Originally posted by wannabe
When this is referring to the comic scan from snoopdogg, i only have to say:"Thats the way it should be (imo)...sparks maybe, but no real cuts!"
And I'm saying that's the way it happened.
Originally posted by wannabe
Last time i checked, speculations were a form of articulating opinions and thoughts.
Yeah, which there is plenty of room for on these forums.
Originally posted by wannabe
That's your interpretation of given data. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not mine.
Well, my interpritation coincides with the data.
An event occurs and I'm trying to understand why, you seem to be saying why it should not have happened, neither of which really changes the fact that the event happened. Your side is needed for a better understanding, especially with challenging antiquainted ideas.
Originally posted by wannabe
Titanium alloy blades are also able to cut through gold without difficulty...with the sufficient force behind it.
Appearently Adamantium capitalizes on the force that is being used effiecently enough to succeed. What cuts better? Bronze, iron, steel or titanium?
Originally posted by wannabe
That would be who?
I'm not nameing names. Not you, but others who switch to use whatever is in their favor, regardless of waether or not it was in their favor in another place.
Originally posted by wannabe
NOOO...OBVIOUSLY NOT!!! It just means that he SHOULDN'T be able to do it IN MY OPINION.
That's what we are discussing here after all: What would happen to these characters in given confrontations in our opinion. And then we try to support and explain our thought in several ways. Or have i misinterpreted the situation?
Well part of the discussion involves understanding the characters and what they are capable of. If Wolverine is capable of cutting through titanium on a consistant basis, then things stating that he can't or shouldn't, really don't fit in with the character. and are an abstraction of the character rather than the character itself.
Originally posted by wannabe
Laws that are usually shown and are only ignored in situations when writers think the situation needs more drama or a character more profile...yes.
Unless they aren't usually shown, and quite contrarily are often not shown, one would question the existence of these in the first place, IF one were to question the existence of other scientific priciples.
Originally posted by wannabe
Sorry, English is not my mother tongue 🙄 I meant "by now"(i guess).
You're quite good. People are known for cleaverly using words in such a way that it's hard to tell what one means exactly.
I thought you might have been making a comment on this being our first conflict.
Originally posted by wannabe
I already answered to this argument above.
Btw...Your comment to my statement that unbreakability is the only super characteristic of adamantium was:"That we know of". This comment is an agreement to given knowledge as stated then, but implies further adamantium characteristics yet unknown. I questioned this agreements validity as an argument and now you justify it with FURTHER "given knowledge" about this metal? ❌
Hmm. . point. Maybe I choose my words poorly before. But that was another property of the metal, though "unbreakability" is questionable as I've seen it broken before. . . And not just by Hulk.
Originally posted by wannabe
No! A normal person without superpowers CAN have an adamantium enhanced skeleton in Marvel (Bullseye).
But wouldn't that give them a superhuman durability to their bones, enabling them to lift more than before and survive more than before?
Wouldn't you consider superhuman durability a power?
Originally posted by wannabe
And i don't question otherwise impossible stunts when the DIRECT cause is a super power. The direct effects of Wolverines super abilities are regeneration, hyper senses, enhanced physical attributes and extendable claws...no problem with that. But the direct cause for being able to USE the claws for cutting organic steel (to get back to topic) would be super strength, an ability Logan does not have.
Or a property of the metal. a person can far easier cut down a tree with steel as opposed to something softer, like another wood.
Originally posted by wannabe
OF COURSE I DO!!! I explained several times that i don't accept the material of the claws as an explanation for the stunt in question, when imo it should be strength.
When you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Since it couldn't BE his strength it HAS to be something else. The next suspect would be the material you are cutting with.
Originally posted by wannabe
My god...which part of... ...did you not understand???
The "why".
Why question one occurance with only one question if you're trying to get to the truth, when there are other questions that could be asked.