Stranger vs. Death

Originally posted by Galan007
that would give you more free time, at least. evillaugh

Originally posted by King Kandy

Actually the Marvel.com bio states that Stranger was LT's former face.

Originally posted by King Kandy

The on-panel said as much but combined with the bio the case is closed.

LT has never said that the Stranger was his fourth face,
he clearly stated that he could've been:

"There could have been the face of the Stranger"

On Panel > Handbooks/Marvel.com 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master
Good thing we have actual comic books to compare bio info,
and this is one of those instances where the bio is wrong.

Not true.

LT has never said that the Stranger was his fourth face,
he clearly stated that he [b]could've been:

"There could have been the face of the Stranger"

On Panel > Handbooks/Marvel.com 🙂 [/B]

"We could have been together."

Note that this clearly does not mean that they were never together, rather it is commonly used in the sense of "It was so good, it didn't have to end." The LT certainly has a formal quality to his speech and it seems to me that he was using the wording in the later case. But we both admitted it was somewhat ambiguous, so I never brought it up again. That is, until it was confirmed by the bio that in fact my interpretation was correct.

Originally posted by Mr Master
Good thing we have actual comic books to compare bio info,
and this is one of those instances where the bio is wrong.

Not true.

LT has never said that the Stranger was his fourth face,
he clearly stated that he [b]could've been:

"There could have been the face of the Stranger"

On Panel > Handbooks/Marvel.com 🙂 [/B]

Originally posted by King Kandy

You already admitted it was not clear-cut in earlier debates.

Originally posted by King Kandy

I'd like you to reconsider the wording on this one with the following sentence. This is supposed to be someone breaking up with their lover or something similar.

"We could have been together."

Note that this clearly does not mean that they were never together, rather it is commonly used in the sense of "It was so good, it didn't have to end." The LT certainly has a formal quality to his speech and it seems to me that he was using the wording in the later case.

Cause the LT has never said the Stranger was his fourth face,
and,
the LT on panel clearly stated that he could of been, as the proof shows,
there's no indication of any kind to think otherwise,
and your analogy while cool, imo, does not relate to the on panel facts.

Originally posted by King Kandy

But we both admitted it was somewhat ambiguous, so I never brought it up again.

Originally posted by King Kandy

That is,
until it was confirmed by the bio that in fact my interpretation was correct.

A few bios have errors, not many, and mostly involving minute details,
but they do, this is one of them, clearly exposed by the on panel evidence.

Originally posted by Galan007
that would give you more free time, at least. evillaugh

Originally posted by Mr Master
Cause the LT has never said the Stranger was his fourth face,
and,
the LT on panel clearly stated that he could of been, as the proof shows,
there's no indication of any kind to think otherwise,
and your analogy while cool, imo, does not relate to the on panel facts.

Originally posted by King Kandy

My analogy is very relevant since it showed that the wording of the sentence could just as easily be taken to mean that they were together before something went wrong. Other people have sided with my interpretation, which is proof positive that the wording is ambiguous. But there is no longer any ambiguity on the issue. It is in a bio and supported by LT's (somewhat oddly worded) statement.

Originally posted by Mr Master

LT has never said that the Stranger was his fourth face,
he clearly stated that he could've been:

"There could have been the face of the Stranger"

On Panel > Handbooks/Marvel.com 🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master

Two wrongs don't make a right.

A few bios have errors, not many, and mostly involving minute details,
but they do, this is one of them, clearly exposed by the on panel evidence.

For now though,
I'll stick to the on panel evidence which contradicts the error in the Handbook,
and likewise the error of your analogy concerning this particular detail.

My analogy uses the exact same wording as LT, I don't know where you get the idea that the meaning of the two sentences is somehow different when in fact they are worded the same way. The very fact that you feel that the analogy has a different meaning then LT's statement proves that the wording is ambiguous.

Originally posted by King Kandy

My analogy uses the exact same wording as LT, I don't know where you get the idea that the meaning of the two sentences is somehow different when in fact they are worded the same way. The very fact that you feel that the analogy has a different meaning then LT's statement proves that the wording is ambiguous.

Originally posted by Mr Master

When you find on panel depictions that substantiates your opinion,
post it, and we'll move forward.

For now though,
I'll stick to the on panel evidence which contradicts the error in the Handbook,
and likewise the error of your analogy concerning this particular detail.

Analogies help clear up the facts.

Stranger loses