1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice
Last Activity:
Mar 22, 2018
Aug 21, 2009
Likes Received:
Jan 12, 1995 (Age: 25)

Share This Page


IT'S A TRAP!!!, 25

girazard was last seen:
Mar 22, 2018
    1. Adrexus
      Don't sweat it bro. I'm just trying to make you laugh.
    2. MugoUrth
      Sometimes, anger and logic don't mix.
    3. MugoUrth
      I would understand if a Pokemon's batting ability ingame and its ability competitively were directly correlated. But...they're not.
      I suppose there is truth to that. Scolipede for example isn't any good competitively, but is really good in game. Venusaur, on the other hand, is better competitively than he is in-game. But even then, some things bother me for some reason.
    4. kaiser soze
      kaiser soze
      Your sig=Word
    5. mattj
      I kind of thought that's where the snag was.

      Yeah it can mean primary, secondary, or tertiary but only in one sense. Arguably, parts of the Bible are primary sources about the life of Jesus because parts of it were written by people who were there and reported what they saw (believe them or don't). Stuff like Tacitus' History would be a secondary source because he reported what other first hand witnesses told him. Ignatius' letters would be tertiary because He reported what other people had told them they had heard from witnesses. Although they are primary, secondary, and tertiary sources they are all historical sources because they come from near that time period.

      But that article you linked to was written less than 10 years ago. Even though the url says the word "history" in it, it is not a historical source. It is a modern source.

      That's the only point I was getting at.
    6. mattj
      How is history.com a historical source? The TV channel has only been around since 1995. It is not a "historical source". I don't know how else to explain that. The Bible is a historical source. Josephus' "Antiquities of the Jews" is a historical source. Ceasar's letters are historical sources. A modern website is not a historical source. It is a modern work.



      If you want to quote a modern source as saying that Christianity consciously hijacked a pagan holiday I will provide my own modern testimony as a source that Christianity did not hijack a pagan holiday. history.com has the same weight as any other modern source. They were not there. They do not know. I don't care what they have to say unless they cite some credible historical source, which they do not.

      You use the term "primary source". I use the term "historical source". They're talking about the same thing. Welcome to the diversity of the 21st century internet.
    7. Zoruagible
      I wouldn't like that, the final game should be a remake of Blue, Red, or Green since they were the first ones made
    8. mattj
      dear lord

      I asked for a "historical source". "history.com" is not a historical source. It is a modern website.
    9. Razor Xtreme
      Razor Xtreme
      Ahh ok, my bad. I thought you were just saying that cause of that post he made lol.
    10. Dunning
      True, and I am not saying that without the idea of religion everyone would go and a killing spree, but I think it does help. But thats not all 'religion' is for, it also helps rebuild the connection humanity lost with God(if you go by my beliefs)
    11. Sadib
      I think I got him to come back by bumping his debate.
    12. xDWarrior
      Heh yeah. They just want me to give reasons for my distaste. But i should't need to give a reason
    13. MugoUrth
      Please stop using Bibarel as an example. I have a huge soft spot for the guy.

      But honestly that's more of what I want to hear from you actually. It's just that before, you were saying that OU is the only viable tier.
    14. MugoUrth
      That was a Bazinga, actually. That had nothing to do with the topic.
    15. MugoUrth
      Just because I think the best trainers can use UU/NU Pokemon in OU with great success means my knowledge of competitive play is retarded? I could say your knowledge of competitive play is retarded too for thinking they can't.

      IMO, the Best players can use them. Only the WORST players "Know better," as you say.
    16. MugoUrth
      Shut up. I'll talk about competitive play as much as I want. I know enough to do so, mind you.
    17. PokeTrainerJay
    18. Gelatino95
      That's the reason they're haters in the first place. They can't be reasonable and make blind assumptions.
    19. Gelatino95
      I highly suggest you stop arguing on this thread. You could get infracted for it and there's really no point in debating with someone who won't listen to your good points, since it's not even considered a debate at that point. Just a blind argument. It's already escalated to name-calling, so don't you think it's gone long enough?
    20. darkjigglypuff
  • Loading...
  • Loading...
  • About

    Jan 12, 1995 (Age: 25)
    Favourite Pokémon: