Originally posted by CreshoskHave you even answered any of my questions, or are you just going to tell me that my definitions are wrong since they don't suit you? I guess you are making it suit you...
😆 That's going off of your definition which already has the problem with DD and the King pin. 😉Sorry, your definition is flawed and can't be used.
Sorry, I don't see the personal connection there. 😆 And spiderman wasn't created in a hulk comic or vice versa, same can't be said of the canadian midget.
Nope, being ion the same team would kinda negate that. 😄
As I went over with X when he suggested that Emma was a Storm rogue.
You guys are really reaching here. 😄
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterYour definitions are wrong since the exclude some rogues which are the rogues of certain characters. 🙂
Have you even answered any of my questions, or are you just going to tell me that my definitions are wrong since they don't suit you? I guess you are making it suit you...
They are wrong because they are illogical 🙂
And your cicular reasoning argumetnts are also invalid.
You create a definition, and then defend that definition by using that definition to attack things that obviously don't fit. Assuming in the first place that your definition is correct. 🙂
Of coutrse when its used against other cases it likewise excludes them, showing the definition is wrong in the first place. 🙁 And thus invalidating your attack in the first place.
So sorry if I don't answer loaded questions. 🙄
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" <-Answer this question, yes or no only, otherwise you haven't answered the question.
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterYou're asking leading questions in the first place.
You DODGE questions by saying they aren't acceptable, same old song...
You didn't answer my question: Have you stopped beating your wife? 🙂
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
"I don't like the question, so its not a question." right... you spend more time NOT answering the question than answering it...
Originally posted by Tha C-MasterIt's circular reasoning. 🙂
So you resort to jumping past what I asked and asking me something to avoid the answer:"Is hulk created to antagonize wolverine?" Is NOT a loaded question...
That question was the basis of the formatuion of your definition to preclude Hulk and Wolverine from being each other's villians. To that end you formed your definition, and now with that definition as your backing you pose that question back.
Using the question that formulated your reasoning as justification for your reasoning is circular reasoning, and thusly invalid. Leading it to be a loaded question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Assumptions are automatically made. Like "Does that question even matter?"
Was Kingpin created to antagonize Daredevil? Was Shadow King created to antagonize Professor X or Storm? 🙂
So you see you are the master of loaded questions, and my ability to cut through the bullshit must be quite irksome for you, leading you to attempt to ad hominem. 😉
Originally posted by CreshoskNo its filibustering.
It's circular reasoning. 🙂That question was the basis of the formatuion of your definition to preclude Hulk and Wolverine from being each other's villians. To that end you formed your definition, and now with that definition as your backing you pose that question back.
Using the question that formulated your reasoning as justification for your reasoning is circular reasoning, and thusly invalid. Leading it to be a loaded question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Assumptions are automatically made. Like "Does that question even matter?"
Was Kingpin created to antagonize Daredevil? Was Shadow King created to antagonize Professor X or Storm? 🙂
So you see you are the master of loaded questions, and my ability to cut through the bullshit must be quite irksome for you, leading you to attempt to ad hominem. 😉
Are the hulk, juggernaut, and wolverine currently, and have the plot purpose of,antagonizing these characters, or are in the past? If not then they aren't villans.
I'm catching my train, argue semantics elsewhere...
Originally posted by CreshoskWho's dodging what now? Oh you.
Nice dodge. 😆
Originally posted by xmarksthespotIn essence a rogue, as I see it, is an intended personal nemesis, an opponent of a hero specifically engineered to be so either in conception or evolution, illustrated clearly by and eventuating in things such as opposing viewpoints of the world in which they live, antithetical characterization, intertwined individual histories, often/regular personal individual engagement between the rogue and the hero, machinations by the villain deliberately focused on the hero in question etc.
A rogue of a hero or team is a character intended to be a primary antagonist of said hero or team, commonly this may be apparent from their very conception. A rogue of a team may also be intended to be primarily an antagonist of a specific character of that team, in which case they may be considered the rogue of that character personally also. The intention in the rogue character's formulation is to act as specific antagonist of that character, although they may also antagonise (other) entire teams or other characters, and they may antagonise multiple characters in such a fashion i.e. they may be a rogue of multiple heroes (however more often a rogue has an exclusive relationship to a hero). This personal individual antagonism being designed and illustrated by the history set out in the rogue's principle characterization and the actions and intentions of said rogue in multiple story arcs in specifically machinating against and opposing an individual hero.
"Was Shadow King created to antagonize Professor X or Storm?"
Both. In his first appearance in Uncanny #117 as Amahl Farouk in a flashback, there's a white-haired blue-eyed African pickpocket girl in Cairo that brings Xavier to Shadow King. Any guesses who it was?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot🙄
Who's dodging what now? Oh you.
No, C was by dismissing my post with a "fillibustering"
Originally posted by xmarksthespotSo each character can only have one Rogue? There's a switch.
In essence a rogue, as I see it, is an intended personal nemesis, an opponent of a hero specifically engineered to be so either in conception or evolution, illustrated clearly by and eventuating in things such as opposing viewpoints of the world in which they live, antithetical characterization, intertwined individual histories, often/regular personal individual engagement between the rogue and the hero, machinations by the villain deliberately focused on the hero in question etc."Was Shadow King created to antagonize Professor X or Storm?"
Both. In his first appearance in Uncanny #117 as Amahl Farouk in a flashback, there's a white-haired blue-eyed African pickpocket girl in Cairo that brings Xavier to Shadow King. Any guesses who it was?
Originally posted by jinzinThread starter intended being rogues... but changing the title of the thread unless people didn't understand.
why are we still on rogues... doesn't the thread say villains?that doesn't equate to the necessity of a rogue for this debate..
Originally posted by jinzinI don't know who said that, but it's reminiscent of 8888 saying something along the lines of Wolverine has fought Hulk 18 times and has a winning record...
and spiderman has NOT thrown down with hulk on at least 13 occasions.. wtf.. whoever said they've fought as many times as wolvie hulk is on crack.. lol.