What can make you change your views on a battle in which you have a definite winner ?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think limitless is a crass term when it comes to measuring strength, incalculable is what's used to describe strength that's well beyond basic Class 100. Like Martian Manhunter is shown to be weaker than Superman yet he's still said to have incalculable strength. That means that while his limits have never been measured in terms of lifting he's still not infinitely strong because Superman can overpower him.

I was referring to Thor and Superman overcoming forces of apparent infinite strength etc.

Not the entire incalculable class. Everyone from Namor to Kurse fall in that category.

Originally posted by Kris Blaze
If it doesn't say classic then he would have the Odinforce. Or we'd have only Thor 603 + his annual. That's two comics.

I'm also curious about how you managed to count 0 feats from the 90s. I can count a whole lot. You must not be able to count.

Originally posted by Galan007
except post-crisis superman has recollected quite a few of the pre-crisis/zero hour 'adventures' he had with the LoSH.

😕

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Certainly seemed you were trying to, with the let me use 20 plus year old feat comment.

Him participating with the Legion of Superheroes in the events with have seen are cannon. It doesn't however magically make any feats he had with the Legion of Superheroes Pre-Crisis cannon. Just pointing that out.

Hence why I originally said their should be a distinction of using feats for characters when they have noticeably gotten weaker.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
All those feats are outclasses by the ones in 70 & 80's right?

That's why it pays of to read the comics of the characters you argue about.

One of his greatest strength feats come from the early 90's as I recall. So does some of his greatest versatility feats.

He just has more feats from the 70's and 80's because he has vastly more appearances and as a result more showings from back then.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
All those feats are outclasses by the ones in 70 & 80's right?

Because first we never used Thor feats that were newer than year 2000. Naturally you have not read any of these comics, so you get a little frustrated and think you've come up with a killer argument. Then you're faced with the reality that Classic Thor stops in year 2001. Oh no! What then!

This is when you came up with the brilliant plan that we never posted any of his feats from the 90s! Ha-ha! The respect thread probably has not a single feat from those days! But alas, once again you were proven wrong. The respect thread is smitten with feats from the 90s. Ah shucks, such bad luck. It's just not simply fair that the claims you make up on the spot should turn out to be false. Dangit!

But here here, perhaps there is yet hope! Maybe there are no worthwhile feats from the 90s! Yes, this must be the case! But oh no! It turns out that in the 90s Thor fought and defeated the Dark Gods and better yet, it was the time when BRB, Adam Warlock and Surfer all went down like flies! Or wait, wasn't that the time when Thor pushed back the world-engine itself? Perhaps his greatest strength and willpower feat 'till day! No wait, the 90s, that's when Thor drained the Presence of his life-force, a very popular argument with the kids these days! Oh damn, there is just no getting a break for you, is it?

Let's hear the next ridiculous claim. 3 strikes, by all accounts you should be out by now.

Originally posted by xJLxKing
I think you made my point

Except if we talk about Thor, he has HASN'T gotten noticeably weaker or anything of the sort. He hasn't gotten weaker at all.

Stop being dense and making shit up. If you are referring to Thor of course.

There has been absolutely no evidence, that he has gotten weaker. You're argument consists of, "HE HAS MORE FEATS FROM BACK THEN SO CLEARLY HE WAS STRONGER BACK THEN", when you fail to take into account the fact that he has more than 90% of his appearances from those years. The showings he does have from the early 00's and the 90's however do rival and surpass his showings from back then. So you're argument is completely baseless.

This thread is closed until everyone cools off. There have been more reports from this thread today than we've had all week.