Originally posted by janus77This coming from someone who buys into hyperbole?
excellent reading comprehension.
Originally posted by janus77Fixed.
you should take remedial English or English as a second language, before trying anything as sophisticated as sarcasm.
Originally posted by janus77I didn't twist anything. It is all right there.
and, just in case the above is far too subtle for you to understand, you missed my point and you - yet again - twisted the meaning to suit your weak argument.
Do you want me to spell it out for you?
Originally posted by janus77Fixed.
To summarize my previous post:
Originally posted by janus77I never denied that. I was just correcting you on your inaccurate assessment of my pointing out the flaw in ultimatethor's reasoning.
IF Onslaught "wanted" Hulk to break Onslaught's armour, that implies Onslaught could not do such a thing by himself.
THUS Onslaught would be < Mindless Hulk, when it comes to pure strength.
Originally posted by janus77Naturally, you claim Hulk has infinite strength, thus proving you don't grasp the concept of "infinity".
My own reading of the situation is, similar to ultimatethor's actual statements (rather than your distortions):
Originally posted by janus77So Onslaught tried to keep Hulk from achieving Onslaught's goals?
Onslaught fought Hulk, attempted to kill him, didn't have the strength to get the job done and ended up having his armour busted and his physical form broken by Hulk.
That makes a LOT of sense. 🙄
Originally posted by janus77Fixed.
Onslaught immediately realizes
Originally posted by janus77So it WASN'T actually a goal for Onslaught to use hulk to break his armor?
that he's now in an even more dynamic and powerful form as an energy/psi-entity, so began to gloat ... [and then shortly after, get defeated by absorption by all the heroes]
Hence the contradiction.
Here I'll spell it out for you.
[Onslaught used Hulk to achieve his goal.]
Either Onslaught KNEW that he could ascend to a different form and used Hulk to achieve this as he himself could not. Thus using Hulk to achieve his goal.
or
[Onslaught did not let Hulk win.]
Onslaught didn't know that he'd ascend to the next stage until after his shell was broken, thus it was a legitimate attempt to stop Hulk. In which case why didn't he BFR Hulk same as he did Juggernaut? Why didn't he use any psionics on the Hulk?
The two options contradict each other.
Originally posted by Creshosk
This coming from someone who buys into hyperbole?Fixed.
I didn't twist anything. It is all right there.
Do you want me to spell it out for you?
Fixed.
I never denied that. I was just correcting you on your inaccurate assessment of my pointing out the flaw in ultimatethor's reasoning.
Naturally, you claim Hulk has infinite strength, thus proving you don't grasp the concept of "infinity".
So Onslaught tried to keep Hulk from achieving Onslaught's goals?
That makes a LOT of sense. 🙄
Fixed.
So it WASN'T actually a goal for Onslaught to use hulk to break his armor?
Hence the contradiction.
Here I'll spell it out for you.
[b][Onslaught used Hulk to achieve his goal.]
Either Onslaught KNEW that he could ascend to a different form and used Hulk to achieve this as he himself could not. Thus using Hulk to achieve his goal.or
[Onslaught did not let Hulk win.]
Onslaught didn't know that he'd ascend to the next stage until after his shell was broken, thus it was a legitimate attempt to stop Hulk. In which case why didn't he BFR Hulk same as he did Juggernaut? Why didn't he use any psionics on the Hulk?The two options contradict each other. [/B]
don't affect the style of someone when you don't have the nous to pull it off 🙂.
you omitted the line in ultimatethor's post where he states that "all Onslaught did was to take advantage of a situation...".
again, if you had the wit to understand, you wouldn't resort to twisting someone's words because your argument is weak. instead you'd concede the point and move on.
you really are struggling to comprehend aren't you?
to re-restate my point:
Onslaught fought Hulk, thought he could defeat Hulk with his phenomenal strength, didn't work. in the process of fighting Hulk, he pissed Hulk off too much and Hulk's strength overwhelmed his form. thus breaking the armour.
thereafter, Onslaught found himself in a state which he assumed to be even more powerful. unfortunately for him, the heroes easily dealt with him in his psi-form.
as for arguments that "Onslaught wanted Hulk to break his armour" 1) present some on-panel proof and 2) does that affect the fact that Hulk is stronger than Onslaught?
Originally posted by janus77Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
British English, realize is spelled with an s instead of a z. Glad to see you're not just incapable of reading comprehension; but are also, and perhaps, not coincidentally, ignorant.
Originally posted by janus77Reported for bashing by the way. 🙂
Don't affect the style of someone when you don't have the nous to pull it off 🙂.
Originally posted by janus77Which doesn't mean that "Onslaught didn't let hulk win" and "Onslaught used Hulk to achieve his goal" don't contradict each other.
You omitted the line in ultimatethor's post where he states that "all Onslaught did was to take advantage of a situation...".
Getting what you want without realizing it is serendipitous, not "achieving a goal".
Originally posted by janus77Why would I concede when I'm not wrong?
Again, if you had the wit to understand, you wouldn't resort to twisting someone's words because your argument is weak. instead you'd concede the point and move on.
He contradicted himself. Oh and by the way, its not twisting words. It is part of the Socratic style. I think you said something about someone's style earlier?
Originally posted by janus77Nope. I understand fine. The problem is you don't.
You really are struggling to comprehend aren't you?
Originally posted by janus77Which wound up killing the heroes.
To re-restate my point:
Onslaught fought Hulk, thought he could defeat Hulk with his phenomenal strength, didn't work. in the process of fighting Hulk, he pissed Hulk off too much and Hulk's strength overwhelmed his form. thus breaking the armor.
Thereafter, Onslaught found himself in a state which he assumed to be even more powerful. Unfortunately for him, the heroes easily dealt with him in his psi-form.
But in order to "achieve his goal", he'd have to have had one.
He either knew before hand or he didn't. Not that hard a concept to understand really.
Originally posted by janus77And here you talk about other people not understanding points? Looks like you didn't understand my point at all.
As for arguments that "Onslaught wanted Hulk to break his armor" 1) present some on-panel proof and 2) does that affect the fact that Hulk is stronger than Onslaught?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Think about that.Onslaught wanted hulk to win to acheive his goal.. but obviously he was trying his hardest to keep hulk from winning, thus he was trying to thwart his own goal.
Yeah that makes sense. 🙄
Haha so this is your way of pointing out the flaw in my reasoning? By ignoring the first part of what i said? Maybe i just did not explain myself properly. By his "goal" i meant that onslaught wanted to become more powerful. Maybe i also should have added inadvertently. Because thats what he did, he inadvertently used hulk to achieve his goal. His goal was to become more powerful( hence absorbing of franklin and nate) and after hulk broke his armor he realised that he had become more powerful.
So let me explain it
1. Onslaught did not want hulk to win
2. He did howver want to become more powerful but did not know that that would come by fighting hulk
3. After hulk broke his armour he realised it and took advantage of that situation
4. Hence the reason i said he" used hulk"to achieve his goal of becoming more powerful.
Originally posted by CreshoskSo Onslaught tried to keep Hulk from achieving Onslaught's goals?
That makes a LOT of sense. 🙄
Fixed.
So it WASN'T actually a goal for Onslaught to use hulk to break his armor?
Hence the contradiction.
Here I'll spell it out for you.
[Onslaught used Hulk to achieve his goal.]
Either Onslaught KNEW that he could ascend to a different form and used Hulk to achieve this as he himself could not. Thus using Hulk to achieve his goal.or
[Onslaught did not let Hulk win.]
Onslaught didn't know that he'd ascend to the next stage until after his shell was broken, thus it was a legitimate attempt to stop Hulk. In which case why didn't he BFR Hulk same as he did Juggernaut? Why didn't he use any psionics on the Hulk?The two options contradict each other. [/B]
Now i will point out the mistake here. I never mentioned that Onslaughts goal was to break the armour. So yes it wasnt onslaughts goal to use hulk to break the armour And so as a matter of fact it was a legitimate attempt to stop hulk and it was until after hulk broke his armour that he realised that he had become more powerful and as i said took advantage of the situation. Now for you to say that it could not have been a legitimate attempt to stop hulk because he did not use any of his other powers is totally innaccurate. Why did he not use his other powers to fight hulk? Simply put PIS. There have been numerous times when charcaters have not used other powers and have resorted to fighting hulk physically while legitimately trying to stop him. It is due to PIS most of the time considering that hulk is a purely physical character. Hulk beating onslaught was indeed PIS but that does not take away from hulks display of physical superiority.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand.
Just because you don't care if British english is correct does not make it incorrect in any way.
Originally posted by Creshosk
He contradicted himself. Oh and by the way, its not twisting words. It is part of the Socratic style. I think you said something about someone's style earlier?[/B]
Socratic questioning? 🙄
At Janus and Ultimatethor:
Without having to resort to sarcasm, I think the point being made was that if Onslaught did not mean for his armour to get cracked, and only found out that he was enhanced that way after the armour was cracked, there is no pre-meditation at all, which of course means that it is impossible to say that Onslaught made use of Hulk per se, unless the argument was that Onslaught's plan was to ride his luck.
Originally posted by OualladaNow ask me if I care.
Just because you don't care if British English is correct, does not make it incorrect in any way.
Originally posted by OualladaDo I need to quote a dictionary at you?
Socratic questioning? 🙄
That's twice now someone has tried to get after me about English. That's also twice now that I've had to correct them.
Ironic is it not?
Originally posted by carver9
Comics never make sense or it wouldnt be comics. Now could you please be as kind to show me where youre getting something else interferring besides strength.
Comics nearly always make sense. Where you are from?
They may not relate to science but they certainly make sense most of the time. When they don't we just rule PIS. Understand?
Originally posted by Creshosk
Now ask me if I care.
Originally posted by Creshosk
So Onslaught didn't have the strength to break the armor, needed the armor to be broken to achieve his goals, but didn't want Hulk to win?
Just in case you missed it. Carry on playing the "Grammar Police" game if you want. I simply ask that your own application of the language is flawless.
I don't care if you care. I'm just stating a fact.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Do I need to quote a dictionary at you?That's twice now someone has tried to get after me about English. That's also twice now that I've had to correct them.
Ironic is it not? [/B]
No, but as someone who knows what Socratic Questioning is, saying that you have been using it in this thread is the philosophical equivalent of Internet hyperbole. Forgive me for rolling my eyes, even though your points are correct.
Originally posted by OualladaReally? Then what would you say that Socratic irony is?
Just in case you missed it. Carry on playing the "Grammar Police" game if you want. I simply ask that your own application of the language is flawless.I don't care if you care. I'm just stating a fact.
No, but as someone who knows what Socratic Questioning is, saying that you have been using it in this thread is the philosophical equivalent of Internet hyperbole. Forgive me for rolling my eyes, even though your points are correct.
Originally posted by OualladaI'm sorry, did I miss the question here somehow?
In not telling you what it is, am I not already using a form of Socratic Irony?
Originally posted by Ouallada
Something I hope you start using soon with regards to Socratic Questioning, judging from your claims of using it.
Because I certainly don't see a question.
Also, why did you suddenly switch to call it Socratic irony when you've been insisting on calling it questioning?
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm sorry, did I miss the question here somehow?Because I certainly don't see a question.
Also, why did you suddenly switch to call it Socratic irony when you've been insisting on calling it questioning?
I dislike having to spell things out blatantly. I see you as a pretty astute fellow, so let's keep it that way.
No, but as someone who knows what Socratic Questioning is, saying that you have been using it in this thread is the philosophical equivalent of Internet hyperbole. Forgive me for rolling my eyes, even though your points are correct.
Here, I question if what you have been doing in this thread is indeed Socratic Questioning. The Socratic style traditionally embraces Socratic Questioning first and foremost, and while I could make a case for that in this thread, Socratic Irony is an extremely tough sell, as it isn't an argumentative instrument. Feel free to convince me otherwise.
Now that we have gotten that out of the way, Occam's Razor says that I repond to your statements with the fewest leaps of logic/assumptions possible.
Really? Then what would you say that Socratic irony is?
Here, you ask what Socratic Irony is. This is obvious as Socratic Irony isn't a traditional debating device-- you could claim that you were proving them wrong with Socratic Irony, but I would roll my eyes again and call you out.
Something I hope you start using soon with regards to Socratic Questioning, judging from your claims of using it.
Here, I answer your above question, albeit with a thinly veiled jab. Apologies for that.
So you're not going to tell me what it is, even though you want me to use it?
Here you ask why I have not defined it.
In not telling you what it is, am I not already using a form of Socratic Irony?
Here, I ascertain that in my previous post, I have already answered what Socratic Irony is, which I assumed you would understand, as I assumed you have some knowlesge of it.
Originally posted by ultimatethor
Haha so this is your way of pointing out the flaw in my reasoning? By ignoring the first part of what i said? Maybe i just did not explain myself properly. By his "goal" i meant that onslaught wanted to become more powerful. Maybe i also should have added inadvertently. Because thats what he did, he inadvertently used hulk to achieve his goal. His goal was to become more powerful( hence absorbing of franklin and nate) and after hulk broke his armor he realised that he had become more powerful.So let me explain it
1. Onslaught did not want hulk to win
2. He did howver want to become more powerful but did not know that that would come by fighting hulk
3. After hulk broke his armour he realised it and took advantage of that situation
4. Hence the reason i said he" used hulk"to achieve his goal of becoming more powerful.
couldnt agree more.& how did a thread about trion juggs get turned into hulk & onslaught?
Originally posted by OualladaAt Janus and Ultimatethor:
Without having to resort to sarcasm, I think the point being made was that if Onslaught did not mean for his armour to get cracked, and only found out that he was enhanced that way after the armour was cracked, there is no pre-meditation at all, which of course means that it is impossible to say that Onslaught made use of Hulk per se, unless the argument was that Onslaught's plan was to ride his luck.
Read my above post. I realise the point creshsok was trying to make and i pointed out that he disregearded the first part of what i said. As i said above Onslaught inadvertently used hulk to achieve HIS GOAL OF BECOMING MORE POWERFUL. I never said his goal was to break his armour so i dont know where people got that idea from. Onsluaghts main goal was to become more powerful and hulk inadvertently became the channel through which Onslaught became more powerful, without either hulk or onslaught having prior knowledge that this would happen. This is what i was saying in my post.