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.
As you can see I am saying there is more than one interpretation for the word excess. You imply that I am refering to the Sienna panel feat, which I am not. Do I need to re-repost all my previous posts to show you that I did not say shit about the panel event.
I was bored and just wanted to argue with 2damnloud, that is it. Learn to read all the posters post before yo make empty claims.
I was sure they were joke accounts before but at this point I'm not sure if they're joke accounts or just blind to every other view but their own. Or both.
When anyone else claims to have a different view of something you get something back along the lines of "but what I say is backed by the way I interpreted the comic so you're wrong" and if you call them on it they claim the only way to interpret the pages is the way they see it.
In fact, if I get a response at all to this it'll either be one of them saying "My way IS the right way" or they'll just throw around the words straw, illogical, grasp, or reach to thinly disguise the fact that they're not even considering any other alternatives.
Originally posted by Rutog98
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.
^ So basically, you can't prove anything.
You are still speculating over what is written within the text of the comic issue (Unlimited #1). I brought up all that stuff about Cyclops' blasts to prove to you that his blasts are interpreted differently by everybody. I personally DON'T believe he can destroy adamantium, but it was to highlight how you have shot yourself in the foot. You are quoting and believing what is said about his blasts from one comic (the commonly stated fact that he can level mountains) but NOT accepting his highest showing (that he can destroy adamantium). According to 2damn, you have to take the character's highest showings to prove how powerful they are (to be fair, you never said this,he did, but it might as well be one and the same). So if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with 2damn.
Another SPECULATIVE question from me. Who's to say Cyclops wasn't holding back when he blasted the snow? You might say that it was because Prof X told him to open his eyes as wide as he dared, but then i'll ask, "Why did Cyclops withstand Storm's lightning blasts when she had summoned down as much as she could?"
I will repeat myself again: nobody can say how much of Sienna's blast was dealt with by Storm, Cyke or the glacier. You are making SPECULATIVE comments that she did ALL the work. You then ask me to read the panels again....as if that will work. Reading the panels again show that Cyclops delas with the excess. Point out to me where it says Storm deals with the majority. You can't. Therefore the burden is on YOU to prove your comment that she negates it ALL.
Two more questions unanswered:
- If i have a 5 litre container and fill it with 100 litres, what is the exces from this?
- Who is the better leader, Cyclops or Storm?
Magneto still wins 10/10. He would whup-ass both Storm and Cylops combined.
Once again.
How did Storm do ALL (i repeat, ALL) the work in negating Sienna's blast?
Hmm...my bad, i dunno why the last line of my post before ended up where it was. It should have been written just before i asked the two questions that nobody has answered yet.
And i completely agree with you Bean_Machine: the comments are open to interpretation. Rutog and 2damn have interpreted it one way, and i agree that they have applied some logiv to try and argue why they think that is the case. But they can't prove it, which is really all i am trying to get across.
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I was sure they were joke accounts before but at this point I'm not sure if they're joke accounts or just blind to every other view but their own. Or both.When anyone else claims to have a different view of something you get something back along the lines of "but what I say is backed by the way I interpreted the comic so you're wrong" and if you call them on it they claim the only way to interpret the pages is the way they see it.
In fact, if I get a response at all to this it'll either be one of them saying "My way IS the right way" or they'll just throw around the words straw, illogical, grasp, or reach to thinly disguise the fact that they're not even considering any other alternatives.
Your interpretations are often ABSURD. I'm deadass serious here.
REALLY.
It's like ONE word taken out of context to change the unchangable. Then there is/WAS the "If, then", biconditional bullshit.
Sometimes people go too far.--Wanting me to tell you what the author was thinking, wanting the art an the narration to TOTALLY corroborate without any error even though the general idea is there.
Your method of debate is ridiculous 😆
Originally posted by 2damnloud
Your interpretations are often ABSURD. I'm deadass serious here.REALLY.
It's like ONE word taken out of context to change the unchangable. Then there is/WAS the "If, then", biconditional bullshit.
Sometimes people go too far.--Wanting me to tell you what the author was thinking, wanting the art an the narration to TOTALLY corroborate without any error even though the general idea is there.
Your method of debate is ridiculous 😆
Funny thing is, i can say exactly the same thing about you. And no doubt you'll do the same for me, but hey, it's all opinions.
Originally posted by 2damnloud
Your interpretations are often ABSURD. I'm deadass serious here.REALLY.
Lifting a skyscraper? That page shows neither a skyscraper nor the entire building severed from its foundation.
Phoenix level blast? The pages only say the types of energy are similar.
It's like ONE word taken out of context to change the unchangable.
She had a crack baby.
She had a crack, baby.
Then there is/WAS the "If, then", biconditional bullshit.
New theory. I'll need to see the scan again. I know you have it bookmarked.
Sometimes people go too far.--Wanting me to tell you what the author was thinking, wanting the art an the narration to TOTALLY corroborate without any error even though the general idea is there.Your method of debate is ridiculous 😆
Originally posted by Swanky-Tuna
I feel the same way about 90% of the stuff that you come up with.Lifting a skyscraper? That page shows neither a skyscraper nor the entire building severed from its foundation.
Phoenix level blast? The pages only say the types of energy are similar.
I'm sorry if you can't grasp it but a word, even a comma can completely change the effect of a sentence. Even a goof off comedian like Zack Galifianakis can understand the difference:
She had a crack baby.
She had a crack, baby.It's called logic, buddy. If she can regularly absorb millions and/or billions of stars why does any energy attack hurt her? Forty years of lower appearances can't be written off. It can be chalked up as a one time feat. It could be the brood dna mixing with her own. It could not be the entire core to begin with seeing as it defies logic and physics.
New theory. I'll need to see the scan again. I know you have it bookmarked.
Who's asking you to know what the author was thinking? And when have you ever seen narration and art screw up that bad? I don't think I've ever seen such an erroneous screw up.
More bullshit 😘
Your debating sucks, log off. 😆