 

Shinato

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
514
wait, is that supposed to be proof? :eww:




Theory, based on logic.






i wasn't the one telling someone to keep their mouth shut in a public forum because i didn't like what they had to say :erm:

If you want to be somewhere where you can agree with everybody, then idk what to say other than you're in the wrong place.




Oh right, you just told me that I had no rights to say it because you obviously didn't like that I said it. (I find your logic funny.) I also don't want to agree with everyone, that would be boring. But there is a difference in agreeing, disagreeing and just causing un-needed drama.



 

WalksInShadows

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
233



Theory, based on logic.



if it wasn't seen or mentioned in a panel, then it didn't happen. Using some theory + logic argument isn't proof it happened. And that's what i was talking about: proof. Not theory + logic, proof. If you don't have it, don't bother bringing it up. Simple as that.








Oh right, you just told me that I had no rights to say it because you obviously didn't like that I said it. (I find your logic funny.) I also don't want to agree with everyone, that would be boring. But there is a difference in agreeing, disagreeing and just causing un-needed drama.



i'm trying to be nice here, but you're making it difficult. I told you in a relatively polite way that you weren't anybody to be telling them what they could or couldn't open their mouth about. Did i say you weren't welcome to say anything? No. Did i say you weren't welcome to having your own opinion? No. I don't see how you could've possibly have gotten that from someone checking you because you were carrying yourself around here like you were someone in charge of this forum telling someone what they could say just because you were getting sensitive over someone else's criticism of the writing or (which is legit whether you or anyone else likes it or not, btw) or simply because you didn't agree with their opinion.

If the thread title tells you you are going to disagree with someone in said thread about something, you are in no positition to tell them to keep their opinions to themselves because you don't like it/agree with it. You're reaction is entirely on you, and again, i say that in the most polite way possible. If you're going to get sensitive over that, then that's your problem too because i'm not trying to fight about something that everyone here has a right to regardless of their opinion. What that person said in no warranted you telling them to keep their opinions to themselves as they just stated why they are still reading and there was absolutely nothing about that post that warranted that kind of reply from you and you know it.
 
Last edited:

Shinato

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,810
Reaction score
514
if it wasn't seen or mentioned in a panel, then it didn't happen. Using some theory + logic argument isn't proof it happened. And that's what i was talking about: proof. Not theory + logic, proof. If you don't have it, don't bother bringing it up. Simple as that.



You're taking away my fun by ruining your own point before I get to do that.. Meany! You asked me if it was proof, I stated that it was a theory based of logic. (I never stated that is was proof like you are implying that I did.) Also, there is no proof that Madara never cried either, as we haven't seen every single second of his life. When we do that and if he hasn't cried then you have proof. Right now, saying that he has never cried is an illogical theory with more "evidence" backing it up compared to the logical theory that he has cried before. So unless you can provide me with scans of every second of Madara's life, then don't bother bringing it up. (That is unless you are doing it for the same reason I am.)



i'm trying to be nice here, but you're making it difficult. I told you in a relatively polite way that you weren't anybody to be telling them what they could or couldn't open their mouth about. Did i say you weren't welcome to say anything? No. Did i say you weren't welcome to having your own opinion? No. I don't see how you could've possibly have gotten that from someone checking you because you were carrying yourself around here like you were someone in charge of this forum telling someone what they could say just because you were getting sensitive over someone else's criticism of the writing or (which is legit whether you or anyone else likes it or not, btw) or simply because you didn't agree with their opinion.

If the thread title tells you you are going to disagree with someone in said thread about something, you are in no positition to tell them to keep their opinions to themselves because you don't like it/agree with it. You're reaction is entirely on you, and again, i say that in the most polite way possible. If you're going to get sensitive over that, then that's your problem too because i'm not trying to fight about something that everyone here has a right to regardless of their opinion. What that person said in no warranted you telling them to keep their opinions to themselves as they just stated why they are still reading and there was absolutely nothing about that post that warranted that kind of reply from you and you know it.




Again, stop ruining your own point before I even get to read the post. (Its not funny and its mean.. :'() "Relativity nice"? I didn't find it remotely rude, nor did I find this thread remotely annoying to any degree, nor any of the posts contained within it. You stated that I people are allowed to voice their opinion. That is why everything you say against my comment from that point on is made invalid with your own comment. I was openly stating my opinion that I disagreed with the person, yet you seem to be implying that I am not allowed to do that. (As I said, ruining your own point.) I also have no interest in being in charge, lets make an example for fun.

If I was offered a staff position on this forum, or any for that matter, I would decline and not accept the offer. (Which I have on different forums over the past years.) The reason because of this is that my personality type is not fit for a leader, I am quite the opposite. (Its rare that someone with a submissive/"weak" personality type is made a leader, though it can happen.) That is the reason why I have no interest or wish to be a leader or be looked upon as one. (Thus I have no reason to "carry myself as someone who is in charge".) I am also not getting "sensitive" over someone else's opinion. There would be no reason to be, as opinions, difference and other ideas are what brings life to new and better ideas in the future. (Trying to completely remove the opposite idea would only harm my idea as well, ruining the point of even getting sensitive over the opposite's opinion.)

Now the next chunk of your post is generally you telling me that I am not allowed to state my own opinion in regards to someone else's comment. (Again, ruining your point further.) By the logic you are using, and I am referring to the first parts you said;

"If the thread title tells you you are going to disagree with someone in said thread about something, you are in no positition to tell them to keep their opinions to themselves because you don't like it/agree with it."

Then you are saying that people are not allowed to disagree with each other, that they have to agree with each other. Or that we should separate the two. You are saying that if I or someone else disagree with something, then we aren't allowed to voice our opinions against that. Thus we aren't allowed to say that we disagree with anyone, which goes against what you said earlier. (So next time you post, please try to avoid contradicting yourself as it ruins my fun, and my "fun" is the only reason I made the original comment.)



 
Top