really.. stop suggesting the 'light' type

not everything is ying and yang in life. when there would be a light type, there would also be a 'not bug' type, a 'not rock' type and a 'not water' type. dark pokémon are an exception on all other pokémon, like all types their type is what defines them. when there would be a light type, that would mean a lot of pokémon are not dark, nor light. now you can say all pokémon but dark types, are light. all pokémon but bug types, are not bug types. come on people, a little bit of spinoza and descartes thinkin' here.

I agree~ I was initially opposed to the Dark-Type being implemented (and still am a little) since it seems kind of random compared to the other types, plus the whole 'light and dark' issue has been done to death, cliche in a sense.

You bring up a good point but personally, I don't really care what they do, as long as its reasonable and doesn't alter the balance of the game. Still, I think people can believe whatever they want, just like you. C:

Seriously, I have no idea what your talking about. The messy spellings a turnoff too.

It needed to be said, but not by you. If people think there should be a Dark type, tell them why there shouldn't/won't be one. Making a thread about it to complain is pretty sad.

nah i agree with everything he says. It gets really annoying when people must suggest stupid, incoherent ideas with no real thought put into it. "Hm, lets see a new type? How about the opposite of dark, light!"

But personally i wouldve waited for someone to post a topic about the light type rather than create a thread about how stupid it is.

I agree. I mean, dark type sounds good. It's reasonable. But light doesn't sound like a good idea. At least, that's my opinion. Also, like you said, there doesn't have to be a Ying and Yang for everything. There's enough type already. We don't really need more.

Well light type is utterly stupid but in game there acually is some yin yang types
fire=/=ice
flying=/=ground
water=/=rock
So there!

darkcookie_93 said:

Well light type is utterly stupid but in game there acually is some yin yang types
fire=/=ice
flying=/=ground
water=/=rock
So there!

Click to expand...

thats not ying/yang, that's rock-paper-scizors. look:

you can't say ice is the other side of that. you can only say everything that isn't fire, is 'not fire'. anyway.

and in my defense: there are quite some people that post the light type in posts about new attacks, new pokemon, new content for the 5th generation, etc. it really would be stupid to go off topic and reply to each of them in each of those posts.

Yeah it's all well and good getting annoyed over it, but there's no point making an entire thread dedicated to why you're annoyed. It's not even like there's been an influx of posts to set you off. I mean, over the last month I've found one thread asking about it, which is hardly abnormal and certainly not annoying enough to warrent the creation of this thread.
I don't see the point in this thread, ironically its just as stupid as a "Why isnt there a light type?" one :)
*Reports*

Storm-DC said:

and in my defense: there are quite some people that post the light type in posts about new attacks, new pokemon, new content for the 5th generation, etc. it really would be stupid to go off topic and reply to each of them in each of those posts.

Click to expand...

yeah well, that's exactly what i did in those 'what pokemon need evolutions' threads.

Gofre said:

Yeah it's all well and good getting annoyed over it, but there's no point making an entire thread dedicated to why you're annoyed. It's not even like there's been an influx of posts to set you off. I mean, over the last month I've found one thread asking about it, which is hardly abnormal and certainly not annoying enough to warrent the creation of this thread.
I don't see the point in this thread, ironically its just as stupid as a "Why isnt there a light type?" one :)
*Reports*

Click to expand...

http://www.google.com/search?q=site...&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a

ROFL Nice Storm :D Seize the nonbeliever!

Rofl, that link was epic fail.
Like i said, find me more than some threads made over the past year. Because most of those links go to threads go as far back as 2004. You've just re-enforced my arguament tbh.

...um...what the hell did you just say?