Originally posted by tjcoady
Regardless of whether or not you're right, it's a moot point.Spoiler:.
Thor has already forgiven Iron Man. He and Captain America both say, in Invincible Iron Man that the past doesn't matter in the light of Tony's need. They confirm that they acknowledge the problems, but are cool about it
That's more down to a value of life than forgiveness of the person.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's spelled SIEGE, people.Really.
How? [spoiler]Marvel have made him one of The Avengers, that much is blatantly clear from all the stupidly spoilerific solicits, but that doesn't make him forgiving Stark any less ridiculous to me. We don't even know if he will, or if he does, why he does. Besides my point was hypothetical; in a logical world, Thor doesn't forgive Stark and doesn't become an Avenger. That much is obvious. However, he has a movie coming out, The Avengers have a movie coming out and they obviously wanna make money, so Thor is an Avenger. Everyone knew deep down that if they reformed them, Thor would be there. Steve isn't, but Captain America is (Though I'd say Steve will become Cap again as his movie comes out, or rejoin The Avengers AS Cap). There's only one Thor.
GO back and READ my original response to you .. I said you were probably wrong for these very reasons ... We are referring to a fictional realm not a "Logical" one ... Logical is not the appropriate term in the circumstance, I think you mean our Standard social world.
You were the one who was originally Idiosyncratically prescribing real world psychology to the inevitable make up - Don't accuse me of doing it !!!!!!
" They won't be on the same team, because in the real world Thor would BLAh, BLAH, BLAH ..." - A.C.
This sentence contains a blatant LOGICAL contradiction, let a lone the anthropomorphic reasoning behind it.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So I don't see how or why you got so excited. "Inevitable spin-doctoring" clearly means that you knew I could and would counter you, but YOU wanted to put a negative spin on it first. You don't get much more spin-doctory than that, sir. Not that anybody really cares about me on here as much as you.
You've adjusted you're original claim, to ecompass the reasoning I used against you ... and then claimed; this manipulated perspective was yours all along ? ... I consider this spin doctoring
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you can't debate me without somehow dipping into your endless reservoir of interest in me PERSONALLY, then just save us both the time. I have enough people unsettlingly interested in me on this forum without you adding to the numbers.-AC
This is juts a load of gash ... I think I've responded to you no more than four times in the last month-the last involved an incident when you indirectly got someone banned after crying about spoilers again. ... Its hardly what I would call an obsession.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
GO back and READ my original response to you .. I said you were probably wrong for these very reasons ... We are referring to a fictional realm not a "Logical" one ... Logical is not the appropriate term in the circumstance, I think you mean our Standard social world.You were the one who was originally Idiosyncratically prescribing real world psychology to the inevitable make up - Don't accuse me of doing it !!!!!!
" They won't be on the same team, because in the real world Thor would BLAh, BLAH, BLAH ..." - A.C.
This sentence contains a blatant LOGICAL contradiction, let a lone the anthropomorphic reasoning behind it.
Me correcting your original misinterpretation of my post is not spin-doctoring.
I think you just like saying that phrase.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
You've adjusted you're original claim, to ecompass the reasoning I used against you ... and then claimed; this manipulated perspective was yours all along ? ... I consider this spin doctoringThis is juts a load of gash ... I think I've responded to you no more than four times in the last month-the last involved an incident when you indirectly got someone banned after crying about spoilers again. ... Its hardly what I would call an obsession.
No, admitting to have "watched" me for many years on this forum, going back to my early days here? That is what I'd call an obsession. You seem to feel you have this entire psychological profile on me for some reason, and it's mildly disturbing.
You, like many others, can't seem to stand me. Yet, you will not stop giving me attention.
-AC
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Why is it that every second post that you make (which may be an off estimate, I'm only in this forum so often) seems to be about criticizing how fans go about being fans?You're not improving anything. It just comes off as preaching and holier-than-thou.
The irony is in your own way you're worse than he is.
Moved here because it's more relevant.
Originally posted by Battlehammer
as for him not being a member I find difficult that one can say they disagree with him being one why thinking spiderman being one makes sense. Spiderman more of a loner then Wolverine is. Wolverine been on several teams and for decades. He very uses to being on teams. Spidermans been on very few teams and really the longest he ever been on a team is new avengers. So it makes more sense for Wolverine to be on a team then Spiderman. They also had him on the new avengers due to his willingness to go were other members won't and nothing really change hell if anything they need some one on the team like that even more. He also has made several points that he disagree's with scots icesolation policies. He has no desire to sitt back and own protect his species. He wants to be out there in the thick of it which is why he jion the new avenegers to begin with. His run in civil war alone and his conversation with scot prove as much.thats my two cents on the matter. I feel it makes a lot of sense given his character and x-men of late and I believe it certainly makes more sense then mr spidy.
I really like the team from those previews there should be some great interactions.
Spider-Man doesn't go around priding himself on being a loner. It hasn't been the over-arching trait he's known to possess for a bulk of his life. He's been married openly and has had that as a massive part of his comic history. There was a wedding issue etc.
So that's why Spider-Man joining makes more sense in terms of who is a loner and who isn't. Wolverine chose solitude, Spider-Man had it thrust upon him.
As for Wolverine not wanting to sit back, that's fine. That doesn't counter my point, though. He wants to be out there doing shit, that's probably one of the reasons for X-Force, or his membership OF X-Force. That doesn't imply he's a team player, it implies he likes action.
Also, what's he gonna do? The Avengers are an example, they don't storm around killing people. What's Wolverine gonna do with his claws? Cap, Iron Man and Thor certainly aren't gonna let him run around stabbing people. He just doesn't fit into the team at all.
-AC
When did Spider-Man have solitude thrust upon him?
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriHuh? How is Wolverine any different in this respect than, say, Hawkeye with his arrows? Logan's killed, sure, but he also has many showings demonstrating his ability to avoid killing, as well as simply disabling and dismantling foes. Plus the vast majority of Avengers villains are going to take a lot more than a few claw strikes to be put down, if they're even affected.
Also, what's he gonna do? The Avengers are an example, they don't storm around killing people. What's Wolverine gonna do with his claws? Cap, Iron Man and Thor certainly aren't gonna let him run around stabbing people. He just doesn't fit into the team at all.-AC
I don't really see how simply possessing potentially deadly weapons should be a strike against Avengers membership.
I was speaking more of the lonely element of his character. That's not really by choice.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
When did Spider-Man have solitude thrust upon him?
Huh? How is Wolverine any different in this respect than, say, Hawkeye with his arrows? Logan's killed, sure, but he also has many showings demonstrating his ability to avoid killing, as well as simply disabling and dismantling foes. Plus the vast majority of Avengers villains are going to take a lot more than a few claw strikes to be put down, if they're even affected.I don't really see how simply possessing potentially deadly weapons should be a strike against Avengers membership.
When has Wolverine ever used trick claws? Hawkeye has arrows for all occasions, including non-lethals. Does Wolverine have non-lethal claws?
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriFunny, pretty sure Hawkeye doesn't just use trick arrows against opponents....
When has Wolverine ever used trick claws? Hawkeye has arrows for all occasions, including non-lethals. Does Wolverine have non-lethal claws?-AC
For that matter though, Wolverine's claws are retractable. He can just punch people, and has some of the best combat skills around, so it's not like he's any less equipped to deal with situations requiring non-lethal force than, say, Captain America.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Funny, pretty sure Hawkeye doesn't just use trick arrows against opponents....For that matter though, Wolverine's claws are retractable. He can just punch people, and has some of the best combat skills around, so it's not like he's any less equipped to deal with situations requiring non-lethal force than, say, Captain America.
Yes, because that's likely to happen isn't it? A comic in which Wolverine doesn't use his claws.
"Oops! Gotta retract these. Promo art only!". A likely scenario, I DON'T think.
My point was more to do with his character. He just doesn't have the attitude of someone who'd be on The Avengers. Secret Avengers, maybe.
Why do you think they recruited him when they were on the run and waging what amounts to a guerilla war? The Avengers are a prestige group that everyone is supposed to look up to.
-AC
You know, I'm going to miss Norman Osborn. 🙂
Years ago, I couldn't believe it when Marvel brought him back. But as he's been developed under Warren Ellis & Brian Bendis, I really like the Lex Luthor-Hannibal Lecter type vibe he brings to the table. As someone who didn't like the pro-reg side during Civil War, I enjoyed seeing Norman reap the rewards of taking charge when the pro-regers f*cked up with the Skrull Invasion, showing that they believe in being run by the government only when they have an insider in the hero community installed. I hope Norman just get re-assigned and returns to plague Reed & Tony (and makes Peter shut up once in a while.)
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriAbout as likely a comic as one where Hawkeye doesn't use potentially lethal arrows. Guess we should revoke his membership too.
Yes, because that's likely to happen isn't it? A comic in which Wolverine doesn't use his claws."Oops! Gotta retract these. Promo art only!". A likely scenario, I DON'T think.
My point was more to do with his character. He just doesn't have the attitude of someone who'd be on The Avengers. Secret Avengers, maybe.
Why do you think they recruited him when they were on the run and waging what amounts to a guerilla war? The Avengers are a prestige group that everyone is supposed to look up to.
-AC
For that matter, its also as likely as a comic where Wolverine kills with his claws without meaning to... if its a no-kill situation, then Logan won't kill the opponent with his claws...
The Avengers are first and foremost a unified defense for the helpless against the myriad of overpowered super-villains. If someone like Wolverine is deemed necessary for that goal to be obtained (as was previously the case), then so be it. This notion is especially relevant considering the post-SRA Marvel World where superheroes are representing more and more of a trained force structured specifically for civilian defense; it seems that welcoming someone with the clear training to avoid killing an opponent despite the capacity to do so is not such a strange decision as you make it out to be.
Originally posted by Original Smurph
About as likely a comic as one where Hawkeye doesn't use potentially lethal arrows. Guess we should revoke his membership too.For that matter, its also as likely as a comic where Wolverine kills with his claws without meaning to... if its a no-kill situation, then Logan won't kill the opponent with his claws...
The Avengers are first and foremost a unified defense for the helpless against the myriad of overpowered super-villains. If someone like Wolverine is deemed necessary for that goal to be obtained (as was previously the case), then so be it. This notion is especially relevant considering the post-SRA Marvel World where superheroes are representing more and more of a trained force structured specifically for civilian defense; it seems that welcoming someone with the clear training to avoid killing an opponent despite the capacity to do so is not such a strange decision as you make it out to be.
Hawkeye can use many kinds of arrows and it doesn't detract from his ability to shoot arrows. Wolverine's claws are his main feature. He either uses his lethal claws or he doesn't.
I honestly don't think he's going to take being ordered around or what not.
Granted, you're right. It's a different world now, someone like Wolverine would probably be of use in a time where the heroes accept that a little rough justice might be necessary.
-AC
Originally posted by roughriderMe too. He kinda grew on me.
You know, I'm going to miss Norman Osborn. 🙂Years ago, I couldn't believe it when Marvel brought him back. But as he's been developed under Warren Ellis & Brian Bendis, I really like the Lex Luthor-Hannibal Lecter type vibe he brings to the table. As someone who didn't like the pro-reg side during Civil War, I enjoyed seeing Norman reap the rewards of taking charge when the pro-regers f*cked up with the Skrull Invasion, showing that they believe in being run by the government only when they have an insider in the hero community installed. I hope Norman just get re-assigned and returns to plague Reed & Tony (and makes Peter shut up once in a while.)
Originally posted by Battlehammer
How would he be the worst pick?
Regarding why Deadpool would be just about the worst pick to lead ANY group, much less the Secret Avengers; that is obvious to anyone remotely familiar with Deadpool.
The man is an amoral assassin who is mental beyond compare, with two voices in his head who enjoys killing people.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriRegarding why Deadpool would be just about the worst pick to lead ANY group, much less the Secret Avengers; that is obvious to anyone remotely familiar with Deadpool.
The man is an amoral assassin who is mental beyond compare, with two voices in his head who enjoys killing people.
-AC [/B]
Agreed, and he has much leadership qualities as he has sculpted good looks.
IMO, I think somone like Bucky would make the best case for Secret Avengers leadership, but I don't think he's gonna be a secret Avenger. Him or Nick Fury, playing a field Marshall Henri Benedix role, in the background, with Electra/Black Widow as field leader ?
Im really looking forward to this storyline though, It reminds me of J.L.A elite which was one of the best D.C. books around before Infinite Crisis. It also has the potential to reach the heights of Ellis's black ops, Stormwatch book. So good !