Originally posted by KK the Great
The above quotes directly contradict one another.
Aside from the fact that your 'analogy' fails about as hard as nvr's dick after watching gay porn, all of those examples are on par with your's.
Your point is nonsensical and completely irrelevant.
Keep up the dodging though.
Originally posted by SaintSmurph
The point Batdude and I have both made is that the analogy makes no room for power use, intelligence, and skill or ability.Anybody with a planet-busting button can press it and bust a planet.
Not anybody with super speed could and would think and perform as well as Superman did in that feat, and many, many others.
Hence why subbing in technology that a toddler could use for powers and skill with the powers that take decades to master makes for a poor, inept analogy.
KK's point was the conversation at that point was not about tactical application of power. It was about strength. Superman applying another power to achieve what Gladiator did through strength was no more relevant than any other random means of destroying a planet.
Feel free to correct me if that's not right, KK.
Originally posted by Jonathanos
KK's point was the conversation at that point was not about tactical application of power. It was about strength. Superman applying another power to achieve what Gladiator did through strength was no more relevant than any other random means of destroying a planet.Feel free to correct me if that's not right, KK.
Was he not talking about the vibrating feat itself?
I didn't see him mentioning a Gladiator strength feat in his posts to me.
Originally posted by JonathanosThe original question was whether he should be impressed or not.
KK's point was the conversation at that point was not about tactical application of power. It was about strength. Superman applying another power to achieve what Gladiator did through strength was no more relevant than any other random means of destroying a planet.Feel free to correct me if that's not right, KK.
Not whether it was correlated to the strength feat discussion.
And I already covered why the accusation of irrelevancy is inaccurate, and pointless.
Originally posted by SaintSmurph
Not whether it was correlated to the strength feat discussion.
That's exactly what I thought.
Therefore, my point stands.
Originally posted by Soljer
They both think that they're, effectively, 'owning' the other.
The only difference being that KK doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
Originally posted by Jonathanos
KK's point was the conversation at that point was not about tactical application of power. It was about strength. Superman applying another power to achieve what Gladiator did through strength was no more relevant than any other random means of destroying a planet.Feel free to correct me if that's not right, KK.
Closer, but still not exact.
What I'm talking about is comparing the means to the end in a situation where the method by which an end result is brought about is not necessarily as impressive as the end result implies.
Scenario 1
Gladiator destroys a planet.
The means? Gladiator punches the planet with an incredible amount of force.
The end? The planet explodes.
Scenario 2
Superman expels a phantom planet and saves the omniverse.
The means? Superman replicates and reverses the specific vibrational frequency of the phantom planet.
The end? The application of the reverse vibrational frequency causes the phantom planet to reverse course.
In the first scenario, the causal relationship between the means and the end is as straight-forward as can be. Gladiator simply generated enough power to destroy a planet. The second scenario is not nearly so straight-forward, and as impressive as the end result sounds, the actual action undertaken by Superman is nothing to write home about in terms of what it says about his power. He vibrated his body at a certain frequency. That's really all he did.
The Gladiator reference tells us more about his power than the Superman reference tells us about his.
That was the point of my analogy. The end result achieved by a person's action is of less concern than the action itself.
Originally posted by SaintSmurph
The original question was whether he should be impressed or not.Not whether it was correlated to the strength feat discussion.
And I already covered why the accusation of irrelevancy is inaccurate, and pointless.
Matching a vibrational frequency for the phantom planet has nothing to do with a fight.
Why was the feat even mentioned?
Originally posted by SaintSmurph
What's the point in arguing that instead of what's presented?If you want to hold the strength feat over Nvr, do so. Don't bother brandishing it against people who are starting or are in the middle of completely separate discussions.
But what was the point of posting the scan when the subject was physical prowess?
Originally posted by KK the Great
Closer, but still not exact.What I'm talking about is comparing the means to the end in a situation where the method by which an end result is brought about is not necessarily as impressive as the end result implies.
[b]Scenario 1
Gladiator destroys a planet.
The means? Gladiator punches the planet with an incredible amount of force.
The end? The planet explodes.
Scenario 2
Superman expels a phantom planet and saves the omniverse.
The means? Superman replicates and reverses the specific vibrational frequency of the phantom planet.
The end? The application of the reverse vibrational frequency causes the phantom planet to reverse course.
In the first scenario, the causal relationship between the means and the end is as straight-forward as can be. Gladiator simply generated enough power to destroy a planet. The second scenario is not nearly so straight-forward, and as impressive as the end result sounds, the actual action undertaken by Superman is nothing to write home about in terms of what it says about his power. He vibrated his body at a certain frequency. That's really all he did.
The Gladiator reference tells us more about his power than the Superman reference tells us about his.
That was the point of my analogy. The end result achieved by a person's action is of less concern than the action itself. [/B]
The guy makes since. 😬
Originally posted by KK the Great
Closer, but still not exact.What I'm talking about is comparing the means to the end in a situation where the method by which an end result is brought about is not necessarily as impressive as the end result implies.
[b]Scenario 1
Gladiator destroys a planet.
The means? Gladiator punches the planet with an incredible amount of force.
The end? The planet explodes.
Scenario 2
Superman expels a phantom planet and saves the omniverse.
The means? Superman replicates and reverses the specific vibrational frequency of the phantom planet.
The end? The application of the reverse vibrational frequency causes the phantom planet to reverse course.
In the first scenario, the causal relationship between the means and the end is as straight-forward as can be. Gladiator simply generated enough power to destroy a planet. The second scenario is not nearly so straight-forward, and as impressive as the end result sounds, the actual action undertaken by Superman is nothing to write home about in terms of what it says about his power. He vibrated his body at a certain frequency. That's really all he did.
The Gladiator reference tells us more about his power than the Superman reference tells us about his.
That was the point of my analogy. The end result achieved by a person's action is of less concern than the action itself. [/B]
You were trying to compare Superman using his power, skill, and speed to achieve a feat with some random guy pushing a button.
The end result of Superman's action wasn't created by an outside force (technology in your analogy), nor was it an act of him simply pushing a button to achieve such an event.
It was him, and him alone creating the effects necessary to extricate a phantom planet to another dimension.
A lot of things can emanate on different vibrational frequencies. That doesn't mean that it's powerful enough to send away an entire planet.
Superman's power was on such a grand scale that it covered the area of the entire planet itself, and literally sent it to another point in space-time.
I'd be willing to be that if Gladiator did something similar to that, you'd be showcasing that like no other.
Originally posted by Joey Stacks
But what was the point of posting the scan when the subject was physical prowess?
Neither Smurph nor I are defending Pr's decision to take it upon himself to show the omniverse feat for Superman.
We're simply debating the semantics with which KK uses to quantify that feat for Superman.
Originally posted by JonathanosI couldn't tell you, because I'm not Pr1983, though, I would hazard a guess...
Matching a vibrational frequency for the phantom planet has nothing to do with a fight.Why was the feat even mentioned?
POST A- Says that Diana is as close you can get to Superman's stats without having them
POST B- Effectively showing that that probably isn't true, as Gladiators strength is superior (not my opinion on any of these posts, but what the poster was saying, iirc)
POST C- Says that Superman is still far superior to Glads, posts a feat demonstrating intelligence and super speed which are (apparently surprisingly) stats.
This post says nothing about being superior to Diana.
---------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed obvious to me.
But, if it wasn't, the logical response would be to ask.
Not just give insults which the "good moderator" lacks the patience to withstand.