New fighter update?

[cal7_11]

Re: New fighter update?

Your concept of "tone" is ridiculous considering you can't hear my vocal inflection and the statements are conceptual identical. Both versions of my paraphrasing are essentially the same. You want to play semantics now because I've caught you in recursive logic. You flat out called me an idiot because you thought I was referring to you with my quip at the end. You had to construct some sort of retort in order to justify calling me an idiot. It's very transparent.

I'm sorry I didn't get your original argument correct from an entirely different topic. lmfao Do I need to go back and look at your AIM chatlogs from the early 2000's to get the full context on the argument that spurred that argument too?

Aholbert was arguing that Ortega's performance against Holloway would determine how his stats were made. You declared that he should probably get a boost regardless of performance because of a perceived backlog of warranted buffs. Anything outside the scope of that debate is irrelevant to what we are currently talking about.

I'm not making a declaration on what Ortega's stats should be. I'm not making a declaration on what your opinions are. I'm not even making a declaration on what my opinion is about the argument between you and Aholbert. I'm just defining the argument being made in response to Haz. NOT YOU. Jesus Christ.

We'll use my second paraphrasing to reiterate because it is more accurate in "tone" according to you:

"Well, Ortega is underpowered so buff him anyway."

"He needs a boost regardless of winning..."

Consider everything before this a pretext for this crucial request: Explain to me how the above two statements are not conceptually identical. Considering your entire gripe with me is that I misrepresented your argument somehow. The first statement is me paraphrasing a direct quote from you. So, explain how it is a misrepresentation.

You are clearly a smart guy so I know you can understand the differences in your ‘paraphrasing’ but let me tell you anyway. You saying my original argument was conflated with “well, his stats are underpowered anyway, change them” like it was some petulant response to an actually reasonable discussion (not argument) that me and aholbert were having, is deliberately dismissive and a misrepresentation of the discussion.

Again you’re a smart guy so you’ve clearly not read every comment leading up to it for you to just try and dismiss my argument with a statement like that orrrr you intentionally paraphrased it like that just to have a jab at haz for agreeing with them!? Either way I’m going to comment on it, regardless of who you were replying too.

If you actually look at the specific stats I’ve suggested be increased you’ll see that there really isn’t a scenario in the upcoming Max fight which would go against those opinions. Don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that?

I’ve based my opinions on his previous fights. Now if Ortega puts in the performance that I think he will against Max I’ll be suggesting even greater stats than I already have.

[RetractedMonkey]

New fighter update?

Okay, so now you're posting like johnmangala where he just types the same message out over and over again because he doesn't know any better. I'm thinking you do know better but maybe I'm wrong. You've also gish galloped instead of answering my question because you know if you answer it truthfully, you lose. So I'm done with you until you do that.

If you actually look at the specific stats I’ve suggested be increased you’ll see that there really isn’t a scenario in the upcoming Max fight which would go against those opinions. Don’t see what’s so hard to understand about that?

I’ve based my opinions on his previous fights. Now if Ortega puts in the performance that I think he will against Max I’ll be suggesting even greater stats than I already have.

Cool. None of that is relevant to what we're talking about. I'm glad you think Ortega needs a stat boost. I'm not arguing that. I even defined that for you very clearly in my last post. I'm starting to think you're a bit more like johnmangala than I thought. I'm defining the parameters of an argument. NOT MAKING AN OPINION ON THAT ARGUMENT.


Also, saying you've conflated your argument isn't "petulant". Unless your mental fortitude is so shallow, any critique or statement on something you've said causes you to lash out.

Petulant: (of a person or their manner) childishly sulky or bad-tempered.

So, in this situation, of who is that descriptor more a fit? The guy who qualified argumentative parameters for someone with absolutely no hint of anything but stoicism save for a quick snipe at someone. Or the guy who (says he didn't mistake himself for the target of that snipe, but very obviously did) calls me an idiot for using the term "conflate" and pairs his messaging with exclamation points and emotional rhetoric?

Hmmmmmm. Anyway, I anxiously await your response to anything else but the question.

[Phillyboi207]

Re: New fighter update?

My man said “gish galloped” lmao

Aholbert is there any idea of how long stat updates will continue beyond the last patch?

[aholbert32]

Re: New fighter update?

My man said “gish galloped” lmao

Aholbert is there any idea of how long stat updates will continue beyond the last patch?

No idea but I'm hopeful it will continue until UFC 4 since these arent patches and are just stat updates. Fingers crossed.