Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-24993958-20151027072937/@comment-23702983-20151030100510

I don't think those Semblances are broken at all. If you read the argument I used, my logic was defending my own Semblance because I was told it "breaks the laws of physics". My response was essentially, "if my Semblance breaks the laws of physics, so does this one and this one and this one." He/she attempted to defend them by explaining ways they COULD work around the laws of physics, which is why I went into detail and explained why they cannot work if you're including real-world science. The Semblances are actually cool and I like the ideas. I never said I didn't. I was simply saying that if those types of Semblances are allowed, mine is FAR less far-fetched compared to some of those others when it comes to physics.

And I'm not sure if you saw the previous conversations I was having, but the "short description" part did, in fact, get changed to just that - a short description. I don't understand why that was brought up when I had already changed it and explained why it was so long in the first place (which I do apologize for).