History's most brutal killers, the Majingilane Male Lions

[vizions]

So let's go back to your first "fact"

Quote:because the article says clearly they were together, were charged by the two males

I asked for quotes to backup your "fact" and you didn't give me anything, despite you saying "the article says clearly".

(02-26-2016, 05:55 AM)Majingilane Wrote:

Quote:Where does it show that the 2 Majingilanes charged the 2 Matimbas together?

Where does it show they didn't?

I asked for quotes to backup your claim that "the Majins charged the 2 Matimbas together". And you quoted "two of the Majingilane coalition came east to seek the newer males out". So this sentence mean that the two Majingilanes males charged at the 2 Matimbas together. Alright, i should go back to English classes then.

(02-26-2016, 05:55 AM)Majingilane Wrote:

Quote:Totally irrelevant.

That's very convenient.

Convenient? I asked for quotes to backup your claim that "the Majins charged the 2 Matimbas together" and your quote is about the 2nd interaction when we already know the Matimbas were split. So yes, it's irrelevant.

(02-26-2016, 05:55 AM)Majingilane Wrote:

Quote:when we know the Matimbas were split, so it doesn't back up your claim at all that the Majins charged the 2 Matimbas together.

How did they split? Why? They were together and then, magically, Ginger was at the opposite side of Londolozi, out of his territory?... So, it's clear this split was in response of the threat of the 2 Majingilane. How it happened, we don't know. It doesn't change the facts that it did happen.

Male lions split a lot. They have stuck together two months ago against 3 Majingilanes, and now you are saying that this time they were afraid of 2 Majingilanes and decided to leave each over? It's doesnt make sense. Even in front of the 5 Birmingham boys, they have stuck together and faced them.  KT and T were together that night just before he got killed.. And in the case of the Matimbas, several hours passed before the time the rangers saw them together and the fight. 

(02-26-2016, 05:55 AM)Majingilane Wrote:

Quote:You are jumping into the conclusion that it was a 2v2 fight when nothing at the article points out to that.

You are jumping into the conclusion that it wasn't a 2 vs 2 fight when nothing at the article points out to that.

I must incline myself in front of such arguments.

(02-26-2016, 05:55 AM)Majingilane Wrote:

Quote:Wow. You are clearly wrong, and moreover you are taking an arrogant attitude "My pleasure" when your arguments are totally irrelevant. So again, your "facts" are wrong.

My "arrogant attitude" as you call it, is backed up by the article written by the people that saw it happening. 

Your eager rejection of the facts just because you don't like them is what is totally irrelevant.

LOL. That's a good one, i laught.

I asked you to quote the article to backup your claim, and you didn't manage it. And then you are telling me you are "backep up by the article". You are joking with me right?

My eager rejection of the facts because i don't like them? Can we talk about your eager rejection of the facts because your are a delusional fanboy? Reply