Hercules vs Doomsday(DOS)

"Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms"

Arent there levels of infinite now, Leo? It was you who came with that one to me remember? And if i recall there -is- a comic where some beings (Cubes) are discussing theyr infinite level against Celestials infinite level.

Saying my power is infinite and showing it until a certain point isent lying. Saying it is and showing it isent at all, is.

"then you are not being a very discriminating reader. what if one writer had wolverine lifting a battleship because a kid was telling the story to another kid claiming he saw it happen and there was a pic in the background. no one in the story contradicted it so it would be a true rendition of the fact? "

Yes.

Its not a matter of being discriminating, if a writters uses it and they dont change it after, for example its a valid use for debates.

Wich is what im arguing. Not if theyr silly. But that they can be used when a writters makes it so. Discriminating doesnt make one feat "not usable". The writters do.

"the difference is in the way it is presented. it is also different in that no one else in marvel has ever done such a thing. characters fly through black holes all the time. they bust big things all the time. they do not hold up planets on their shoulders all the time."

And that is what should be the issue. Passing thro a black hole its levels more impossible and silly and dumb than holding a planet.

Holding one stops being so unique when you have characters both DC and Marvel who have moves or destroyed one.

Even out of those two like its the case with He-Man and Early Majestic before he showed up at DC.

Herc has two cases of narration one being of the writter itself. And in none, including in the myth it says he did it all the time. He did for a brief period.

"and now you're saying even though thor's feat WAS contradicted it is STILL good?? it's just a different impression by the writer"

Im not sayng it was contradicted. You did. Im asing you who read the feat to tell me, what elements it had to show the other before - never toook place- .

"YES! of course. it's part of being a knowledgeable, discriminating reader"

Leonidas i can agree. However let me just post again something:

-But saying that when showings like this are required it -cant- be used thats another thing. Especially when you dont have anything to say it didnt happened other than "Herc was bullshitting" -without providing a single proof-.

This is what im arguing. You can discriminate all you like. What you cant its unless you have something that shows it never happened, say it cant be use in a high end feats debate.

<<This is what im arguing. You can discriminate all you like. What you cant its unless you have something that shows it never happened, say it cant be use in a high end feats debate.>>

so you'd be happier if i just labelled it PIS? i don't think it happened, though, so i don't like calling it that. and your only proof it DID happen is that one instance in that farsical book. and it is not the same as flying through a black hole. science speculates we can fly through blackholes to wormholes. characters' power sets allow them to bend and manipulate space to allow them to do this feat.

there is nothing in marvel that says the earth is manifested in such a way that it could be held/lifted by a being. explain HOW he can be doing it? is it a magical representation of the earth? where does it say that? THE FEAT MAKES NO SENSE in so many ways. there is ZERO context for it, nothing to lead us (beyond the silly pic itself where herc is almost the size of the earth -- which SHOULD factor in here because you are focusing so graetly ON that pic. the pic itself clearly makes no sense) to believe it did happen.

<<"Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms"

Arent there levels of infinite now, Leo? It was you who came with that one to me remember? And if i recall there -is- a comic where some beings (Cubes) are discussing theyr infinite level against Celestials infinite level.>>

heheh. i KNEW you'd bring that up . . .

and of course there ARE varying degrees of infinity -- the difference between the 2 (which i never brought up in our previous discussion) is that though the magnitudes of infinity are different in mathematical terms, each subset of infinity truly IS infinite -- ie -- without END. ss's power DOES have limits, for instance. so no, it is not truly limitless in a mathematical sense, nor even in a practical, in-book one.

oh, and i checked -- there is no mention at all about thor having done the serpent deed. he simply could lift only one foot. now, given that thor has never shown the strength to lift and hurl the serpent in the past, i believe the more recent showing to be the accurate one -- not least of which it was in present time and we are not relying on the memory of a character to make us believe it. i suspect you'll say BOTH are relevent, though i don't know how that could be. difefrent writers interpretations of powers? then one of them needs to be PIS. guess which one i choose . . . ?

😄

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I said medians are less impacted by outliers because... medians are less impacted by outliers of [b]both extremes. In a dataset with a central tendency around for example lifting 2 tons with a single incident of being unable to lift 50 lbs, or a single incident of lifting 20 tons the mean would be severely impacted while the median would be relatively unchanged, therefore in such cases a median can give a better estimate of the centre of a distribution. STATS101.
Actually no, they could go into a feats list, but the incidents mentioned by leonidas, and that one about Wolverine vs Herc wouldn't be considered in a versus comparison. In fact Spiderman vs Firelord is the name of one of the two rules pertaining to such incidents.
Technically it is. Something can't really be "infinite to an extent." It's a contradiction in terms. [/B]

That doesn't really work either, as some one like Namor becomes stronger than someone like Thor. I do think you have a good point though. Thinking back on it, i think i may have meant medians.

"so you'd be happier if i just labelled it PIS? i don't think it happened, though, so i don't like calling it that. and your only proof it DID happen is that one instance in that farsical book. and it is not the same as flying through a black hole. science speculates we can fly through blackholes to wormholes. characters' power sets allow them to bend and manipulate space to allow them to do this feat"

That wasent the only time it was referenced, i already showed the other moment in question.

Of course you can do better and show where its stated its a farse. I have been waiting for that, after all.

If there is nothing, its much of a farse as the other feats that i listed so far.

"there is nothing in marvel that says the earth is manifested in such a way that it could be held/lifted by a being. explain HOW he can be doing it? is it a magical representation of the earth? where does it say that? THE FEAT MAKES NO SENSE in so many ways"

Show me scans where it says Marvel Earth -cant- be held or pushed or moved in any way or form.

Makes no sense? Passing thro black holes makes no sense, clapping a cosmos makes no sense.

And we have instances where planetary objects have been destroyed with mere raw force. -HOW did those happened-? Start explaing those first, its better that way.

And you wont because the how matters little in comics, this is all fantasy not an accurate science book. Coming with trying to explain something that cant happen in real life and not explain all the other feats its wrong in a debate.

"and of course there ARE varying degrees of infinity"

Right.

"the difference between the 2 (which i never brought up in our previous discussion) is that though the magnitudes of infinity are different in mathematical terms, each subset of infinity truly IS infinite -- ie -- without END"

Infinite under that same level then? Odin for example its infinite when he summons more power from Asgard. That doesnt mean he is infinite (as you well said) in comparation with the beings above.

Saying you are infinite under certain examples and showing it isent lying. Saying you possess it and not showing even a degree of it -is-.

"oh, and i checked -- there is no mention at all about thor having done the serpent deed. he simply could lift only one foot. now, given that thor has never shown the strength to lift and hurl the serpent in the past, i believe the more recent showing to be the accurate one -- not least of which it was in present time and we are not relying on the memory of a character to make us believe it. i suspect you'll say BOTH are relevent, though i don't know how that could be. difefrent writers interpretations of powers? then one of them needs to be PIS. guess which one i choose . . . ? "

Guess what ill say.

Different interpretations of different writers are revelant. What you are or should be looking for in order to make the one where he did such a feat not revelant, its a recton. A contradiction happens in the same story after a statement.

Examples:

. Thanos in the IG saying he cant survive a nuclear blast explosion and after been tossed by Thor into open space with the bomb. In the end of the same story he is shown alive. That is a contradiction.

. DOS Doomsday being stated to be fast or faster than the Flash. In the same story we see normal human beings following the whole fight, the same being shoot on national tv among other examples. Thats another contradiction.

And example of a retcon would be:

. Thor hurling the Midgard Serpent off Earth being showed as never happened -in continuity- in a most recent encounter. Thats a retcon.

Wich is why i will ask for you to post that particular fight. What wer the conditions, was there any statement that the previous encounter did not happened. Was Thor weaker? Was the Midgard serpent stronger/more powerful?

I cant finish by saying two things tho. If there is nothing saying the previous never took place it isent a recton.

And i recently got a hold on a Thor/Midgard Serpent fight during Simonson`s run wich i belive was the most recent one (the one you are refering to, its when he was disguised as FFF, correct?).

In this one where Thor was weaker due to Hela`s curse and was wearing an armour, Jurgammound states Thor once had the strenght that rivalled his own.

I will wait for your scans.

Olympian who is back time to time.

<<That wasent the only time it was referenced, i already showed the other moment in question.>>

where? those scans from the start of the new ltd series? that doesn't show him holding the earth. perhaps he got the apples another way.

i posted the thor scans in the supes v thor thread. it would be a headache to get them again. if i get time i will.

much of what you say is simply 'nu-uh' arguments. i say tell me how it can be possible for herc to hold the earth because marvel earth/cosmology isn't established that way (obviously many characters see earth from space and there is nothing holding earth up, no atlas, no ground to stand on, so what more do you need to know? 😑) and you say prove it isn't. an obvious logical breach since i can't prove a negative. you do that a lot.

fact. you have one silly scan in a farscial issue that shows something make makes no sense and has no context.

you don't care about context or whether it makes sense or not (which it doesn't even in the marvel earth context of rules). it IS a unique feat (has it ever happened in marvel before? no. hence it is unique) but you refuse to see it as unique.

i've done my part to convince a few that is DID NOT happen.

i'll be happy with that.

and you say prove it isn't. an obvious logical breach since i can't prove a negative. [/B][/QUOTE]

yep.. because it's harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does the burdon of proof is on you olympian...

he'll just say the picture in the book is proof enough, despite circumstances that surround it and the lack of any relevent context. it's an old argument that neither of us will change our minds on. now if only a REAL PRESENT-DAY NON-FARSICAL source would show it happening . . . then the debate could end.

... well that's bullocks..

Originally posted by jinzin
... well that's bullocks..

✅

but i'll be proud to count you among the level-headed of the forum that says no, it has NOT been definitively proven that herc has indeed held the earth. despite that silly flashback image in that single ridiculous book. 🙄

"where? those scans from the start of the new ltd series? that doesn't show him holding the earth. perhaps he got the apples another way. "

No. When he moved Manhattan. Altho in the lt series it wasent stated either way. Just that the labour existed and he suceeded at it.

"much of what you say is simply 'nu-uh' arguments. i say tell me how it can be possible for herc to hold the earth because marvel earth/cosmology isn't established that way (obviously many characters see earth from space and there is nothing holding earth up, no atlas, no ground to stand on, so what more do you need to know?"

If you dont have a single proof or estabelized fact, why dont you say so.

Marvel continuity wise Atlas now resides in Olympus. He didnt held it because without him the Earth would fall. He held it because it was a punishment from Zeus*. There is nothing to say the Earth ever needed to be held other than being punishment stunts from him and Heracles.

* wich goes along with the myth because as you know the heavens/earth already existed before Zeus overtrew his father and the titans, and neither wer "falling". Its a simbolism for strength and punishment.

"yep.. because it's harder to prove that something doesn't exist than to prove that it does the burdon of proof is on you olympian"

It actually isent.

I gave two scans both stating and showing the said feat. When both were referenced the -moment- was present Marvel time, continuity wise.

One when moving Manhattan.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/jjschm20/Hercules/HercmovesManhattan.jpg

Another when talking to kids with Jarvis.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y226/jjschm20/Hercules/Thor_1985_356_07.jpg

I havent seen a single comic so far retconning those out of existence. I obviously count it as a high end feat only.

You on the other hand, on the other side of the debate claim its bullocks even when other characters have destroyed planets with raw strenght and done things like going thro black holes and clapping a cosmos. 😗

The burden lies on you`s to show me a comic page in continuity saying he never did. Should be easy, right?

"i posted the thor scans in the supes v thor thread. it would be a headache to get them again. if i get time i will"

The page of the thread will do.

"you don't care about context or whether it makes sense or not (which it doesn't even in the marvel earth context of rules). it IS a unique feat (has it ever happened in marvel before? no. hence it is unique) but you refuse to see it as unique"

I dont see it because its wrong. Hulk has more "unique"and absurd feats. Gladiator destroying one with mere punches falls in the same category as helding one.

It would be unique if no character before had used strenght on a planet size object.

" it has NOT been definitively proven that herc has indeed held the earth. despite that silly flashback image in that single ridiculous book"

Even with some evidence against -none- so far you refuse to aknowlege the feat. Period.

And talking about flashbacks. Wasent that annual where Hulk managed to get Thor to fight without the hammer after making a hostage, a whole flasback showing something set in the past as well 😖hifty:

Probably doesnt count then.

<<Wasent that annual where Hulk managed to get Thor to fight without the hammer after making a hostage, a whole flasback showing something set in the past as well
Probably doesnt count then.>>

hmm, maybe . . . i'd check if it mattered to me. as i've said a hundred times though, it depends on the context and the reliability of the narrator.

<<I dont see it because its wrong. Hulk has more "unique"and absurd feats. Gladiator destroying one with mere punches falls in the same category as helding one.
It would be unique if no character before had used strenght on a planet size object.>>

difference: the planet is THERE. it is obviously not something that is impossible. he flies and punches. herc could do the same and i'd have no problem accepting it. planetary feats are a dime a dozen -- HOLDING a planet on your shoulders is ludicrous for so many reasons it's not even funny. seriously oly, if you don't see the difference there's no help for you. and you've yet to tell me exactly how in present marvel cosmology herc could possibly have held the earth. then too, i never said was it MORE unique -- i said it IS unique. more unigue is a contradiction. i mean it in the sense that 'no one else in marvel history has done it before.' period. if you can't admit it's unique in that sense, again, nothing for you.

i'm wholly confident in letting people decide for themselves based on our arguments. thankfully, it seems those who've already partaken of the debate see the lack of sense and rationality in your side, despite your 'proofs'. based on everything i know of marvel and how it works, i'll stick with being discriminating enough, and bright enough to realize the absurdity of the claim -- despite what was shown. that's good enough for me.

oh, and the bit of narration is more convincing than that picture is. but i'm still not buying it, nor will i, ever, until someone illustrates the 12 labors or until it's mentioned a lot more than 2 times in the last 40 years.

as always, it's been fun.

"hmm, maybe . . . i'd check if it mattered to me. as i've said a hundred times though, it depends on the context and the reliability of the narrator"

Check it then. Its a whole flasback. There goes Hulk best showing against Thor.

"difference: the planet is THERE. it is obviously not something that is impossible. he flies and punches. herc could do the same and i'd have no problem accepting it. planetary feats are a dime a dozen -- HOLDING a planet on your shoulders is ludicrous for so many reasons it's not even funny. seriously oly, if you don't see the difference there's no help for you"

A planet in both cases wer "standing there". There isent really a difference between both except one punched it to pieces and another held it.

There is nothing unique on it when more than one character has done it.

"i'm wholly confident in letting people decide for themselves based on our arguments"

Thats the whole point.

" it seems those who've already partaken of the debate see the lack of sense and rationality in your side, despite your 'proofs'. based on everything i know of marvel and how it works"

"How marvel works"

Now that is a funny catch. You know exactly what goes in the minds of the writers and creative teams?

Your inability to provide a counter proof in continuity against two its the only lack of sense thing around here.
As absurd as the feat is, its no more than Hulk destroying an object TWICE earth`s size and clapping a c o s m o s.

No more ludricious and dumb as punching one p l a n e t into dust and pieces in less than five shots.

The best you can all do it seems its call something not true because you -cant prove it-.

Gladly other posters as much as the ones disagreeing, also manage to see this.

"oh, and the bit of narration is more convincing than that picture is. but i'm still not buying it, nor will i, ever"

You said it all Leo. Even with proof in continuity and suporting another example you dont -want- to buy.

Key word: -want-.

Nothing more needs to be said. And its always a blast and fun discussing this with you.

If we had a hall of fame for debates, it would be there, bub.