Originally posted by Nemesis X
The thread says it's in gameplay. Does Master Chief see bullets in slow motion during gameplay? No, just in the books.
It seems stupid to limit characters and to restrict the use of plot devices. Maybe if it was Sephiroth, but this isn't a super godlike being, it's a bio-enhanced soldier wearing armor.
Originally posted by DarkC
Yes, he can move out of the way of a bullet. I'm going to go ahead and say more along the lines of Neo, since Bond is only human.This was shown in the first Halo novel right after he recieved MJOLNIR armor for the first time and they were putting it through its paces.
Can you give me the book name, page number and a quote, preferably one continaing 4-5 lines maybe more so I can understand the barings and situation.
Then again, you cannot use anything in books, novels etc etc, so that info is worthless on these forums either way.
Alright ALRIGHT!!!
Heed my announcement.
I never actually stated that it was just gameplay in the OP, I just used the numbers of the Cyberdemon as a guage. But, for the sake of argument, lets split the two quiffs into scenarions the,
Scenario #1: Game content only. MC can have any weapons found in the halo games, this includes covenant weaponry as well as gadgets.
Scenario #2: story canon is also applicable
Scenario #3: same as #1 exept limited to UNSC weapons and gadgets only.
Scenario #4: Same as #2, with the same limitation as #3.
There, that should split it pretty even now.
Originally posted by Final Blaxican
Yes you can.Anything that's canon to the series itself can be used here...
Not true, only the games themselves are considered canon to the forum:
For the purposes of this forum, only feats seen in the actual video games are considered canon. Any other sources (movies, comics, novels, etc) are considered non-canon here.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Can you give me the book name, page number and a quote, preferably one continaing 4-5 lines maybe more so I can understand the barings and situation.Then again, you cannot use anything in books, novels etc etc, so that info is worthless on these forums either way.
"...he stood, and let the rounds deflect off his armor. To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."
Originally posted by Burning thought
Not true, only the games themselves are considered canon to the forum:
It's a wildly useless and counterproductive rule. I addressed this ages ago.
To me this doesn't make sense. Any feat officially stated by the developers to be "canon" should count, especially in a debate forum. It should be up to the companies themselves to decide what is official and what is not.It's a useless and unproductive rule, if you think about the scenario; if someone, say, creates a Master Chief or one of the Warcraft characters vs some other character, ANY argument of mine referring to a novel canonically accepted by the company (Bungie Studios or Blizzard Entertainment, respectively) can be refuted by someone else by saying: "Nope, it's a book, not acceptable by the KMC forum rules" even though the company themselves state it as such.
Halo is probably the best example of why this rule should NOT be in place. Most of the abilities and feats performed by the Master Chief are in the novels, fully endorsed by Bungie. It severely cripples anyone trying to bring things he did in the books such as surviving an antitank missile and running 500m in 12s with a torn Achilles tendon.If you ask me Street Fighter is the best example of why this rule should be in place. A lot of the "plot devices", while endorsed by Capcom, are officially non-canon (Udon comics, the anime, the movie).
The thing is, most people who get into a debate involving a Street Fighter character know this anyway so it would be easily refuted. However, some of the references (while not IN the games) are perfectly viable too as canon materia, such as interview transcripts and the well-known Tiamat Street Fighter Plot Guide.
It severely hampers debaters who are trying to use an "official" feat, yet the rule limits them because it's not from "in-game". It shouldn't be up to anyone but the companies themselves to decide official material that can be used as materia in discussion. It's a useless rule, what's the point debating for a character if I can't even use all his officially stated capabilities and feats as argument?
And if you think about it, it doesn't even defeat the purpose of this forum either, simply because a character originated from a video game doesn't mean that the arguments have to come from strictly the games themselves. Someone mentioned FF7:AC and that's a great example; Square Enix stated it as canon yet technically we aren't allowed to use it because - oops, it's a movie! Despite that, you see it being brought up left and right, both Sado and I made numerous references to it in the Gouki vs. Cloud thread anyways.
Completely boggles my mind as to why on Earth this rule was tacked up in the first place.
If you're going to reply with "But the rule says it's non canon, so there", you may as well not reply at all, period.
No, I may as well reply because anyone who uses the novel is not following the KMC rules. Its a rule just like any other, or can we spam threads on non game characters!
Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging....thats a pthetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No, I may as well reply because anyone who uses the novel is not following the KMC rules. Its a rule just like any other, or can we spam threads on non game characters!Judging by the quote you gave its no more than James bond jodging....thats a pthetic shred of evidence on your part even if it is illegal on this forum.
Unless you can give me a thoughtful and intelligent reason for the rule being in place - as in here - I'll continue to use it anyway. I've just PM'ed a mod about changing it. As I said, it's a rule that in this case is ridiculously counterproductive.
Go ahead and keep ploughing with the non-literature canon rule. All it is to me is peripheral noise. I've already given clear and concise reasons why it's useless and have brought the issue to a moderator.
Wrong. James Bond without technological assistance cannot see a bullet, react to it, and move aside.
He's a normal human being without physical augmentation, and even under adrenaline, humans do not possess the capability to have the reaction time to dodge a bullet fired directly at them and on target while standing still. The Master Chief did.
Why are you trying to insist the impossible?
Talk big? you young or what....as usual your arguments are weak, you have one line (you cant even read posts, I asked for a couple of lines to set the scene)
Yes well, it seems to you one line of poor evidence for what your saying contstitutes to a strong evidence for a failing argument lol
According to what you call evidence neither can chief, it just sounds like Bonde style dodging, he was "surprised" he dodged some, its not like he predicated it or watched the coming and moved out of their path. To his "surprise" just like Ime surprised James bond can escape machine gun fire so often or jump out of the way of a fireing weapon.
Yeah, considering that you can't really factually negate my use of it anyway besides the fact that it's apparently against the rules somehow. Besides, Blaxican and DJ know as well as I do that the books are considered canon by Bungie and I can provide proof. it's just that the forums somehow don't allow that.
And why would I post a few? That was the only relevant one.
You asked for the scene where he was bullet-dodging. I answered. Go ahead and complain about that if you really want.
No, it specifically said 'dodging'. Not the bullets missing by chance. By 'dodging' it means actually seeing the bullet coming towards you and moving to avoid it. James Bond just dives out of the way and hopes that a stray bullet doesn't hit him. That's different.
He was surprised at how much faster the armor made him, not that a few bullets missed him. Remember, this was the first field testing of Mark V MJOLNIR. He just stood up and let the rounds deflect briefly, presumably to test its durability. It makes no sense that he would be surprised at doing something an ordinary human can accomplish.
No they do not, just for the same reason I cannot use the starcraft or warcraft books to help any of my arguments.
You need to post perhaps the paragraph you took that from, otherwise it doesnt set the scene, i dont know what was fireing at him, who, from what distance, his actions beforehand etc etc
oh so you know what it means? dodging in the sense he was surprised he dodged a few is not simply seeing the bullet coming and moving to avoid it lol..... James bond dives out of the way and dodges the fire. MC isnt much diffrent, he was surprised he dodged some.
Well your quote doesnt tell me that does it....and why not? an ordinairy human would still be surprised he escaped from gun fire, I would be surprised if i somehow survived bullet fire by jumping out of the way. Id be surprised Ime not dead.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No they do not, just for the same reason I cannot use the starcraft or warcraft books to help any of my arguments.You need to post perhaps the paragraph you took that from, otherwise it doesnt set the scene, i dont know [b]what
was fireing at him, who, from what distance, his actions beforehand etc etcoh so you know what it means? dodging in the sense he was surprised he dodged a few is not simply seeing the bullet coming and moving to avoid it lol..... James bond dives out of the way and dodges the fire. MC isnt much diffrent, he was surprised he dodged some.
Well your quote doesnt tell me that does it....and why not? an ordinairy human would still be surprised he escaped from gun fire, I would be surprised if i somehow survived bullet fire by jumping out of the way. Id be surprised Ime not dead. [/B]
The paragraph involves him doing several different things to test the capabilities of the armor - involving jumping, running speed, physical strength, durability; and in the final case, reaction speed. That's why I chose to cut it out. And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.
James Bond diving to avoid bullets - not dodge - is just what Max Payne does in his games. He doesn't actually possess the capability to see the bullet in motion and shift aside, he just is in motion before the bullet leaves the gun and is praying that, like I said, a bullet doesn't hit him. That ain't a bullet dodge, that's just diving out of the way.
Yeah, but Chief isn't a normal human. He's a biogenetically enhanced, battle-hardened soldier wearing more than a half tonne of combat armor.
Also as I mentioned he was field training the capabilities of the armor. That means he doesn't know what it can do or enable him to do - hence, a good reason to be surprised that it makes him fast enough to actually percieve and dodge bullets.
That's moot, he can take more than a few rounds of fire. If he just dove out of the way like any other human would, why the hell would he be taken by surprise that he avoided it, like some green recruit on his first time in a gunfight?
"Omigosh, I rolled out of the way and a few bullets didn't hit me! Isn't that amazing?! Did you see that?!"
You're cherry picking, seriously.
Originally posted by DarkC
Exactly. Precisely why that rule is nonsense, wouldn't you agree? I actually told them that it also hampered any threads involving characters from Blizzard Entertainment. Like Halo, a lot of the story - Diablo, StarCraft, or Warcraft - comes from books. Anyways...The paragraph involves him doing several different things to test the capabilities of the armor - involving jumping, running speed, physical strength, durability; and in the final case, reaction speed. That's why I chose to cut it out. And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.
James Bond diving to avoid bullets - not dodge - is just what Max Payne does in his games. He doesn't actually possess the capability to see the bullet in motion and shift aside, he just is in motion before the bullet leaves the gun and is praying that, like I said, a bullet doesn't hit him. That ain't a bullet dodge, that's just diving out of the way.
Yeah, but Chief isn't a normal human. He's a biogenetically enhanced, battle-hardened soldier wearing more than a half tonne of combat armor.
Also as I mentioned he was field training the capabilities of the armor. That means he doesn't know what it can do or enable him to do - hence, a good reason to be surprised that it makes him fast enough to actually percieve and dodge bullets.
That's moot, he can take more than a few rounds of fire. If he just dove out of the way like any other human would, why the hell would he be taken by surprise that he avoided it, like some green recruit on his first time in a gunfight?
"Omigosh, I rolled out of the way and a few bullets didn't hit me! Isn't that amazing?! Did you see that?!"
You're cherry picking, seriously.
indeed its a crap rule, I dont like a lot of KMC rules, but I dont care for breaking any of them either.
Oh so he was running?
diving its a form of dodging something, if a large plane was about to fall on top of you and at the last minute you jumped out of the way, your dodging it. Definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dodge :
1. To avoid (a blow, for example) by moving or shifting quickly aside.
2. To evade (an obligation, for example) by cunning, trickery, or deceit: kept dodging the reporter's questions.
3. To blunt or reduce the intensity of (a section of a photograph) by shading during the printing process.
Does it actually say he dodged them the way your implying he did? judging by what you said a few lines up, it was a course he was supposedly running through.
Being able to take gunfire doesnt take away from the fact surprise at being able to escape the fire.
Your ignoring important information and seem to lack understanding of the definition of a dodge, if you want to prove Chief can percieve bullets coming at him and indeed move accordingly thats not going to help you because every post you make seems to hint that your not telling me the whole story. E.g. he was supposedly running through the course.
Originally posted by Burning thought
indeed its a crap rule, I dont like a lot of KMC rules, but I dont care for breaking any of them either.Oh so he was running?
E.g. he was supposedly [b]running
through the course. [/b]
It says that he "stood and let the bullets deflect off his armor"....read properly.
Originally posted by Burning thought
diving its a form of dodging something, if a large plane was about to fall on top of you and at the last minute you jumped out of the way, your dodging it. Definition from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dodge :Does it actually say he dodged them the way your implying he did? judging by what you said a few lines up, it was a course he was supposedly running through.
Being able to take gunfire doesnt take away from the fact surprise at being able to escape the fire.
Your ignoring important information and seem to lack understanding of the definition of a dodge, if you want to prove Chief can percieve bullets coming at him and indeed move accordingly thats not going to help you because every post you make seems to hint that your not telling me the whole story.
What you're doing is separating one word from the rest of its context massively in order to make your point, so all this you just said is total noise. You're not considering what was happening before and after.
You are implying that the Chief stood and let bullets deflect off of him, and then dove/rolled to the side totally randomly and then acted surprised when the bullets missed him like he hasn't ever done it in his life. The very idea of that is just silly. He's been in and out of combat situations for decades, why would he act surprised that he dove and gunfire missed him?
No, I'm not telling you the whole story, I just said that earlier. Thanks for paying attention. What I do is give you the relevant parts - and then the irrelevant parts when you complain, but that aside, you still form wild conjecture. See above.
You assumed that because he was in an obstacle course he was running simply because it suited your argument; despite the fact that I clearly stated that it was designed to test much more than just running speed, also the one-line-passage that I included that said clearly that he stood still and took it.
You also totally missed the point, from what I can see in this statement:
Being able to take gunfire doesnt take away from the fact surprise at being able to escape the fire.
Escaping gunfire, he's been doing that for decades. Still no explanation as to why he'd be still surprised.
I don't think I really need to say any more here.
Now, if you want to reply with anything, I suggest first explaining to me as to why a battle hardened soldier with 30+ years of combat experience encased in armor would act surprised if he rolled or dove and a few bullets missed him that wouldn't have harmed him anyway even if they had hit.
Originally posted by DarkC
It says that he "[b]stood and let the bullets deflect off his armor"....read properly.Awesome, dictionary definitions. I was wondering when you were going to bring that up.
What you're doing is separating one word from the rest of its context massively in order to make your point, so all this you just said is total noise. You're not considering what was happening before and after.
You are implying that the Chief stood and let bullets deflect off of him, and then dove/rolled to the side totally randomly and then acted surprised when the bullets missed him like he hasn't ever done it in his life. The very idea of that is just silly. He's been in and out of combat situations for decades, why would he act surprised that he dove and gunfire missed him?
No, I'm not telling you the whole story, I just said that earlier. Thanks for paying attention. What I do is give you the relevant parts - and then the irrelevant parts when you complain, but that aside, you still form wild conjecture. See above.
You assumed that because he was in an obstacle course he was running simply because it suited your argument; despite the fact that I clearly stated that it was designed to test much more than just running speed, also the one-line-passage that I included that said clearly that he stood still and took it.
You also totally missed the point, from what I can see in this statement:
That was meant to indicate that he was testing the armor, not having been used to it.
Escaping gunfire, he's been doing that for decades. Still no explanation as to why he'd be still surprised.
I don't think I really need to say any more here, you just totally owned yourself with that reply.
Now, if you want to reply with anything, I suggest first explaining to me as to why a battle hardened soldier with 30+ years of combat experience encased in armor would act surprised if he rolled or dove and a few bullets missed him that wouldn't have harmed him anyway even if they had hit. [/B]
So wtf are you saying? by standing still he also somehow percieving and dodging bullets at the same time? its obvious that he is going to move to escape those bullets in the first place, I knew youd slip up on that one 🙄
No ime reading what the definition says, evading and moving out of the way of an object is dodging, simple as, if its in teh form of a dive then so be it, take the definition or invent your own, but if you choose the later, ime not following.
well he hardly dodged anything by standing still did he.....well as you said, hes wearing heavy armour, its likey he was surprised he was so agile in the suit...
No you give me little bits that are fairly worthless on their own in a hope to think its enough, it displays nothing of how Chief reacts to bullets at all.
i assumed nothing, you said it:
Originally posted by DarkC
[i] And the bullets were from wall mounted chainguns in the obstacle course he was due to run through.
As I said, he was prob impressed at how agile he still is in the armour that looks heavier than full steel plate worn in medieval periods. It says quite clearly hes surprised about something, there is likely 100 reasonos someone can give to explain why he was surprised, weve gone through a few, thing is just because YOU assume he percivied each bullet and dodged according doesnt make it the right one and your argument falls flat right off the bat until you have a better quote.
Originally posted by Burning thought
So wtf are you saying? by standing still he also somehow percieving and dodging bullets at the same time? its obvious that he is going to move to escape those bullets in the first place, I knew youd slip up on that one 🙄
Anyways, having your feet planted doesn't mean you can't shift your body to dodge something, as Agent Smith so aptly demonstrated in the first Matrix movie.
Again, pay attention.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No ime reading what the definition says, evading and moving out of the way of an object is dodging, simple as, if its in teh form of a dive then so be it, take the definition or invent your own, but if you choose the later, ime not following.
That's precisely why I said you were separating that one word totally out of context simply to wave a Webster definition in my face as thought it actually meant something. You're still doing it.
Originally posted by Burning thought
well he hardly dodged anything by standing still did he.....well as you said, hes wearing heavy armour, its likey he was surprised he was so agile in the suit...
Originally posted by Burning thought
No you give me little bits that are fairly worthless on their own in a hope to think its enough, it displays nothing of how Chief reacts to bullets at all.
[QUOTE=11558522]Originally posted by Burning thought
[b]i assumed nothing, you said it:
Might you recall that I mentioned that the other tests included, in the rest of the paragraph that you yourself demanded to know, that there were more tests than just running speed? It's an obstacle course, Burning, not a race track. A drill instructor isn't going to go up to his recruits and describe every last task in the obstacle course.
You're taking definitions a little too seriously.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As I said, he was prob impressed at how agile he still is in the armour that looks heavier than full steel plate worn in medieval periods.
Originally posted by Burning thought
It says quite clearly hes surprised about something, there is likely 100 reasonos someone can give to explain why he was surprised, weve gone through a few, thing is just because YOU assume he percivied each bullet and dodged according doesnt make it the right one and your argument falls flat right off the bat until you have a better quote.
He's not surprised about "something", that's what you're just trying to make up. It specifies.
"To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."
How the hell did you miss this? Where did you get this "there's like 100 reasons someone can give to explain why hes surprised" nonsense? It couldn't be clearer, he was amazed because he dodged bullets.
If you're going to ignore my point, ignore my post. Don't bother replying with petulant ignorance or weaselling.
Originally posted by DarkC
I said that he stood and let the bullets hit him. Not that he stood still while trying to dodge a bullet.Anyways, having your feet planted doesn't mean you can't shift your body to dodge something, as Agent Smith so aptly demonstrated in the first Matrix movie.
Again, pay attention.
Yes, the definition of it is all nice and well - it just doesn't match the context of the quote in any way whatsoever, as I have explained.
That's precisely why I said you were separating that one word totally out of context simply to wave a Webster definition in my face as thought it actually meant something. You're still doing it.
See above.
No, you assumed and misinterpreted. It's quite funny how you completely disregard past evidence when you sense that I've made the slightest mistake.
Might you recall that I mentioned that the other tests included, in the rest of the paragraph that you yourself demanded to know, that there were more tests than just running speed? It's an obstacle course, Burning, not a race track. A drill instructor isn't going to go up to his recruits and describe every last task in the obstacle course.
You're taking definitions a little too seriously.
Considering that the bullet dodging was the last thing he did in that obstacle course, he had ample time to get used to the suit. He did express pleasure at how the combat suit fit him like a second skin, but right when he was first outfitted - which was some time before. After that, he could move normally.
I gave you a proper and relevant quote, you just refuse to analyze it properly. Or aren't accepting it because it goes against your argument. Otherwise, don't insult my quotes simply because you can't find anything of use in them.
He's not surprised about "something", that's what you're just trying to make up. It specifies.
[b]"To his amazement, he even dodged one or two of the rounds."
How the hell did you miss this? Where did you get this "there's like 100 reasons someone can give to explain why hes surprised" nonsense? It couldn't be clearer, he was amazed because he dodged bullets.
If you're going to ignore my point, ignore my post. Don't bother replying with petulant ignorance or weaselling. [/B]
No you just tried to point out that he wasnt necesserily running through the obstacle course by saying he stood and took fire, then i made a mockery of that weak argument by pointing out its obvious he wasnt standing still to be dodging bullets so a period of time came between the instance of him taking bullets to his armour and dodging the bullet in which he moved, its not explained if he dodged, jumped, ran, or swerved in agent smith fashion.
As i said, your quote says otherwise, you said the course was meant for running...
As I said before, another assumption that we could continue to make all day long, it doesnt defeat any of my own assumptions of what could have happened at all, he could still be surprised that can dive or roll out of the fire of bullets in the same agile way a man without such a suit can.
Or i refuse to just agree with YOUR assumption, and as i said, dodged can be a dive, roll etc etc, the quote is worthless, it doesnt say how he dodged them, whether it was this super perception you think he has, or whethe its just a typical "James bond dodges the bullet fire" kind of thing, your still just pulling assumptions out of your ass to help your argument and failing at it.
and if your going to post worthless quotes from a book that doesnt support your ridiculous assumptions or views dont bother "trying" to debate, your merely making a fool of yourself.
Originally posted by Burning thought
No you just tried to point out that he wasnt necesserily running through the obstacle course by saying he stood and took fire
Problems?
Originally posted by Burning thought
then i made a mockery of that weak argument by pointing out its obvious he wasnt standing still to be dodging bullets
I think it was quite obvious that the 'dodging' would not have been the word used if this was the case.. I have listed the various field tests in chronological order that the Chief put the armor through - did you pay that any attention? Apparently not.
"...he stood, and let the bullets deflect off his armor."
He let it happen, he wasn't even trying to dodge it at that instant, he did after his little 'durability test' was over. Yet again, keep up.
It's absurb to even consider that you would go to this length to pursue a dead point.
Originally posted by Burning thought
so a period of time came between the instance of him taking bullets to his armour and dodging the bullet in which he moved, its not explained if he dodged, jumped, ran, or swerved in agent smith fashion.
He's never actually 'dodged' a bullet before he was outfitted with the armor, which would be why he was surprised that the suit lets him react that quickly. You're still making it sound like he dived out of the way, and acted like a fresh green recruit in his first firefight by being surprised.
Which, by the way, I asked you to explain. In reply, you set up a strawman fallacy.
Absurd.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As i said, your quote says otherwise, you said the course was meant for running...
I simply don't understand why I have to explain such a ridiculously simple concept to this extent. I hopefully won't address this again.
Originally posted by Burning thought
As I said before, another assumption that we could continue to make all day long
Originally posted by Burning thought
it doesnt defeat any of my own assumptions of what could have happened at all
The thing with your 'versions' is, they all lack logical and sequential order. They only make sense or might be true if you remove one or more circumstances from the situation, something which would be logical fallacy.
Originally posted by Burning thought
he could still be surprised that can dive or roll out of the fire of bullets in the same agile way a man without such a suit can.
He first expressed his comfort and ease with how the suit fit him and how he could move, some time before the actual obstacle course. The Master Chief was the first Spartan to be outfitted with the armor and to move in it - Dr. Halsey was demonstrating to the other Spartans and coaching Chief through basic movements like walking and jogging.
Besides, it would be common sense to actually let the Spartans get used to basic movement in the armor before throwing them in the midst of a combat obstacle course, which they did.
Originally posted by Burning thought
[b]Or i refuse to just agree with YOUR assumption, and as i said, dodged can be a dive, roll etc etc, the quote is worthless, it doesnt say how he dodged them, whether it was this super perception you think he has, or whethe its just a typical "James bond dodges the bullet fire" kind of thing, your still just pulling assumptions out of your ass to help your argument and failing at it. [/b]
While it doesn't describe how he actually dodges it, you can still peer at the circumstances surrounding the actual event and put the pieces together.
Why your theory doesn't make sense, I'll explain right here.
You attempt to pass off the vision that the Master Chief - right after standing still briefly to absorb some bullets to see the stopping power of the armor, for some reason dove unnecessarily to the side on a obstacle training course for the sake of avoiding a few bullets.
Let's go over the facts:
1.) He didn't need to avoid the bullets.
The MJOLNIR combat armor is quite capable of taking human-based weaponry. As attested to in the intro of First Strike, taking a full clip of assault rifle fire point blank feels like absorbing "a series of rapid lower body impacts".
This is an obstacle training course, not a life or death combat zone. It would be completely unnecessary to have to do a tuck and roll or a straight dive out of the way as you have suggested, considering that he just tested the durability of the armor by standing and taking a few hits successfully. It would make sense for him to test his reflexes at some point, especially since none of the other parts of the obstacle course put it to a trial or was mentioned to do such.
2.) He was surprised that he dodged said bullets. Not by something else.
Considering all the operations and things he's been through, the new capabilities of the armor, and the context of the quote I provided, it stands to reason that he did indeed dodge the rounds, as the author clearly wrote.
If he meant diving, or rolling out of the way, he would have said such.
You're resorting to putting words in an author's mouth, twisting it, and claiming that it has a different meaning than face value.
Not buying, sorry.
3.) He wouldn't have been surprised by the fact that the bullets missed him if he had committed to a plain roll or dive.
At that point in time, Master Chief was likely in his mid thirties when he donned his first suit of MJOLNIR. He first became classified as a professional soldier at the age of 6, and started running major operations at around 14, right after they got their surgical augmentations.
He's been in and out of major combat situations for close to two decades and is mentally toughened more than any other soldier in the UNSC. Point being - he's an extremely hard person to surprise.
If you're suggesting that the simple act of tucking and rolling to avoid a burst of machine gun fire will, in the words of the quote, arouse his "amazement", then that's being stupid on multiple levels.
There you go. There are the solid facts, plain and simple; undeniable.
And you have none - just conjecture and wild theories.
Game over.
Originally posted by Burning thought
and if your going to post worthless quotes from a book that doesnt support your ridiculous assumptions or views dont bother "trying" to debate, your merely making a fool of yourself.
You're insulting the quote itself now and calling it worthless when curiously, you were analyzing it earlier and using your misinterpretation in an attempt to topple mine, when you quite literally have no valid theory, not even so much as a whim of supporting evidence. Since you can't use it, you dismiss it right after and claim it as 'worthless'.
Hypocrite.
I challenged you to make sense of why a battle hardened soldier would behave like a wet-behind-the-ears recruit. You still have not given a straight and concise answer, despite me pressing you to. Instead, you've set up the fabled 'strawman fallacy' in an attempt to divert attention away from it, in a rather poor attempt to pass my theory off as apparently 'one of hundreds of possible ones'. Possible =/= likely.
I shouldn't need to remind you of all this, but you go ahead and do it anyway. So....where does that leave us now, Burning? What have you left to do or say that you haven't done already? You've gone so far past the line you probably don't even remember when you've crossed it. Right now you have dodged and avoided, finger-pointed and acting generally ignorant, whether on purpose or not. You've even recklessly ploughed on by insulting the actual quote - the one you requested yourself - simply because you either cannot make sense of it, or that it doesn't suit your needs. Why is my view ridiculous? How doesn't it support it? Give me facts. Give me solid evidence or a refutation, not some silly generalization or more random stabs in the dark. You say all these things and do positively nothing to back it up properly, and then come out of expecting to look squeaky clean? Silly.
Lol, you make all these silly desperate claims that I'm making a fool of myself. How?
I have provided clear evidence and facts, you have not. You only have conjecture to back you up, and half-baked theories that don't make sense when you look at the general picture - judging from this, how in the hell can you make these claims when you are so clearly wrong?
With all that being said, I fully expect your next reply to be filled to the brim with petulant excuses, insults, nonsense, and logical fallacy.
Touche.