# Color Neutral walkthrough



## Tommie (May 10, 2009)

Just me rambling and stuff like that :]
Please comment with your opinion.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 10, 2009)

sick accent!
And I'd have to agree about being 2-color neutral, but I think that 6 is unnecessary, unless you're beast at FMC.


----------



## Dene (May 10, 2009)

Heh, firstly the word is "neutral" not "natural". Secondly, really there is no need for this video. If someone says "it slows you down" they are a completely inane moron that doesn't understand the concept of colour neutrality. _By definition_ being colour neutral means that there is no difference to your times. If it is slowing you down _you are not colour neutral_.
Using my predicting the future skills, I can see that this thread is going to fill up with idiots that will try to argue that I'm wrong. Oh well, I've already flamed them so I have nothing more to say.


----------



## StachuK1992 (May 10, 2009)

Dene; I agree.
The only real reason that I enjoyed this video was the accent.
If someone wants to become color-neutral, they can just do it. It's not a matter of theory, it's just a matter of enthusiasm and practice.


----------



## (X) (May 10, 2009)

Dene said:


> Heh, firstly the word is "neutral" not "natural". Secondly, really there is no need for this video. If someone says "it slows you down" they are a completely inane moron that doesn't understand the concept of colour neutrality. _By definition_ being colour neutral means that there is no difference to your times. If it is slowing you down _you are not colour neutral_.
> Using my predicting the future skills, I can see that this thread is going to fill up with idiots that will try to argue that I'm wrong. Oh well, I've already flamed them so I have nothing more to say.



I was colour neutral before and you can say that it was indirectly slowing me down beacause when i started to always solve cross on orange I got better recognition and faster times.

I don't think that sounds too idiotic


----------



## Joseph Gibney (May 10, 2009)

Dene said:


> _By definition_ being colour neutral means that there is no difference to your times. If it is slowing you down _you are not colour neutral_.


This isn't quite right. Being color neutral means that the color you choose to start with makes no difference to your times. This does not necessarily mean being color neutral won't slow you down. It is possible that had you decided to choose one color over the others to always start with, then your recognition for that color would be enhanced.


----------



## (X) (May 10, 2009)

Joseph Gibney said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > _By definition_ being colour neutral means that there is no difference to your times. If it is slowing you down _you are not colour neutral_.
> ...



Exactly what I am trying to say


----------



## SimonWestlund (May 10, 2009)

I used to be color neutral but when I started using F2L I realized that it was slowing me down. So I switched to just starting with the white side.. Now I use opposite cross, it doesn't require as much practise and sometimes it helps a lot


----------



## brunson (May 10, 2009)

If there's no point to being color neutral, then there's even less advantage to being opposite color neutral. Pick a side of the fence, you can't be on both.


----------



## holypasta (May 10, 2009)

i can't believe i'm saying this, but i agree with dene.

definition of neutral: not causing or reflecting a change in something.

if you are color neutral, all colors produce equal times.

this being said, nobody is truly color neutral, because no matter how much you train your mind, black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow.

--

quote from Joseph: "Being color neutral means that the color you choose to start with makes no difference to your times. This does not necessarily mean being color neutral won't slow you down."

i lol'd at this one. an exact representation of what you said is:

_x_ makes no difference to _y_.

and in the next sentence:

however, this doesn't mean _x_ won't make a difference to _y_.

...did that make sense to you when you wrote it?


----------



## DavidWoner (May 10, 2009)

What Joe Gibney is trying to say is that someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.



brunson said:


> I there's no point to being color neutral, then there's even less advantage to being opposite color neutral. Pick a side of the fence, you can't be on both.



The two are not comparable. For dual-solving (opp neutral) you use half of the same pieces for F2L, and the other half are very similar. I see all forms of color neutrality as a way to avoid bad crosses, and dual-solving accomplishes that with a lot greater ease than full color neutrality.


----------



## qqwref (May 10, 2009)

holypasta said:


> this being said, nobody is truly color neutral, because no matter how much you train your mind, black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow.



This is pseudoscientific BS. Besides, who the hell puts black on their 3x3?


----------



## deco122392 (May 10, 2009)

qqwref said:


> holypasta said:
> 
> 
> > this being said, nobody is truly color neutral, because no matter how much you train your mind, black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow.
> ...



*proudly raises hand*


----------



## brunson (May 10, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> brunson said:
> 
> 
> > If there's no point to being color neutral, then there's even less advantage to being opposite color neutral. Pick a side of the fence, you can't be on both.
> ...


The two are absolutely comparable.


----------



## Joseph Gibney (May 10, 2009)

holypasta said:


> quote from Joseph: "Being color neutral means that the color you choose to start with makes no difference to your times. This does not necessarily mean being color neutral won't slow you down."
> 
> i lol'd at this one. an exact representation of what you said is:
> 
> ...


I think vault has already sufficiently clarified my previous statement with his example, although I thought the next sentence of my post would accomplish that as well. By definition, it makes no difference to a color neutral solver's times which side he/she starts with. However, focusing your efforts on one color might lead to faster recognition for that side. I'm not saying that color neutral solving is good or bad; there are very good cubers that use it to great effect. Personally, I feel that opposite color solving is a nice compromise, and I use that in my solves.

And to answer your question, holypasta: Yes, I did think that my post made sense when I wrote it, although I was posting in haste, so perhaps I should have made my language more precise.


----------



## BillB (May 10, 2009)

Dene really can predict the future!


----------



## JLarsen (May 11, 2009)

BillB said:


> Dene really can predict the future!



You know what? He really can. I go through cycles of liking and hating Dene, but I like him right now. He just so perfectly predicted that idiocy that was bound to ensue a completely logical post.


----------



## BillB (May 11, 2009)

Maybe things are getting a little bit predictable? Or Dene=The Great Karnak.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 11, 2009)

BillB said:


> Maybe things are getting a little bit predictable? Or Dene=The Great Karnak.



More like "The Great" Karnak= lesser version of Dene.


----------



## irontwig (May 11, 2009)

Stachuk1992 said:


> sick accent!
> And I'd have to agree about being 2-color neutral, but I think that 6 is unnecessary, unless you're beast at FMC.



The idea of colour neutrality only really applies to speedcubing, imho. In FMC you're taking it so slow that recognition speed isn't really an issue.


----------



## Faz (May 11, 2009)

My opinions on this whole topic.

Seeing as Rowe Hessler, and I have achieved sub 11 averages with color neutral, I strongly believe it is a good........... method? way of solving?

I have attempted to solve with just the white cross a number of times, and my average was slightly slower than usual. If I were to practice hard at white cross, I'm sure I could bring it up to my regular average.

With the " no-one can never be truly color neutral" remark, I believe that I am truly color neutral - so take that, and try and disprove it.

I think that color neutral is the way to go for the future, as it has a fewer move count on average, as most crosses are fewer than five moves, and this also allows lookahead for the first F2L pair.

If anyone has any questions, or would like to argue their point, please reply to this.

CN ftw!


----------



## Stefan (May 11, 2009)

fazrulz said:


> [color neutral ...] most crosses are fewer than five moves


Fail.


----------



## JLarsen (May 11, 2009)

I actually watched this video, and i lol'ed so hard I added it to my list of similiar threads like  this one  and  this one . =]

(The first link get's good on the second page)


----------



## Tommie (May 11, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I actually watched this video, and i lol'ed so hard I added it to my list of similiar threads like  this one  and  this one . =]
> 
> (The first link get's good on the second page)



Is this supposed to insult me or the comments I don`t get it.


----------



## JLarsen (May 11, 2009)

No insult.


----------



## Ellis (May 11, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I actually watched this video, and i lol'ed so hard I added it to my list of similiar threads like  this one  and  this one . =]
> 
> (The first link get's good on the second page)



I remember that first thread. That was hilarious. Thank you for linking it because I had forgotten who made it. I never saw that second one though, pretty funny.


----------



## brunson (May 11, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> fazrulz said:
> 
> 
> > [color neutral ...] most crosses are fewer than five moves
> ...


Most crosses are five moves or fewer.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 11, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.


I wonder why that would be. I honestly don't see a reason. Until we can time travel, this is only speculation.



Vault312 said:


> I see all forms of color neutrality as a way to avoid bad crosses


Is this debate color neutrality vs. not in general, or color neutral CFOP vs. not? If you've decided to never practise any other puzzles than 3x3x3 and no other methods than pure CFOP, then I agree, the difference is small (but still worth it). But if you're also interested in other puzzles and methods, then color neutrality has a lot of big advantages (2x2x2, Petrus, 4x4x4 centers, etc.).


----------



## Rikane (May 11, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.
> ...



I think that may be based on them having their brain(?) differentiate between the different colour schemes based on their cross colour for that solve. It may be that without the very small (I believe for people who've "mastered" colour neutrality) process, the times would decrease.


----------



## spdcbr (May 11, 2009)

Dene said:


> Heh, firstly the word is "neutral" not "natural". Secondly, really there is no need for this video. If someone says "it slows you down" they are a completely inane moron that doesn't understand the concept of colour neutrality. _By definition_ being colour neutral means that there is no difference to your times. If it is slowing you down _you are not colour neutral_.
> Using my predicting the future skills, I can see that this thread is going to fill up with idiots that will try to argue that I'm wrong. Oh well, I've already flamed them so I have nothing more to say.



Dene is the master at fortune telling .


----------



## rahulkadukar (May 11, 2009)

Well being Two side Color neutral is not difficult you only need to adjust your cross. But then I use LBL so I may get slower as I switch to F2L


----------



## Daniel Wu (May 11, 2009)

rahulkadukar said:


> Well being Two side Color neutral is not difficult you only need to adjust your cross. But then I use LBL so I may get slower as I switch to F2L




Not really. I pretty much only use green cross. But using F2L, with blue instead of green, it's not that bad cuz the colors and similar.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 11, 2009)

Johannes91 said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.
> ...



I don't see a reason either, nor do I agree with it. I was merely trying to clarify his post for someone else.



> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > I see all forms of color neutrality as a way to avoid bad crosses
> ...



I was speaking solely about CFOP 3x3, which seems to be the main topic of this particular debate. I guess I was a bit sloppy with my wording when I said "all forms." Actually the only non-3x3 puzzles I am not color neutral on are megaminx and square-1. Megaminx because I see it as a giant 3x3, but I hardly practice it anyway so it doesn't really matter to me. And square-1 because its mechanically impossible to be color neutral. I'll be a bit more specific next time.


----------



## holypasta (May 14, 2009)

Vault312 said:


> What Joe Gibney is trying to say is that someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.



i know that's what he was *trying* to say, but it's not what he actually said.



qqwref said:


> holypasta said:
> 
> 
> > this being said, nobody is truly color neutral, because no matter how much you train your mind, black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow.
> ...



pardon my language, but you're an idiot for thinking that. it's a basic fact -- common sense, even -- that certain colors (usually very dark or very bright) are seen before others by the human eye. this technique has been used by artists to emphasize certain parts of a painting for centuries.

and yes, i put black on my 3x3. why on earth would you have a problem with that?



Joseph Gibney said:


> holypasta said:
> 
> 
> > quote from Joseph: "Being color neutral means that the color you choose to start with makes no difference to your times. This does not necessarily mean being color neutral won't slow you down."
> ...



I completely agree [with the bolded text.] thank-you for rephrasing.

sorry if i was a little harsh before, but your phrasing was definitely off.



fazrulz said:


> I have attempted to solve with just the white cross a number of times, and my average was slightly slower than usual. If I were to practice hard at white cross, I'm sure I could bring it up to my regular average.
> 
> With the " no-one can never be truly color neutral" remark, I believe that I am truly color neutral - so take that, and try and disprove it.



i believe you.

i shouldn't have said before that it's _impossible_ to be color-neutral. it's just very difficult.



brunson said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > fazrulz said:
> ...



no, *you* fail. he meant that most COLOR-NEUTRAL crosses are under five moves. however, most single-color crosses are fewer than six.



Johannes91 said:


> Vault312 said:
> 
> 
> > someone who is color neutral may average 18 for any color cross, but if they picked a single color and practiced only that one, then they could easily average 16.
> ...



i agree that it's only speculation at this point, but it makes sense.

---final summation:

neutral cross only has one less move than single-color cross, and -- unless you train for a long time and get REALLY good with color-neutrality -- it will slow you down in the long run, because your mind still recognizes some colors more quickly than others. so, it can be good or bad depending on how hard you work at it. in fact, i think i'll start trying to become color-neutral. if nothing else, it poses an intriguing challenge.

sorry for the really long post, but i just learned how to multi-quote. i guess i went a little overboard.


----------



## Ellis (May 14, 2009)

Whoa whoa whoa holypasta... you just said qqwerf was an idiot and that Stefan failed in the same post. 

1) qqwerf is not an idiot, and he is absolutely right
2) Stefan did not (and does not) fail. You are so wrong here. I can't believe you still think most color neutral crosses are under 5 moves. edit- what's funny is someone already pointed out the correction, and YOU _still _FAILED.


----------



## DavidWoner (May 14, 2009)

Ellis said:


> Whoa whoa whoa holypasta... you just said qqwerf was an idiot and that Stefan failed in the same post.
> 
> 1) qqwerf is not an idiot, and he is absolutely right
> 2) Stefan did not (and does not) fail. You are so wrong here. I can't believe you still think most color neutral crosses are under 5 moves. edit- what's funny is someone already pointed out the correction, and YOU _still _FAILED.



and he failed again by saying most single-color crosses are less than six.


----------



## JLarsen (May 14, 2009)

This thread continues to earn it's spot as one of my favorite threads....


----------



## Ethan Rosen (May 14, 2009)

@holypasta
<5 != 5
bai now


----------



## shelley (May 14, 2009)

holypasta said:


> it's a basic fact -- common sense, even -- that certain colors (usually very dark or very bright) are seen before others by the human eye. this technique has been used by artists to emphasize certain parts of a painting for centuries.



[citation needed]

Citation not available, why? Because you're full of BS. The "basic fact" is light in the same medium travels at the same speed regardless of wavelength. How can one color be seen before another?


----------



## DavidWoner (May 14, 2009)

holypasta said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > holypasta said:
> ...



Even if that "common sense" "fact" were true (which its not), there are still 3 colors on any given F2L pair, and you need to recognize all of them. So you should stop with this before you fall any more behind.


----------



## qqwref (May 14, 2009)

holypasta said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > holypasta said:
> ...



If very dark or very bright colors are such an obstacle to you being color neutral, don't use them! It's perfectly possible to have all the colors be about the same darkness, while still having clearly different hues. And as for "black will always offer quicker recognition than yellow" - actually yellow is near the peak of the human visual response curve (the peak is yellow-green, about the same color as a tennis ball), so it is one of the EASIEST colors to recognize. In cubing, though, anything with high enough contrast is easy to recognize... just keep your colors distinct, and don't have any that are overpoweringly dark or bright, and color neutrality will be very possible indeed.

Oh, and apparently you didn't understand what I was saying about black. Putting black on your 3x3 is pretty rare, so it's very silly on your part to say that "nobody is truly color neutral because ... black will still offer quicker recognition on the cube than yellow", as if everyone was forced to have black and yellow on their cube.


PS: There's a big difference between "most color-neutral crosses are <5 moves" (which is false) and "on average, the best color-neutral cross is <5 moves" (which is true). Stop with the fail.


----------



## Johannes91 (May 14, 2009)

holypasta said:


> i shouldn't have said before that it's _impossible_ to be color-neutral. it's just very difficult.


It's only difficult if you've already spent a lot of time being non-neutral, because then you have to unlearn it. When you were doing your very first solves, would using some other color than white for cross have been any harder?


----------



## holypasta (May 15, 2009)

in an attempt to conserve screen real-estate, i shall use @s rather than quotes.

@ellis: 1) please justify.
2) obviously, i bent the fact, but did you even look at my link? the statistic is that most neutral crosses are 4.81 moves. 4.81 is less than 5.

@vault: same thing i said to ellis. 5.81 is less than 6.

@ethan: relevance, please?

@shelley: my point is that the eye is drawn to certain colors, not that those colors literally appear first.

@vault: please, give some evidence rather than just contradicting me. and yes, there are three colors on every pair, but only one color is on every pair. (lol, very badly worded. do you get it?) and sorry, but i'm not going to "stop before i get farther behind." i stand by my opinion.

@qqwref: fair enough.
P.S.: refer to the reply i wrote to ellis.

@johannes: i actually agree, now that i've tried to become neutral myself.


----------



## Ellis (May 15, 2009)

ughh... 4.81 moves is NOT less than 5 in terms of move count. Why not? Because you can't do .81 moves. Your link says exactly the same thing Stefan's did but with less information. Go ahead, add up the numbers from Stefan's link. I'm sure you'll find that there are less cases that are 4 and below than 5 and above. What you're saying is exactly this: Most color neutral crosses can be done in less than 5 moves. It's a false statement and you have the numbers to prove it. The correct statement would have been more like "Most optimal color neutral crosses can be done in _5 moves or less_", or the alternative qqwerf gave.

Edit- just looking again quickly at Stefan's link, it looks like there are more optimal cases that are exactly 5 moves than there are for less than 5 moves. So you can even disregard any cases over 5 moves and your statement is still false. 

As for your other point. You said black is _always_ recognized faster than yellow_ no matter how much you train yourself_. I just think that is false, or at least something you can't really prove. Same idea with no one is truly color neutral. In other words, pseudoscientific bs.

edit2- I don't know why you asked me to justify this when you've already accepted qqwerf's argument. Or were you actually asking my to justify why he isn't an idiot, which is the only other thing I said.


----------



## holypasta (May 15, 2009)

Ellis said:


> ughh... 4.81 moves is NOT less than 5 in terms of move count. Why not? Because you can't do .81 moves.



yes; i've already admitted that i bent that fact. and what's with the ''ughh''? at least have some poise in your arguments.



Ellis said:


> As for your other point. You said black is _always_ recognized faster than yellow_ no matter how much you train yourself_. I just think that is false, or at least something you can't really prove.



fair enough.



Ellis said:


> Same idea with no one is truly color neutral. In other words, pseudoscientific bs.



i believe i've already taken back that statement.
...wow. you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?



Ellis said:


> I don't know why you asked me to justify this when you've already accepted qqwerf's argument. Or were you actually asking my to justify why he isn't an idiot, which is the only other thing I said.



i meant that you, in particular, should have justified your statement. you should have told me _why_ he was right. don't just type random stuff without giving your reasoning.


----------



## Ellis (May 15, 2009)

I was really only looking at what you said to me. You asked me to "justify", and I did. Maybe you should have said- "I see the point, but next time you should justify your statements". 

I felt the need to clarify the 4.81 because it didn't seem like you ever learned the mistake you made. Your first response was "obviously, I bent the fact". What does that even mean... to bend a fact? You mean you said someone failed and justified it with a false statement? And no it didn't seem like it was obvious to you because at no point did you say that you had made a mistake. It looked like you still hadn't learned anything when you replied to vault- "same thing i said to ellis. 5.81 is less than 6." That doesn't mean you didn't claim something false to be true, no matter how many facts you bend. 

"you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?" 
Not really. I only said it once, and I only chose that particular wording because it was what qqwerf said. I was trying to back up his words after all.


----------



## spdqbr (May 15, 2009)

shelley said:


> *snip* The "basic fact" is light in the same medium travels at the same speed regardless of wavelength. How can one color be seen before another?



<threadJack>
It's been a while since optics, but doesn't chromatic aberration in refracting telescopes and the fact that prisms work show this to be true? Different media can have different refractive indices based on wavelength, and refractive index determines the amount of slowing a wave undergoes when entering a new medium. I never fully got the difference between the phase velocity and the group velocity of waves though, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.
</threadJack>

And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!


----------



## DavidWoner (May 15, 2009)

http://www.cubezone.be/crossstudy.html

51.16% of single color crosses are exactly 6 moves. That means its mathematically impossible for "most single color crosses to be <6 moves"

55.41% of color neutral crosses are exactly 5 moves, which also mean that its mathematically impossible for "most color-neutral crosses to be <5 moves"

Now do you see why you were wrong? 

And so what if only one color is on every pair? Its not the pairs that matter, its the pieces. Each of the 5 f2l colors occurs on 4 different pieces. So it doesn't matter if you have great recognition for one color, you will still only be able to rapidly find half the pieces of your f2l.

Also, lose the attitude.


----------



## JLarsen (May 15, 2009)

holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.


----------



## blah (May 15, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.



Ouch. I thought you were just enjoying the thread along the sidelines?


----------



## Kian (May 15, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.



oxford *academy*, not university. he's 13.


----------



## blah (May 15, 2009)

Kian said:


> oxford *academy*, not university. he's 13.



Now that makes sense.


----------



## brunson (May 15, 2009)

spdqbr said:


> And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!


<threadhijack>
Shout out to mah home boi!!! Whazzup, Daniel? Nice license place. 
</threadhijack>

I think I would have probably gotten as fast as I am sooner than I did without being color neutral, but I have too many other bad habits that affect my speed. I went a month only solving white cross and it did nothing for my times. I finally gave it up couldn't pass on my 100th sub 5 move cross.

I'm pretty burnt out on these discussions, so I'm pretty much falling back on my stance with the eternal emacs vs. vi debate. Everyone I know that uses emacs can use vi and thinks emacs is better. No one that I know that thinks vi is better than emacs knows how to use emacs well. If you have never been color neutral, then your opinion on the subject doesn't matter a fat rat's a** to me.


----------



## JLarsen (May 15, 2009)

blah said:


> Sn3kyPandaMan said:
> 
> 
> > holypasta any respect I had for you previously is gone. Just because you're a student at Oxford doesn't mean you know **** after a few short months of cubing. FYI.
> ...



I enjoyed the first couple pages...especially the video. These last couple pages the stubborn people who are arguing against the benefits of color neutrality have stopped giving arguments, and just started attempting to mock the pros that have infinitely more knowledge on the subject by quoting posts in pieces, and trying to come up with snappy insults for every thing they've said instead of making valid arguments, and that pisses me off. I mean who the **** thinks Gottlieb is an idiot? In my mind someone who is so new should not have any confidence in any of their ideas. If I am new to subject, and find myself often asking questions, then I don't think my "opinion" is more valid than someone many times better than me, nor do I think a "yo moma is fat" kind of mindless insulting response is necessary when someone corrects an apparent mistake.


----------



## spdqbr (May 16, 2009)

brunson said:


> spdqbr said:
> 
> 
> > And I'm pretty sure that being color neutral hurts me more than it helps me. I just can't pass up the easy crosses!
> ...



Eric how's things in the north? Perhaps I'll try going color un-neutral for a while to see if I have a similar experience. Also, I love vi... but I've never tried emacs. I'll add it to my list of things to try.


----------



## holypasta (May 16, 2009)

you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.

i surrender.

--EDIT: just a few things.

@panda dude: did i imply that i know everything because i go to oxford?

@kian and blah: i'm not sure what you mean by, "now that makes sense." oxford academy is the second-highest ranked high school in America.


----------



## Gparker (May 16, 2009)

holypasta said:


> you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.
> 
> i surrender.
> 
> ...



well it obviously hasnt helped you any. the 2nd highest ranked school cant even teach you and your failing powers


----------



## Kian (May 16, 2009)

holypasta said:


> you know what i just realized? i don't really care anymore. we aren't even really arguing about color neutrality anymore; everybody is just trying to flame me based on poor word choice.
> 
> i surrender.
> 
> ...



i'm not saying anything about your school, i'm saying that the person misinterpreted where you were in school. i know nothing about oxford academy.

but yeah, you need to calm down on these threads, you're being really really aggressive.


----------



## JLarsen (May 16, 2009)

Here is the specific moment were YOU, not others here like qqwerf and stefan started flaming based on word choice. 

"i believe i've already taken back that statement.
...wow. you really like the phrase, ''pseudoscientific BS,'' don't you?"

The only one here that's done that is you. Another thing. You very will did imply that you knew everything, because you insisted that there was nothing wrong with anything you've said, even though the ENTIRE community argued against you, and you called the professionals all idiots when they pointed out what was wrong with your "opinion". You can have your "opinions" but when they conflict with fact, they're no longer valid.


----------



## Stefan (May 18, 2009)

holypasta said:


> 2) obviously, i bent the fact, but did you even look at my link? the statistic is that *most neutral crosses are 4.81 moves*.


Sorry I'm late but I have to thank you so much for making me laugh loud and long like I haven't in weeks (cause, well, not "most" but *zero* neutral crosses are 4.81 moves). And thanks to Panda for his collection of these threads.


----------



## AvGalen (May 18, 2009)

StefanPochmann;180369... And thanks to [B said:


> Panda[/B] for his collection of these threads.


From now on, Sn3kyPandaMan can call StefanPochmann "Poch" and get away with it


----------



## JLarsen (May 19, 2009)

AvGalen said:


> StefanPochmann;180369... And thanks to [B said:
> 
> 
> > Panda[/B] for his collection of these threads.
> ...



!!!!!!111!!!!1111!ONE!!ONE!11


----------



## Tommie (May 23, 2009)

Sn3kyPandaMan said:


> I enjoyed the first couple pages...*especially the video.*


Thank you!!!


----------



## Yes We Can! (May 23, 2009)

StefanPochmann said:


> holypasta said:
> 
> 
> > 2) obviously, i bent the fact, but did you even look at my link? the statistic is that *most neutral crosses are 4.81 moves*.
> ...



LOL ^^ that made me laugh.


----------



## Tommie (May 29, 2009)

Yes said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > holypasta said:
> ...



Yeah me too a little bit


----------

