Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Deriding pejoratives, while subsequently/simultaneously using an ad hominem pejorative. Thus irony.
Wonderful. Did you discover this when you looked up the term, "logical fallacy"?
Odd. I don't recall calling somebody a name.
I stand by my statement. There's no room for name-calling or calling somebody a stuck-up, pretentious b---- just because somebody disagrees with someone. It reeks of frustration and even more of desperation.
Originally posted by Darth VegasNo. Did you?
Wonderful. Did you discover this when you looked up the term, "logical fallacy"?
Originally posted by Darth VegasI assumed he called her a stuck-up pretentious b*tch because she was acting like a stuck-up pretentious b*tch, but hey that's just one guy's opinion.
Odd. I don't recall calling somebody a name.I stand by my statement. There's no room for name-calling or calling somebody a stuck-up, pretentious b---- just because somebody disagrees with someone. It reeks of frustration and even more of desperation.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Nowhere in either does it say she makes barriers from matter.
Ugh...
Let's just both stop debating what IW's fields are made of and look at the fact Iron Man has shattered them in the past.
It doesn't matter what her forcefields made of because it doesn't change the fact Iron Man has broken through her forcefields before.
You want to debate Invisible Woman has gotten stronger since then? Fine. But Iron Man has also gotten exponentially stronger and more sophisticated since then as well. There's still the possibility he can break through them again.
Unless you have a more recent scan of Invisible Woman stopping Iron Man's repulsor attacks, my scan still stands.
[EDIT]
And you can call me whatever you want, but it doesn't help your argument one bit.
Originally posted by Evangel94I didn't call you anything, dear. Simply stated an observation.
Ugh...Let's just both stop debating what IW's fields are made of and look at the fact Iron Man has shattered them in the past.
It doesn't matter what her forcefields made of because it doesn't change the fact Iron Man has broken through her forcefields before.
You want to debate Invisible Woman has gotten stronger since then? Fine. But Iron Man has also gotten exponentially stronger and more sophisticated since then as well. There's still the possibility he can break through them again.
Unless you have a more recent scan of Invisible Woman stopping Iron Man's repulsor attacks, my scan still stands.
[EDIT]
And you can call me whatever you want, but it doesn't help your argument one bit.
There is no debate about what composes her fields. They are forcefields composed from force/energy (the terms are in no way identical but are interrelated) drawn from hyperspace. Not atoms. Not matter.
If a power has been redefined then former scans do not always apply. Blackbolt's scream has not always been a manifestation of electron manipulation - someone withstanding his scream before this definition may not be able to under the new defintion. Cyclops has not always fired extradimensional gravitons - Cyclops running out of power from lack of solar energy would no longer apply.
IW hyperspace forcefields can take Johnny's Nova's. An old scan of repulsors firing through the atoms of Invisible Girl's forcefield does not apply.
Originally posted by Darth VegasThat's nice.
Nope.I don't have to look it up. I already know what a logical fallacy is.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I didn't call you anything, dear. Simply stated an observation.There is no debate about what composes her fields. They are forcefields composed from force/energy (the terms are in no way identical but are interrelated) drawn from hyperspace. Not atoms. Not matter.
If a power has been redefined then former scans do not always apply. Blackbolt's scream has not always been a manifestation of electron manipulation - someone withstanding his scream before this definition may not be able to under the new defintion. Cyclops has not always fired extradimensional gravitons - Cyclops running out of power from lack of solar energy would no longer apply.
IW hyperspace forcefields can take Johnny's Nova's. An old scan of repulsors firing through the atoms of Invisible Girl's forcefield does not apply.
At this point, let's just agree to disagree. We've gone on arguing for quite a while. We're obviousely not convincing eachother or changing eachothers opinions anytime soon. Agreed?
At this point, let's just agree to disagree.
You can't really disagree...
everything Xmarksthespot said here.
If a power has been redefined then former scans do not always apply. Blackbolt's scream has not always been a manifestation of electron manipulation - someone withstanding his scream before this definition may not be able to under the new defintion. Cyclops has not always fired extradimensional gravitons - Cyclops running out of power from lack of solar energy would no longer apply.IW hyperspace forcefields can take Johnny's Nova's. An old scan of repulsors firing through the atoms of Invisible Girl's forcefield does not apply.
Is pretty much fact, not opinion.
Originally posted by What If...
You can't really disagree...everything Xmarksthespot said here.
I can read what he said. You jumping over an hour later re-stating it doesn't change it all. You didn't even add anything new to the debate at all. I already to know what to expect. You'll probably quote my post and come up with some sort reply laced with insults and snide remarks. Let's avoid that shall we?
Originally posted by Darth Vegas
Wonderful. Did you discover this when you looked up the term, "logical fallacy"?Odd. I don't recall calling somebody a name.
I stand by my statement. There's no room for name-calling or calling somebody a stuck-up, pretentious b---- just because somebody disagrees with someone. It reeks of frustration and even more of desperation.
I called her a stuck up b---- because she dismissed What if for no particular reason except she/he tried to give an opinion. It's a little different when it's a noob and He/She has been a pretty good forum member so-far.