Tenebrous and Aegis vs. Abraxas

Originally posted by Galan007
Solid? Not really.

You posted a few scans saying that the UN is universal, while you disregard the pannel evidence of Reed himself saying that he "needed to end all that was", by you yourself saying "it can be interpreted as".

I'm not saying your wrong, but don't try to boast superiority when your argument is clearly flawed as well.

My argument is very solid as its backed by the established continuity for the UN, in the Abraxas arc it can be interpreted as being universal, plus official sources back me up all the way. That is an extremely solid argument.

The oppositions argument contradicts established continuity and the handbooks and is based merely on a few ambiguous scenes 😬

Eternity has been described as all that is on many occassions so your Reed quote is both ambiguous and inconclusive.

I think im quite right to boast superiority in terms of this argument.

Originally posted by juggernaut66666
I was talking about this 😠

And forgot this

🙂

Originally posted by Rewmac
Ult Nullifier >>> Tenebrous and Aegis

Greater than Abraxas to as we saw quite clearly so whats your point? 😂

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
My argument is very solid as its backed by the established continuity for the UN, in the Abraxas arc it can be interpreted as being universal, plus official sources back me up all the way. That is an extremely solid argument.

The oppositions argument contradicts established continuity and the handbooks and is based merely on a few ambiguous scenes 😬

Eternity has been described as all that is on many occassions so your Reed quote is both ambiguous and inconclusive.

I think im quite right to boast superiority in terms of this argument.

You interpreted everything the way you wanted to. For Reed to fix what Abraxas did, he would have had the spread the UN's power throughout several universes. If Reed simply destroyed Abraxas with the UN and that fixed everything he did, don't you think Reed would have said such?

Again you have NO right to boast anything, your argument is just as flawed as the next.

Originally posted by Galan007
So your saying that the UN only wiped out Abraxas, and the 616 universe, and this somehow righted everything Abraxas had done? 😕

You interpreted everything the way you wanted to. For Reed to fix what Abraxas did, he would have had the spread the UN's power throughout several universes. If Reed simply destroyed Abraxas with the UN and that fixed everything he did, don't you think Reed would have said such?

Again you have NO right to boast anything, your argument is just as flawed as the next.

If Abraxas was wiped out of existence, meaning he never existed, or if the universe was reset, in both circumstances all that Abraxas did around the multiverse wouldnt have happened.

That interpretation can be interpreted from the comic and it is supported by marvel in their bios and their official site. You have your opinion about what happened and nothing more.

Why would Reed have commented about destroying Abraxas or resetting Eternity any more than he would comment on using the UN to directly wipe out the entire multiverse.

What do you mean im seeing things the way i want to, well given im supported officially not really Galan and given that your interpretation also happens to contradict established continuity not only would that slur be more fitting for you but all in all it doesnt look good for said interpretation and that point is not debatable. 😉

Given my official support, the support from established continuity and the fact that the opposition shares no such support, no my argument is not as flawed as the next. 😬

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
If Abraxas was wiped out of existence, meaning he never existed, or if the universe was reset, in both circumstances all that Abraxas did around the multiverse wouldnt have happened.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

Originally posted by Galan007
This is where you are wrong.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

^^ Quoted for truth, and spoken better than what I would have written. Only GS thinks the ultimate nullifier was universal only, when all of the on-panel evidence shows otherwise.

What's next GS, are you going to say that multi-Eternity isn't real either because it only shows one Eternity in Marvel handbook? 😆

Originally posted by Galan007
This is where you are wrong.

Reed speficially said:
"In order to realign all that is, we needed to end all that was."

It is NEVER once said that Reed "only wiped Abraxas from existance, and that fixed everything" or that he "only reset the 616 universe" as you are assuming.

Reed had to end the universe(s) that were destroyed in order to realign them to how they were before Abraxas. How can it been percieved any other way? I am not being illogical in the slightest.

Again all that is is a phrase used to describe Eternity. It has been so for many years. By reseting Eternity, all connected with it would be affected and that includes Abraxas who came from Eternity. If the timeline was reset or if Abraxas was wiped out then all that is would be realigned because he would have never have went on his rampage.

Your evidence is again both ambiguous and inconclusive and that is a fact. The terminology isnt definitive. It can be referring to a universe a multiverse even an omniverse. Yet it has been used on many occassions to refer to just Eternity. Theres just no denying that.

Not only that but when reading this you should be looking at it with established continuity in your mind . As per cotinuity the UN is universal. That scene can be established as universal, that is my interpretation, that is what marvel says on their site and in theit handbooks. Your opinion in light of that with all due respect really holds no weight on this issue.

The UN is universal 😬

Originally posted by Kutulu
^^ Quoted for truth, and spoken better than what I would have written. Only GS thinks the ultimate nullifier was universal only, when all of the on-panel evidence shows otherwise.

What's next GS, are you going to say that multi-Eternity isn't real either because it only shows one Eternity in Marvel handbook? 😆

All the on panel evidence? What would that be? Reeds single ambiguous comment. What about all the decades of evidence before this arc that states the UN to be universal? What about the handbooks and the marvel site which follow my interpretation?

The opposition has an ambiguous sentence from Reed Richards and that is all.

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Again all that is is a phrase used to describe Eternity. It has been so for many years. By reseting Eternity, all connected with it would be affected and that includes Abraxas who came from Eternity. If the timeline was reset or if Abraxas was wiped out then all that is would be realigned because he would have never have went on his rampage.

Your evidence is again both ambiguous and inconclusive and that is a fact. The terminology isnt definitive. It can be referring to a universe a multiverse even an omniverse. Yet it has been used on many occassions to refer to just Eternity. Theres just no denying that.

Not only that but when reading this you should be looking at it with established continuity in your mind . As per cotinuity the UN is universal. That scene can be established as universal, that is my interpretation, that is what marvel says on their site and in theit handbooks. Your opinion in light of that with all due respect really holds no weight on this issue.

The UN is universal 😬

I have quoted nothing but what is on the page, while you have provided nothing but information from handbooks and thrown in your own personal oppinion on the matter, trying to contradict what is actually shown in the comic.

Call my argument what you will, but understand that your argument is based mostly on your own oppinion, and shouldn't be taken to heart by anyone else who may be viewing this.

Nope. Multi Eternity apparently exists according to Captain Universe. Theres no reason to doubt his existence, theres nothing else on panel to contradict his existence so why would i doubt it?

I doubt this interpretation because the scene their focusing on CAN be interpreted as universal as it makes an ambiguous reference used many a time to refer to universal Eternity, plus in many decades of history the UN is universal, plus Marvels official stance is its universal. It doesnt get much more conclusive than that.

Dont make me out to be some madman with a completely unbelievable viewpoint in light of that. 😬

Originally posted by Galan007
ALL of this is only your oppinion.

I have quoted nothing but what is on the page, while you have provided nothing but information from handbooks and thrown in your own personal oppinion on the matter, trying to contradict what is actually shown in the comic.

Call my argument what you will, but understand that your argument is based mostly on your own oppinion, and shouldn't be taken to heart by anyone else who may be viewing this.

You've quoted an ambiguous statement. Thats not an opinion that is a fact because 616 Eternity UNIVERSAL Eternity has been called all that is.

The fact that you quoted exactly what was in the scan doesnt make your argument any stronger in light of that.

All my evidence comes from on panel as well because i could just as easily say they were referring to 616 Eternity, then i could post loads of scans from 616 and What Ifs referring to the UN as universal and then i could post all handbook bios referring to the Un as universal.

Youre ignoring ALL of that and clinging on to ONE ambiguous comment from Reed that Marvel now and previous established marvel continuity tells you to interpret differently.

Your case is poor when all is taken into account. 😬

Originally posted by GalacticStorm
You've quoted an ambiguous statement. Thats not an opinion that is a fact because 616 Eternity UNIVERSAL Eternity has been called all that is.

The fact that you quoted exactly what was in the scan doesnt make your argument any stronger in light of that.

All my evidence comes from on panel as well because i could just as easily say they were referring to 616 Eternity, then i could post loads of scans from 616 and What Ifs referring to the UN as universal and then i could post all handbook bios referring to the Un as universal.

Youre ignoring ALL of that and clinging on to ONE ambiguous comment from Reed that Marvel now and previous established marvel continuity tells you to interpret differently.

Your case is poor when all is taken into account. 😬

Your dancing around this fact by saying that erasing Abraxas would have reset everything, when it was NEVER stated in the entire comic that this is what occured.

So whos case is poor when all is taken into account?