Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Isn't it slightly fatuous to attempt to scientifically rationalise something that doesn't actually exist?Do we know that Sue's attacks are slower (in the comic world, or by adhering to the above rationale)?
Originally posted by xmarksthespotThats just it if Sue sees Emma first then Sue could baet her agian if Emma sees Sue first than Emma wins more than likely. It's a mute point. It's not like they are standing there and waiting for a whistle to blow.
If Sue projects force daggers (as someone earlier suggested) at Emma Frost the latency time of attack is greater than that for a telepathic assault (which for all intents and purposes is essentially zero) from Emma, no?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If Sue projects force daggers (as someone earlier suggested) at Emma Frost the latency time of attack is greater than a telepathic assault (which for all intents and purposes is essentially zero) from Emma, no?
What do you mean when you say 'latency time'?
From what precise point, to which other point?
Originally posted by newjak86I'm going to guess that if it were mutually agressive and Emma were on guard, Emma probably wouldn't have to see Sue to attack. . . there is that whole telepath thing. . .
Thats just it if Sue sees Emma first then Sue could baet her agian if Emma sees Sue first than Emma wins more than likely. It's a mute point. It's not like they are standing there and waiting for a whistle to blow.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Missed the sarcasm did you?You don't realize how baised you sound?
...to you. I don't care or know how biased I sound...to you. Because I'm not biased. That's an actual fact. So no need to try and tell me what I am.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Who says it's false? You?
Yes. All you are doing is claiming something that isn't there. You can cling to this biased point all you want. It doesn't make it any more true.
Originally posted by Creshosk
So you don't even know and you're saying that he'll just happen to have his anti-X spray on him?
You just saying that he won't? I can do it too, see. The fact is, none of us KNOW what he will or won't have. I'm not even saying he will have anything. He may very well not. I'm not saying give the man weapons for the sake. I'm saying it's a possibility he might, so lets not say he has none.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You basically did with your whole "Sue can take them all out!" line.
I wasn't scripting the fight. I was comparing characters. Nor did I ever say that quote. Oh wait, that's what you do haha. You quote what you want to think I said. Niiice.
Originally posted by Creshosk
It states nothing that they wouldn't normally carry, since they don't normally carry gadgets
It's also a random encounter.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I know that he doesn't carry anything to help him in this situation.
Why?
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm affraid not. Knowing something doesn't mean an automatic win.
It doesn't. Nor did I say it would, I'm saying Reed more than likely knows more about them than they do about the F4 and it would be foolish to say this wouldn't be an advantage. But then that's speculation.
Originally posted by Creshosk
And he wouldn't carry something for this situation would he?
I don't know, it's a random encounter isn't it? He might, he might not.
Originally posted by Creshosk
but he doesn't, that the thing.
That you know of. Doesn't rule out the fact that it's a possibility. You seem to think I'm claiming "Give the man a nuke". I'm not.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Sure you did. You said that depriving them of gadgets is like depriving wolverine of his claws.
I said depriving someone of something already there to use as a weapon is like depriving Wolverine of his claws that are already there to use as weapons. I never said depriving them of all the gadgets. That would be stupid.
Originally posted by Creshosk
But it's not the same thing. Reed doesn't always carry gadgets on him. So why should he suddenly be allowed to have the right weapon on him?
Why are you asking me a question I keep giving you the answer to? I'm not saying give him the weapon. I'm saying it's possible he might have one so let's not say he has NONE.
Originally posted by Creshosk
We already know he doesn't carry anti-X spray with him.
Yes, because you made that up.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Which he doesn't.
According to?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Then you'll do the same for mine? Gumdrops.
I've never done it in the first place.
Originally posted by Creshosk
he just happens to have it THIS time does not equal to regularly carrying it.
It's a random encounter though, isn't it? Random isn't regular.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Regularly? Nope.
I'm not explaining the point to you again. If you're too reinforced in the skull to pick it up, I'm not feeding it to you.
Originally posted by Creshosk
"Unless he just happens to have it on him""let's bend the rules a bit for him."
I said the first one. Which means "unless". Not saying "He will". Stop making up quotes.
Originally posted by Creshosk
That's what the rules say.
Ok so what does the following mean:
Originally posted by Creshosk
not on the VS board.
Random encounter means nothing on here then? How can this battle be a random encounter (which it is specified to be) if you're not allowing for possible random occurances?
Originally posted by Creshosk
I do to. I know he doesn't.
You don't though.
Originally posted by Creshosk
we need to bend the rules for him. even though he doesn't regularly have them, he should still have them this time.
How do you quote me specifically saying ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY, then go on to make some crazy claim that I said what you implied? That's ignorant and stupid. So are you. Do yourself a favour, stop overlooking what I say to favour yourself.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Name calling, even in its passive form, doesn't make it any less true.
It's not true anyway though. You have been clinging desperately to falsely quoting me when we both know I've never requested that the rules be bent in favour of the F4.
Originally posted by Creshosk
And she's just going to happen to catch her off guard this time?
The best predictor of future behaviour or occurances are past behavior and occurances.
Originally posted by Creshosk
I think it was posturing. That doesn't mean that it's not true.
Doesn't mean it is. Burden to prove otherwise is on you, seeing as evidence is in my favour.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You mean quotation marks?
You used quotation marks, inverted commas is the correct term.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Psyching yourself up is just the same.
It's not is it? No.
Originally posted by Creshosk
You can't prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on your shoulders.
I've done all the proving.
Originally posted by Creshosk
It does for my significant other.
Yes, and? Unique case then. Because by definition and commonality, claustrophobia is what I said it is.
Originally posted by Creshosk
And my significant other doesn't feel enclosed or confined if she can see out.
So what? See above.
Originally posted by Creshosk
In your opinion.If that makes you feel better then tell yourself that.
A) No, factually. You continually returning doesn't make you any stronger in this debate. It means you're just anxious to have the last word in a debate that you've lost.
B) It's true.
-AC
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Proof for this being...Can I ask (anyone), what does pis mean? Cis? Anyone?
ACOEUORABUTIAMWSTWAAPTTRK?
Pis: plot induced stupidity, something that happens for the sake of the plot, but goes out of logical boundaries of what characters should and shouldn't be doing.
Pis would be when flash doesn't ko everyone in the first picosecond,or batman or toyman beating up superman.
This is discarded from debates.
Cis: character induced stupidity
Character doing something within character, or morals.
Torch can't nova kill everyone because of this.
xavier can't kill everyone in the area, nor can spiderman kill his opponents
brain bubbles don't work, cyclops removing his visor to kill won't either.
the rhino being stupid is also an example of this.
This is included in debates unless specified otherwise.
Originally posted by CreshoskYeah but she still has to focus to use it. All that would happen is she would know that there are four people there and that they are dangerous. Sue would in almost any scenario have some time to react to Emma for more then enough to call up her power.
I'm going to guess that if it were mutually agressive and Emma were on guard, Emma probably wouldn't have to see Sue to attack. . . there is that whole telepath thing. . .
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
I thought I'd explained this.Pis: plot induced stupidity, something that happens for the sake of the plot, but goes out of logical boundaries of what characters should and shouldn't be doing.
Pis would be when flash doesn't ko everyone in the first picosecond,or batman or toyman beating up superman.
This is discarded from debates.
Cis: character induced stupidity
Character doing something within character, or morals.
Torch can't nova kill everyone because of this.
xavier can't kill everyone in the area, nor can spiderman kill his opponents
brain bubbles don't work, cyclops removing his visor to kill won't either.
the rhino being stupid is also an example of this.This is included in debates unless specified otherwise.
So Cis is confining characters to their comic moral boundaries; Pis is to their plot limits. Got it.
ACOEUORABUTIAMWSTWAAPTTRK: any chance of explaining usage of random acronyms before using them in a manner which suggests that we are all privy to the required knowledge?
Feel free to use that. It's out there.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou are getting used to him huh?
Next time he replies I'm shortening it to relevancy.That was the last one. The man is done, so might as well finish him off on topic.
-AC
Calling everyone a hypocrite and yadda yadda yadda, twisting words.
Ignore list wasn't a bad thing to be honest, it is more productive around here....
Originally posted by Victor Von DoomYou are quite interesting...
So Cis is confining characters to their comic moral boundaries; Pis is to their plot limits. Got it.ACOEUORABUTIAMWSTWAAPTTRK: any chance of explaining usage of random acronyms before using them in a manner which suggests that we are all privy to the required knowledge?
Feel free to use that. It's out there.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Telepathic assault is classically portrayed to occur upon the initiation of thought - ergo latency time is for all intents and purposes zero. Sue's attacks would vary in latency time depending upon what she does.
I take it you have some kind of graph showing the time of her attacks?
Latency time against type of attack? Must have some kind of proof since you couch it in quasi-scientific terms.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriCalling something a fact doesn't make it that way.
...to you. I don't care or know how biased I sound...to you. Because I'm not biased. That's an actual fact. So no need to try and tell me what I am.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriFunny how you can call me biased but you aren't biased. . .
Yes. All you are doing is claiming something that isn't there. You can cling to this biased point all you want. It doesn't make it any more true.
I'm not biased it's a fact.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIf he doesn't regularly carry it he doesn't get it in Vs Board fights.
You just saying that he won't? I can do it too, see. The fact is, none of us KNOW what he will or won't have. I'm not even saying he will have anything. He may very well not. I'm not saying give the man weapons for the sake. I'm saying it's a possibility he might, so lets not say he has none.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I wasn't scripting the fight. I was comparing characters. Nor did I ever say that quote. Oh wait, that's what you do haha. You quote what you want to think I said. Niiice./
The FACT here is that Sue is powerful enough to take out all of them singularly.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriSo they don't get what they don't normally carry. Thats one of the KMC rules, that you are STILL trying to bend.
It's also a random encounter.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBecause he doesn't normally carry things that would help him deal with this situation. If he were paranoid like batman, who carries kryptonite on him, then I could see it. But he's not paranoid like the master of the plot device.
Why?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAnd it would be foolish to disagree with your speculation?
It doesn't. Nor did I say it would, I'm saying Reed more than likely knows more about them than they do about the F4 and it would be foolish to say this wouldn't be an advantage. But then that's speculation.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriKMC Rules, he doesn't.
I don't know, it's a random encounter isn't it? He might, he might not.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBut you are still trying to bend the rules.
That you know of. Doesn't rule out the fact that it's a possibility. You seem to think I'm claiming "Give the man a nuke". I'm not.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThey don't have anything they don't regularly carry.
I said depriving someone of something already there to use as a weapon is like depriving Wolverine of his claws that are already there to use as weapons. I never said depriving them of all the gadgets. That would be stupid.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHow about he doesn't have anything he doesn't normally carry?
Why are you asking me a question I keep giving you the answer to? I'm not saying give him the weapon. I'm saying it's possible he might have one so let's not say he has NONE.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt was an example.
Yes, because you made that up.
Originally posted by Alpha Centaurithe KMC Rules. . .
According to?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriYou sure did with the whole Torch thing.
I've never done it in the first place.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriRandom means they just happen to encounter each other and a fight breaks out. Which is why, if they don't normally carry it, they don't have it.
It's a random encounter though, isn't it? Random isn't regular.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriI already know you're trying to bend the rules in the FF's favor. I see through your attempts.
I'm not explaining the point to you again. If you're too reinforced in the skull to pick it up, I'm not feeding it to you.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThat's what you're saying, not in those words, but basically what your saying.
I said the first one. Which means "unless". Not saying "He will". Stop making up quotes.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt's in the rules. Doesn't regularly carry it? It's not there.
Ok so what does the following mean:Random encounter means nothing on here then? How can this battle be a random encounter (which it is specified to be) if you're not allowing for possible random occurances?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBut I do, I read the comics.
You don't though.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBecause I have to ignore the possibility that he might just happen to this one special occasion, because it's in the rules. If I allow the possibility then the rule is bent, in the FF's favor. And I'm not stupid nor ignorant for trying to abide by the rules.
How do you quote me specifically saying ALLOW FOR THE POSSIBILITY, then go on to make some crazy claim that I said what you implied? That's ignorant and stupid. So are you. Do yourself a favour, stop overlooking what I say to favour yourself.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBut you are. You aren't saying it directly, but you are trying to allow Reed gadgets that he doesn't normally have. It's in the rules.
It's not true anyway though. You have been clinging desperately to falsely quoting me when we both know I've never requested that the rules be bent in favour of the F4.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriWhich is probably why Emma wouldn't underestimate Sue again.
The best predictor of future behaviour or occurances are past behavior and occurances.
But it's not like Reed lugs his Lab around with him all the time.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAccording to you and your interpretation of the events. Which are your assumptions and opinions. Not facts.
Doesn't mean it is. Burden to prove otherwise is on you, seeing as evidence is in my favour.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAre you British or something?
You used quotation marks, inverted commas is the correct term.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHow is it not? Increasing your own moral is the same thing as decreasing your opponents ability to psyche you out, is it not?
It's not is it? No.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriNo, you've stated your interpretation of events. Shared your assumptions. And showed off your opinion. Nothing is proven thus far.
I've done all the proving.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriBecause you say so?
Yes, and? Unique case then. Because by definition and commonality, claustrophobia is what I said it is.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriClaiming something is true doesn't make it that way. Your interpretations and assumptions and opinions are not facts.
A) No, factually. You continually returning doesn't make you any stronger in this debate. It means you're just anxious to have the last word in a debate that you've lost.
Originally posted by newjak86Beacuse she's new to the power, or because everyone has to focus to use powers of the type?
Yeah but she still has to focus to use it.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt's not like spider sense. Telepaths in marvel are capable of distinguishing each other and reading minds, even of reliving memories with the person.
All that would happen is she would know that there are four people there and that they are dangerous.
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAnd not the same way around?
Sue would in almost any scenario have some time to react to Emma for more then enough to call up her power.
You do know what a telepath is don't you?