Originally posted by CorderaMitchell
Wolverine ALWAYS does stuff he shouldn't, thats why he gets the rep he does.Anyways he lifts 800 and that is all that matters.
A hit WILL do something, not kill him though...
The inability of one to make assumptions or infer knowledge for themselves can be a pitiful thing. "ALWAYS" a very strong but accurate word to use. Here we have an example of someone who seemingly knows what a character consistently does yet refuses to accept the possibility that one source of information is incorrect. If one were to read that the sky is pink but clealy recognized the color to be blue, would one not question his source of information? It would seem common sense that one would do so.
So, should one accept a highly generalized, often inaccurate, nonsensicle source of information or that which he sees with his own eyes and can prove to be true?
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
The inability of one to make assumptions or infer knowledge for themselves can be a pitiful thing. "ALWAYS" a very strong but accurate word to use. Here we have an example of someone who seemingly knows what a character consistently does yet refuses to accept the possibility that one source of information is incorrect.
Quite true, but you are not taking into account that their are certain outside variables which manipulate these "consistencies."
Examples of variables that effect a character's performance in a battle.
1. Plot devices.
2. Character's popularity.
3. A comic book company's need to make money.
If you take these variables into account, and weigh them against what a characters known abilities are listed to be, you can clearly see that some events which transpire within a story were not written for the sake of being logical, instead they were createad solely for the purpose of entertaining a fan(or fanboy) and making money.
So, should one accept a highly generalized, often inaccurate, nonsensicle source of information or that which he sees with his own eyes and can prove to be true?
This is where "common sense" comes into play. It helps us filter out the biased information, and come up with an informed-unbiased argument based on all known-logical variables.
These variables should include stats, character bios, historical examples from comic books, a character's popularity, a companies need to make money, or any logical/unbiased bit of information that supports one's argument.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Quite true, but you are not taking into account that their are certain outside variables which manipulate these "consistencies."Examples of variables that effect a character's performance in a battle.
1. Plot devices.
2. Character's popularity.
3. A comic book company's need to make money.If you take these variables into account, and weigh them against what a characters known abilities are listed to be, you can clearly see that some events which transpire within a story were not written for the sake of being logical, instead they were createad solely for the purpose of entertaining a fan(or fanboy) and making money.
This is where "common sense" comes into play. It helps us filter out the biased information, and come up with an informed-unbiased argument based on all known-logical variables.
These variables should include stats, character bios, historical examples from comic books, a character's popularity, a companies need to make money, or any logical/unbiased bit of information that supports one's argument.
If there are outside variables then they should be mentioned and those examples can be used after weighing there merit, but most often I have not seen an example used with "outside vairables."
While I agree with point 1, point 2 and 3 can alter a character permanantly, making those things which were once outside the curve the new norm.
If you want to apply "common sesne" then don't ignore how innaccurate the stats are. Most of them don't even make sense and have no grounding in any science. What exactly is biased about consistant showings?
These varaibles should include stats that are innaccurate, character bios made by fans or anyone ohter than the creators, historical examples from comic books but not if they are consistant, the character's popularity because we all have to assume that character's do cool things because they're popular but god forbid they be popular because they do cool things and a companie's greet which is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Creshosk
People forget that Wolverine started off as a Hulk villan
wtf!?!?!? Wolverine doesn't rival hulk, the fanboys are out of hand...
Lets see, he did terrible in his first match anyways.
Wolverine loses to hulk 10/10...
Waaaaaaay too overrated there, I'm not even going to take that seriously, wolverine is a guy around Cap and DD level, jesus.
I swear, no knowledge in the realm of fanboy.
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
The inability of one to make assumptions or infer knowledge for themselves can be a pitiful thing. "ALWAYS" a very strong but accurate word to use. Here we have an example of someone who seemingly knows what a character consistently does yet refuses to accept the possibility that one source of information is incorrect. If one were to read that the sky is pink but clealy recognized the color to be blue, would one not question his source of information? It would seem common sense that one would do so.So, should one accept a highly generalized, often inaccurate, nonsensicle source of information or that which he sees with his own eyes and can prove to be true?
Um, the fact that you guys put pics of wolverine jumping 60 feet in the air, and not explaining it should be just what I'm talking about here.
wolverine does things he has no business doing.
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
The inability of one to make assumptions or infer knowledge for themselves can be a pitiful thing. "ALWAYS" a very strong but accurate word to use. Here we have an example of someone who seemingly knows what a character consistently does yet refuses to accept the possibility that one source of information is incorrect. If one were to read that the sky is pink but clealy recognized the color to be blue, would one not question his source of information? It would seem common sense that one would do so.So, should one accept a highly generalized, often inaccurate, nonsensicle source of information or that which he sees with his own eyes and can prove to be true?
Actually this is interesting, what is pink or blue?
Who says the sky is pink, or blue?
Originally posted by MERCILOUS
If there are outside variables then they should be mentioned and those examples can be used after weighing there merit, but most often I have not seen an example used with "outside vairables."While I agree with point 1, point 2 and 3 can alter a character permanantly, making those things which were once outside the curve the new norm.
If you want to apply "common sesne" then don't ignore how innaccurate the stats are. Most of them don't even make sense and have no grounding in any science. What exactly is biased about consistant showings?
These varaibles should include stats that are innaccurate, character bios made by fans or anyone ohter than the creators, historical examples from comic books but not if they are consistant, the character's popularity because we all have to assume that character's do cool things because they're popular but god forbid they be popular because they do cool things and a companie's greet which is irrelevant.
fine post..DAMN FINE post...
Originally posted by PiedmonYes, he could...
Wolverine can take punches from Colossus (who is 100 class), get up and belt out a line like "you just made the Wolverine mad... and baby, the Wolverine likes to get mad!"Although Abomination is probably stronger than even Colossus, he wouldn't one-hit KO Wolverine.