Superman is an 100 in strength.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Wanna prove the claim that that's the only way they could do it by questioning either Dan or Marvel?

Tell me how else it can be proven and I'll see what I can find

I gave you an example. Now it seem like you're stalling. Is there some reason you haven't brought proof of your claims?

Don't say its because you don't know what I want, I told you what I want. I want something that proves your claims that would not be circular reasoning.

You gave me an example where you would have merely dismissed anything I found because it required using people whose word you have stated that you wouldn't accept.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Tell me how else it can be proven and I'll see what I can find

Originally posted by Silent Master
You gave me an example where you would have merely dismissed anything I found because it required using people whose word you have stated that you wouldn't accept.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Tell me how else it can be proven and I'll see what I can find

It can't be. That's his point.

He's attempting to make some sort of grand, misguided statement on the nature of argument. How there exists on this earth no piece of evidence which cannot be invalidated by simply casting doubt on the source and then shifting the burden of proof.

Originally posted by KK the Great
It can't be. That's his point.

He's attempting to make some sort of grand, misguided statement on the nature of argument. How there exists on this earth no piece of evidence which cannot be invalidated by simply casting doubt on the source and then shifting the burden of proof.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Nice strawman. You make it all by yourself or did you have help gathering the straws you're grasping at?

I'd be embarrassed of myself if I were you, too.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I already gave you an example. You might have other ways that can convince me that I might not have thought of.

Sounds like an excuse to not look for the evidence I requested.

Correction, you gave me an example that would require people getting info from Dan and Marvel, whose word you have also stated that you will not accept. Now, give me an example of proof that you will actually accept and I'll see what I can find.

Originally posted by KK the Great
I'd be embarrassed of myself if I were you, too.

So it's okay for you to make a claim, have no proof to back it up, then attack the person who's made the request?

Doesn't that sound like claims of a certian other member's actions?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Correction, you gave me an example that would require people getting info from Dan and Marvel, whose word you have also stated that you will not accept. Now, give me an example of proof that you will actually accept and I'll see what I can find.

Why won't you simply provide the evidence I requested?

You haven't even tried.

Is it because you can't? Or is there some other reason?

I already gave you an example. It's not up to me to do your legwork for you. The burden of proof is on your shoulders so lets get to the evidence.

Originally posted by Creshosk
This looks like member bashing rather than the evidence I requested.

So it's okay for you to make a claim, have no proof to back it up, then attack the person who's made the request?

Doesn't that sound like claims of a certian other member's actions?

I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim.

All the shifting of the burden of proof in the world won't change that.

I've already posted proof in the form of Dan stating why he was clarifying his statement, you refused to accept that, if you want more proof you are going to have to tell me what you will accept.

Originally posted by KK the Great
I didn't make the claim. YOU made the claim.

All the shifting of the burden of proof in the world won't change that.

Nvr claims he did it because he was forced to.
You said that he did it of his own free will.

To date neither side has presented concrete proof.

1) Jurgens makes joke in interview.
2) Fans take joke literally, due in no small part to the incredibly biased interviewer.
3) Jurgens says, "Guys, I was joking."

This is the series of events taken at face value.

If someone then cooks up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and asserts that everything Jurgens said was a lie, it is NOT up to us to provide proof that the conspiracy didn't happen.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I've already posted proof in the form of Dan stating why he was clarifying his statement, you refused to accept that, if you want more proof you are going to have to tell me what you will accept.

You said it was to avoid you bringing up evidence just for me to shoot down because it'd be a waste of time. We certainly got right down to brass tacks didn't we? Instead of even TRYING to provide your evidence, you tried alot harder to not present anything.

So where's your proof? Shouldn't you have had some evidence that didn't commit the circular reasoning fallacy before making the claim?

Do you have anything else or was that it?

Silent Master has asked you numerous times for an example of what you would accept as evidence.

I'll go him one further.

I DEFY you to dream up even one piece of theoretical evidence which could "disprove" nvr's asinine conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by KK the Great
1) Jurgens makes joke in interview.
2) Fans take joke literally, due in no small part to the incredibly biased interviewer.
3) Jurgens says, "Guys, I was joking."

This is the series of events taken at face value.

If someone then cooks up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and asserts that everything Jurgens said was a lie, it is NOT up to us to provide proof that the conspiracy didn't happen.

Now quit weasling and provide your evidence. I'm not going to say that it doesn't exist. Because I don't know if it does or not, but for some reason you don't seem to feel like you have to prove your claims. I think its the "it is NOT up to us to provide proof" that gives me that impression.

If anyone made the claim that Dan did it of his own free will, it was Dan himself

I thought some clarity might help.

If you wont accept his word, feel free to ask him to back his claim up.

Originally posted by KK the Great
Silent Master has asked you numerous times for an example of what you would accept as evidence.

I'll go him one further.

I DEFY you to dream up even one piece of theoretical evidence which could "disprove" nvr's asinine conspiracy theory.

You're basically asking me to provide evidence of your claims for you by stating exactly what would do it.

Wanna know what would do it? Concrete evidence.

An example of such? I'm sorry but I don't know. If I knew I'd already have your evidence.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If anyone made the claim that Dan did it of his own free will, it was Dan himself

If you wont accept his word, feel free to ask him to back his claim up.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Wanna know what would do it? Concrete evidence.

Posted by Dan Jurgens on Monday, February 23 2004 at 20:11:06 GMT

After numerous e-mails from friends pointing to a minor firestorm of sorts regarding my comments relating to the power levels of Thor and Superman, I thought some clarity might help.

Yes, in the exchange, I was asked if Superman was a million times more powerful than Thor. I said yes.

I also chuckled as I said it, a very important part of the response that did not translate into print. I don't blame Rich as he gave me the chance to edit the interview. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would seriously think that statement was an accurate representation of my belief on the matter.

So... we screwed up.

Superman is NOT a million times more powerful than Thor. In my book, he is probably not even twice as powerful as Thor. Superman has more expansive powers than Thor, IMO, thanks to his vision powers, etc.

I also think they fight quite differently. Thor tends to be more of a brawny reactionary type, while Superman probably fights with a more strategic approach. Thor is more likely to cut loose with the full measure of his powers as he does not have the "dampers" on that power that Superman was raised with. Both qualities can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on the circumstances.

If they fought ten times, neither would win all ten, or even seven, eight or nine battles, for that matter. Not anymore than the Miami Dolphins would beat the Jets ten games out of ten.

I apologize for any confusion.

DJ

Originally posted by Silent Master
Posted by Dan Jurgens on Monday, February 23 2004 at 20:11:06 GMT

After numerous e-mails from friends pointing to a minor firestorm of sorts regarding my comments relating to the power levels of Thor and Superman, I thought some clarity might help.

Yes, in the exchange, I was asked if Superman was a million times more powerful than Thor. I said yes.

I also chuckled as I said it, a very important part of the response that did not translate into print. I don't blame Rich as he gave me the chance to edit the interview. Quite frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would seriously think that statement was an accurate representation of my belief on the matter.

So... we screwed up.

Superman is NOT a million times more powerful than Thor. In my book, he is probably not even twice as powerful as Thor. Superman has more expansive powers than Thor, IMO, thanks to his vision powers, etc.

I also think they fight quite differently. Thor tends to be more of a brawny reactionary type, while Superman probably fights with a more strategic approach. Thor is more likely to cut loose with the full measure of his powers as he does not have the "dampers" on that power that Superman was raised with. Both qualities can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on the circumstances.

If they fought ten times, neither would win all ten, or even seven, eight or nine battles, for that matter. Not anymore than the Miami Dolphins would beat the Jets ten games out of ten.

I apologize for any confusion.

DJ

"It's true because it says its true."

I can claim the bible is true, because it says its true in the bible?