Storm vs. Doomsday

Started by Creshosk13 pages
Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Can't dispute the fact that the Galactic core is in continuity which is>>> than a mere solar wind.
It's right up there with Spiderman knocking out firelord.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You also can't dispute the fact that all Uncanny #99 show her manipulating what?? OMG! a Solar Wind.
It's not in continuity, and no, it shows her misusing the term. Tell me, where is the plasma? You do know what a solar wind doesn't involve any actual wind like CC thought it did, right? Of course you don't. Storm and the sentinal would have been destroyed if solar winds had been used. CC learned this and rewrote it to be her backpack manuevering thrusters.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
CC wouldn't retcon that for scientific impossibilites and have her doing something even MORE grand which is also in continuity AND he also has her mentioning the prior Solar wind feat in that same issue.
Except that he did. HE doesn't understand physics, he learns of one error doesn't mean he won't make others. Classic X-Men #7 is acredited to CC haveing written it. So despite your speculation he did retcon it.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Lobdell was just the icing on the cake.

She is mistress of the Cosmic storm.

You lose.

Yes, and she's also a goddess... or just someone with delusion's of granduer.

How do I lose? Evidence, logic, and the rules of KMC are on my side, all you have is fanboy speculation and logical fallacies.

You cannot win. You may however delude yourself into thinking you are better than you are... just like Storm.

2damnloud Restricted

😂@ you arguing about a "retcon" when said writer dipicted her doing MUCH bigger things as if the solar winds being "retconned" has any baring on her powerset.

I should pm Mr. Claremont and ask him. lol

I won't bother, though because storm's continuity vindicates me.

GC>>>Solar winds.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
😂@ you arguing about a "retcon" when said writer dipicted her doing MUCH bigger things as if the solar winds being "retconned" has any baring on her powerset.

I should pm Mr. Claremont and ask him. lol

I won't bother, though because storm's continuity vindicates me.

GC>>>Solar winds.

GC=SMvFL

Stop breaking the rules.

2damnloud Restricted

Originally posted by Creshosk
GC=SMvFL

Stop breaking the rules.

You can't prove her powers are blatantly insufficient as easily as the SMvsFL scenario.

Have at it.

I dare you.

Violent2Dope Restricted

It's shit like this that forces me to make Pyron spite threads.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You can't prove her powers are blatantly insufficient as easily as the SMvsFL scenario.

Have at it.

I dare you.

How many times has she done that, and how many times has she hit limits much lower?

The case proves itself. She's only done the galactic core once. She's hit lower limits more frequently.

2damnloud Restricted

Originally posted by Creshosk
How many times has she done that, and how many times has she hit limits much lower?

The case proves itself. She's only done the galactic core once. She's hit lower limits more frequently.

Still doesn't prove her powerset is insufficient.

Infrequency doesn't prove inability.

SMvsFL explicitly states powers blatantly insufficient.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that her powers outright make it impossible for her to do it at all.

You have not proven anything so far.

Violent2Dope Restricted

She can't kill Hulk. How does she kill Doomsday, a being with similar powers(only greater) and more?

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Still doesn't prove her powerset is insufficient.
You have to prove that it is within her powerset... Without circular reasoning of using the feat that's in question.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Infrequency doesn't prove inability.
Once isn't just infrequent... it's the once that matches up perfectly with PIS or SmvsFL

Originally posted by 2damnloud
SMvsFL explicitly states powers blatantly insufficient.
So prove that they're sufficiant. No hyperbole. Only things that are concrete.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
The burden of proof is on you to prove that her powers outright make it impossible for her to do it at all.
Nope. I'm calling bS on you claiming that she can do it. You have to prove she can.

QUOTE=9848244]Originally posted by 2damnloud
You have not proven anything so far. [/QUOTE] DOn't need to. You do. You make a claim that the GC is within her powers. I call BS. You have to back your claims that it is within her power, since you don't prove a negative.

So chop chop little troll. Do something you've never done before in your life, use logic and concrete evidence to prove your case beyond fanboy speculation. 🙂

2damnloud Restricted

You said her powers are insufficient.

I said they are not.

That's enough for me right there. Handbook and all.

Marvel backs me.

Violent2Dope Restricted

Burden of proof is on you smart one.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You said her powers are insufficient.
Can't prove a negative. That's me calling BS on your claim.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
I said they are not.
Double negative. NOT INsufficient. Meaning that they ARE sufficient.. which is the claim you made initially.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
That's enough for me right there. Handbook and all.

Marvel backs me.

No it doesn't. That's the problem. it's not consistant with her powerset. Handbooks are crap.

2damnloud Restricted

Originally posted by Creshosk
Can't prove a negative. That's me calling BS on your claim.

Don't need to.

Marvel proves me correct.

Originally posted by Creshosk

Double negative. NOT INsufficient. Meaning that they ARE sufficient.. which is the claim you made initially.

Oops my bad.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No it doesn't. That's the problem. it's not consistant with her powerset. Handbooks are crap.

It's consistent with her powerset.

So is healing a reality

and Housing Eternity's essence

Deal with it.

You're actually arguing about something for which no clear definition has been given.

What is her powerset by your definition just so I can know what I'm arguing against.

quanchi112 Disney

Really Storm would have zero chance here. Shes one of the weak links on the xmen anyways.

Creshosk Senior Member

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Don't need to.

Marvel proves me correct.

Appeal to authority and Circular reasoning. 🙂 You won't because you can't, if you could there'd be no reason for a legitimate, non-troll poster, to not do it.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
Oops my bad.
Now prove your claims. without logical fallacies. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
It's consistent with her powerset.

So is healing a reality

and Housing Eternity's essence

Deal with it.

Equivocation. 🙂

Originally posted by 2damnloud
You're actually arguing about something for which no clear definition has been given.
Sure it hasn't. You just say that cause you CAN'T prove your case. Quit weaseling.

Originally posted by 2damnloud
What is her powerset by your definition just so I can know what I'm arguing against.
Red herring. 🙂 Quit dodging the question with logical fallacies.

Eternal Idol Lono, "The Dog"

I'm quickly becoming a Creshosk fan here....

Violent2Dope Restricted

I didn't know posts could contain that many fallacies, lulz.

Symmetric Chaos Fractal King
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I'm quickly becoming a Creshosk fan here....

Yeah, he's an jerk but he's our jerk.

2damnloud Restricted
Originally posted by Creshosk
Appeal to authority and Circular reasoning.

It would work if what was in question had more than one "authority" 🙄

Stop trying so hard.

Now prove your claims. without logical fallacies

Not my claim, it's Marvels' claim.

That all I'd really have to say for it to be a valid argument.

It's like me saying she can do something, and..... she ya know, "did it"( in the comic sense, of course).

But, since I don't want to be a dick, I will say, storm's powers include, but are not limited to.....(it's true based on the evidence).

Equivocation

Stop trying so hard.

No misleading meanings.

Sure it hasn't. You just say that cause you CAN'T prove your case. Quit weaseling.

There is nothing to "prove".

It's written in stone.

herring. Quit dodging the question with logical fallacies.

Not red herring. For what I am asking is cogent to the argument.

Stop trying so hard. 😂

2damnloud Restricted

Now, what is her poweset so we can go on?