Originally posted by GalacticStorm
You can mention it. You can say this appears to be the case, but unless you have anything conclusively verifying your viewpoint, or you have scenes in other comics establishing your point as something the character is known for, then arguing your point as the truth is a pointless exercise.Alot of what we argue here is our own viewpoints. However the ones who win out in the end are those whose viewpoints are strongly based on comic book fact as opposed to assumptions and guesswork.
Then next time I believe I will say that instead. Btw would a writers word on the subject be good enough?
Fact that are interpreted entirely differently GS, best example I can find right now is the discussion that revolved around Master and you concerning Jamie Braddock. That was entirely different viewpoints and interpretations, which is from my point of view the same situation here.
I however isn't Master so I wouldn't continue to hammer on with a point, I have presented my interpretation and you three have presented yours.
Views points and facts are different. The burden of proof is on you to show that Living Tribunal has created the Megaverses, but fact of the matter is you can't, so it can't be used as evidence of how powerfull Living Tribunal is when it comes to a discussion involving him.
This is my last say on the matter because it really will not get us anywhere.
