Originally posted by bean_machine
How so? Don't just give me a wrong. Can you please explain to me how so? I mean break it down to me in a syllogistic form for me so that I may understand in a logical way
Storm directed Siena's power upward, Cyclops prevented "excess" energy from harming the trio.
In this context excess is what's left over after or while storm is directing her power upward.
SIMPLE.
Now argue in obtuseness. 🙄
Originally posted by 2damnloud
"Excess" is what's LEFTOVER after the MAIN portion is gone.It's arguing semantics and obtuseness with regard to SIMPLE contexualization.
It's like Johnny ans the building with the word "an", or Galactic core with the "full power". I'm sure any other feat that puts Storm out of the ballpark will be heavily, UNINTELLIGENTLY scrutinized.
Have you looked up the definition of EXCESS?
Here we go, i googled it:
a quantity much larger than is needed
immoderation as a consequence of going beyond sufficient or permitted limits
surfeit: the state of being more than full
overindulgence: excessive indulgence; "the child was spoiled by overindulgence"
more than is needed, desired, or required; "trying to lose excess weight"; "found some extra change lying on the dresser"; "yet another book on heraldry might be thought redundant"; "skills made redundant by technological advance"; "sleeping in the spare room"; "supernumerary ornamentation"; "it was supererogatory of her to gloat"; "delete superfluous (or unnecessary) words"; "extra ribs as well as other supernumerary internal parts"; "surplus cheese distributed to the needy
See the word "MAIN" anywhere in that? I don't.
Let me give you a different example. If i had a 5 litre container and filled it up with 100 litres, how much excess would there be?
Originally posted by bean_machine
This is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
Ok Mr. Logic guy my posts never claim to interpret the Sienna event, I am just saying that excess can have more than one definition other than the one you claim, since you make ot sound as it is the only one. I don't care what excess means in the when reffering to the Sienna event context, I am just making it clear that there is more than one interpretation of the word in several contexts. When did I ever claim that I am interpreting what excess means. I have not claimed that your interpretation of EXCESS is wrong. All I said was that EXCESS has many interpretations.
Originally posted by 2damnloud
Storm directed Siena's power upward, Cyclops prevented "excess" energy from harming the trio.In this context excess is what's left over after or while storm is directing her power upward.
SIMPLE.
Now argue in obtuseness. 🙄
You keep posting while i am writing my replies! 🙂
The above writing by you is pure speculation about the definition of excess in this situation. You are being equally as contextual.
Again
This is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.
Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
How is this wrong.
That there is more than one interpretation is correct. I never said anything about the specific excess that eveyone is debationg about now did I?
Originally posted by yestinchong
Have you looked up the definition of EXCESS?Here we go, i googled it:
a quantity much larger than is needed
immoderation as a consequence of going beyond sufficient or permitted limits
surfeit: the state of being more than full
overindulgence: excessive indulgence; "the child was spoiled by overindulgence"
more than is needed, desired, or required; "trying to lose excess weight"; "found some extra change lying on the dresser"; "yet another book on heraldry might be thought redundant"; "skills made redundant by technological advance"; "sleeping in the spare room"; "supernumerary ornamentation"; "it was supererogatory of her to gloat"; "delete superfluous (or unnecessary) words"; "extra ribs as well as other supernumerary internal parts"; "surplus cheese distributed to the needySee the word "MAIN" anywhere in that? I don't.
Let me give you a different example. If i had a 5 litre container and filled it up with 100 litres, how much excess would there be?
*sigh* context.
*CLASS*, Which definition of the term denotes what happened on the panel??
😕
Originally posted by bean_machine😗
AgainThis is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.
Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
How is this wrong.
That there is more than one interpretation is correct. I never said anything about the specific excess that eveyone is debationg about now did I?
Originally posted by bean_machine
AgainThis is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.
Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
How is this wrong.
That there is more than one interpretation is correct. I never said anything about the specific excess that eveyone is debationg about now did I?
We're talking about the PANEL.
Some of you all are....... 😕
It just seemed that you were making it clear that there is only one interpretation. I was just pointing out that there are times when this is not so.
I was not reffering to the panel feat at all you just assumed I did and that is a logical fallicy. Read my claims without making asumptions and we are all good.
Originally posted by 2damnloud
"Excess" is what's LEFTOVER after the MAIN portion is gone.It's arguing semantics and obtuseness with regard to SIMPLE contexualization.
It's like Johnny ans the building with the word "an", or Galactic core with the "full power". I'm sure any other feat that puts Storm out of the ballpark will be heavily, UNINTELLIGENTLY scrutinized.
When you read it it makes you think that there is only one correct interpretation for EXCESS all the time.
If you had written in the context of the panel feat...
"Excess" is what's LEFTOVER after the MAIN portion is gone.
then I would have not posted anything.
Originally posted by bean_machine
When you read it it makes you think that there is only one correct interpretation for EXCESS all the time.If you had written in the context of the panel feat...
"Excess" is what's LEFTOVER after the MAIN portion is gone.
then I would have not posted anything.
*sighs* 🙄 @ you not being able to understand the context of the conversation in this topic.
Either that, or you just wanted to argue with me.
Anway, storm redirected Siena's blast which is Phoenix-level, which is>>>>>>>>>>>>Magneto😱
Originally posted by 2damnloud
*sighs* 🙄 @ you not being able to understand the context of the conversation in this topic.Either that, or you just wanted to argue with me.
Anway, storm redirected Siena's blast which is Phoenix-level, which is>>>>>>>>>>>>Magneto😱
Phoenix can materialize a multiverse in the palms of her hands. Which means she can rematerialize it in a way that destroys it. You telling me that Siena's blast is multiversal leveling in power?
Originally posted by 2damnloud
You've slacked off on your "arguing" since I called you out on your logical fallacies. 😎
I said construct a VALID argument. This means no "If, then" and arguing semantics out of context.
The only defense you had against being railgunned with his hat was an ambiguous Siena Blaze feat that has been picked apart and your only belief that you don't think it would work.
Originally posted by yestinchong
Can you prove any of that without giving off all the speculation you have written?There are several flaws in your own argument.
- How do you know Sienna wasn't bluffing with regards to the glacier? I agree it is very unlikely to have much impact on her blast and i personally don't believe the glacier would negate her blast much at all, but where is the proof of your own comment? Once again, it's ambiguous. I clearly stated earlier that i had no qualms about you guys saying Storm summoned the power of the Galactic Core provided you were consistent in your own arguments. Swanky questioned you on the validity of that Galactic comment, and you responded it was canon. Fine. It is canon here that Storm, Cyclops AND the glacier all contributed to Sienna's downfall. So why keep stating she did it ALL? You're wrong wrong wrong.
- The very same issue also states that Storm's powers of temperature regulation are that if the environment is hotter/colder, her core body temperature reacts inversely. She almost killed herself in a snow blizzard she had created, and it needed Prof X to help her out. Which would mean that if she went into space where it's quite a bit colder....then she would fry her own body to a crisp. I'm not for one minute suggesting that her powers DO actually work in this way (no doubt you will cite bad writing for this), but then you can't dismiss the power of Cylops' blasts either.....
- Why? Because i've NEVER seen it stated that Storm has enough power to pulverise adamantium, but i've seen it for Cyke. I've seen him destroy Apocalypse in one almighty blast, when only in the previous few pages Black Bolt was using his powers against Apoc with no effect. I've seen him split Onslaught's armour even further when Storm DIDN'T. I've also seen issues where he says he has enough power to split a small planet, to power the Phoenix with unlimited power....i've also got the issue right in front of me where Cylops requests Storm call down as much lightning that SHE can stand and then blast him with it....and you know what? He takes it all. So i guess he's more durable than her now....(the issue is King Size Annual, issue 3).
The point i wanted to make, and am still making, is that there are huge flaws all over the place i comics. Telling me my argument is desperate when i question certain things is actually more desperate, in my opinion.
I'll try and sum it up again for you.
If it is stated on page, it is canon. So sure, Storm summoned a Galactic Core.
It was also stated in X-Men Unlimited that Storm, Cylops and the glacier brought Sienna down.
Therefore, all the speculation aside on who is more powerful or not, why do you still insist Storm did it ALL?
And i still have a question unanswered about who the better leader is.... 🙂
This is all very, very foolish and a desperate reach. The burden of proof to show that Sienna was bluffing about the glacier is on you. To say otherwise goes against the showings I have seen on her. The lady has the power to split the planet. A glacier is nothing to her. The X-Men were doing some guess work here. They were hoping that the glacier would do something, but Sienna basically laughed at that. The issue stated what Storm and Cyclops did in plain english. Storm redirected the energies while Scott basically just got what was left over.
In regards to the body temperature thing, I don't know why you brought that up. It does not play into this showing of wind force for Storm at all. Also, yes, it was bad writing. Uncanny 120-121 proves this as well as the fact its also been stated in canon that Ororo is *immune* to climate and temperature variation. Uncanny 121 shows this in a grand way.
In regards to the Scott/adamantium thing, he was only written with that power in that one issue. This issue did not give him that power nor has any other issue before or since then. That said, if you want to argue Cycops can destroy adamantium in a thread, I will not fight you on that. However, you will have to prove that he was written with that kind of power here. You will have a VERY difficult time arguing this since we saw him shoot the snow/ground at full power to pulverize the snow and cushion Ororo's fall. If those blasts could destroy adamantium, the damage would have been MUCH greater. This is a very desperate ploy on your part.
In regards to the Apacolypse thing and Scott's blast vs. Storm's powers, that's really not an argument for you. We have seen Storm and Poccy trade blows. Also, wasn't Poccy weakened at that point when Scott blasted him?
Now, here is what we have seen: Cyclops, Wolverine and Colossus together assaulted Magneto's force-field and they could not even begin to tax his powers. Storm came along and single-handedly put a tremendous strain on Magneto's powers with her winds alone and nearly took him out of the fight/killed him. That puts her over Scott definitively. In regards to your adamantium comment, I'm sure if people wanted to discredit that, they could. All they would have to do is look up some of the things that adamantium has withstood and show how the claim that Scott was able to destroy it devalued the resilience of the material. Personally, I don't care so much to debate this and I'm not going to research adamantium out to do this.
That said, the issue said he can level mountains. That's about par for the character which would mean that his blasts are a joke compared to Sienna's. The glacier was laughable. In other words, Storm did easily most/close to all of the work. This is not speculation, but merely putting the facts all together.
Originally posted by bean_machine
Well PF greater than Storm and Sienna. You cannot prove otherwise. Feats matter on this board and don't make me start a feat posting was between PF and Storm, cause Storm is not winning. I don't know why you keep bringing up that Storm is comparable to PF. There is no was Sienna is comparable to PF.
Okay, if you want to argue the PF vs. Sienna's or Ororo's powers, that is one thing. It is not something I really wish to debate as it has nothing to do with the point I am making. You will never see Scott's power in the same sentence with the Phoenix's unless they are talking about what a joke he is in comparison. The fact that they made a connection between Sienna's powers and the Phoenix's and went on to state that Sienna can split the planet like a ripe melon speaks volumes. That is the point I am trying to make.
Originally posted by bean_machine
This is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
This is a very desperate interpretation of it as it does not fit with the facts that I have pointed out 2 posts above this one assuming nobody has posted in between. lol
Originally posted by Rutog98
This is a very desperate interpretation of it as it does not fit with the facts that I have pointed out 2 posts above this one assuming nobody has posted in between. lol
PLEASE READ PREVIOUS POSTS BEFORE YOU MAKE EMPTY STUPID shit CLAIMS. 😠
Originally posted by bean_machine
Ok Mr. Logic guy my posts never claim to interpret the Sienna event, I am just saying that excess can have more than one definition other than the one you claim, since you make ot sound as it is the only one. I don't care what excess means in the when reffering to the Sienna event context, I am just making it clear that there is more than one interpretation of the word in several contexts. When did I ever claim that I am interpreting what excess means. I have not claimed that your interpretation of EXCESS is wrong. All I said was that EXCESS has many interpretations.
Originally posted by bean_machine
AgainThis is a correct definition for excess but not the only one.
Excess can also mean the bulk portion of a whole. It is how you want to interpret it. It is not a logical fallicy to interpret it otherwise.
How is this wrong.
That there is more than one interpretation is correct. I never said anything about the specific excess that eveyone is debationg about now did I?
Originally posted by 2damnloud
*sigh* context.*CLASS*, Which definition of the term denotes what happened on the panel??
😕
Originally posted by bean_machine
It just seemed that you were making it clear that there is only one interpretation. I was just pointing out that there are times when this is not so.I was not reffering to the panel feat at all you just assumed I did and that is a logical fallicy. Read my claims without making asumptions and we are all good.
Originally posted by bean_machine
When you read it it makes you think that there is only one correct interpretation for EXCESS all the time.If you had written in the context of the panel feat...
"Excess" is what's LEFTOVER after the MAIN portion is gone.
then I would have not posted anything.
Originally posted by 2damnloud
*sighs* 🙄 @ you not being able to understand the context of the conversation in this topic.Either that, or you just wanted to argue with me.
Anway, storm redirected Siena's blast which is Phoenix-level, which is>>>>>>>>>>>>Magneto😱
Originally posted by bean_machine
Just bored at school in programming class and I just wanted to argue. 😮😉
I NEVER MISSINTERPRETED ANYTHING. 💃 💃 💃