The_
Auto-translated
Are you kidding me? The question was, "How can this statement not be a fact?" Yes or no? I answered that question directly. I explained how you initially misunderstood the wording, showed what is considered a fact, showed the relevant statement, and showed why it doesn't fit the definition of "fact." You should focus on learning how to engage in a rational discussion instead of dismissing it with a "YNAP, and everyone else is an idiot" attitude.
P.S. Although, at this point, I give up and admit that you're not interested in genuine answers to the questions being discussed; you just want everyone to think you're so right. That's called disrespecting your interlocutor. That's not how a conversation should go. I'll just leave this here: http://cs627630.vk.me/v627630255/33594/9LTT57Boehc.jpg
You're saying that the facts I'm stating aren't actually facts. Is that correct?
I'm responding by saying that my statement – that no one can know for sure whether HellLight would have performed the action exactly as requested at that moment – is not a fact. This statement can only not be a fact in one case: if there's a 100% guarantee that he would have made that specific move, and not some other move. Therefore, to confirm or refute my statement, is there a 100% guarantee that if HellLight hadn't lost those seconds, he would have completed the move exactly where he's being asked to now? (Answer options: yes, 100% guarantee that's what would have happened; no, it's not a 100% certainty.) We can proceed from there.
Added 2 minutes later
AK simply made a decision against the player twice in a row, and that's why he's upset.
If you don't notice this, it might be because you're too busy counting who won what, especially regarding a tournament on some obscure portal, with rules consisting of three lines and a 2-minute chess timer, with a number of participants that's either 10 or 14, who didn't always manage to beat the orange AI :)) – I just laughed, champion.
241-568-808