Originally posted by Galan007
Come to think of it, Extremis modified all of Tony's senses (sight included.) And since Extremis is a form of tech, there is a possibility that Tony might not be able to see Mister Terrific, even with his 'human' eyes.umm
It's a little bit murky at the moment, but if you read the original Extremis arc you'd see that the Extremis virus was something that caused physiological mutations in the infected. That is to say, when it was done, the powers didn't come from Extremis itself being laced into the user's cells or anything like that, but what had happened is that it had artificially made that person a mutant.
So that SHOULDN'T be the case.
I say it's murky, because it's very obvious that Matt Fraction is treating the Extremis as though it's a sort of technoorganic virus, as though it is something that can be 'infected' with alien viruses and what not. That shouldn't have been the case, but that is the way it played out in Secret Invasion, so I don't know.
Anyway, Mr. Terrific is awesome, but no, without significant amounts of one sided prep time he isn't going to be able to mess with Tony. The T Spheres are powerful, but for a much lower weight class. Yeah, he was able to create teleportation tech with them on the fly recently against Kobra, but not just with 5 minutes of prep.
That said, if Bruce Banner can mess with Dr. Doom on the fly, maybe Mr. Terrific could do the same with Iron Man. I'd doubt it, but it's possible. Now that JSA is a smaller team, perhaps we'll get more Mr. Terrific scenes.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You think Mr T could hack IM's armor remotely?
This is all based on intelligence ... Tony has more evidence to suggest he's better, if not a bit more unstable.
I love Mister terrific, IMO he's one of he most rational characters in all of comicdom. But He hasn't designed technology that put him basically onharge of the world, and can hold its own against god such as Thor.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
This is all based on intelligence ... Tony has more evidence to suggest he's better, if not a bit more unstable.I love Mister terrific, IMO he's one of he most rational characters in all of comicdom. But He hasn't designed technology that put him basically onharge of the world, and can hold its own against god such as Thor.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Rational? For the most part, yes. It stretches credibility that someone could be so entrenched in atheism considering that he was inspired to take up his current lifestyle as a crime fighter by the WRATH OF GOD. He tries very hard to come up with "scientific" explanations but there are times when it would make a lot more sense to admit that there is no scientific explanation. 😆
Lol, too right. Ironically in his reality, Mister T ( i will call him that from now on) best sums up the caliber of academic who believes in I.D. ( intelligent design). There's so many reasons to believe in it, but there is too much evidence to discredit it. I think it was in Infinite crisis that he uses Occam's razor to suggest that psionic-echoes, to explain some blatantly religious thing? YEAH good one, spoken like a true scinetist there !!???
Originally posted by Desaad
But even Reed Richards believes that 'magic' is just science with a different set of rules.
Deoes science by Reed Richards standard match up to general conception of magic ???? I don't think it does. In the end, it was entirely based on Richards conception and whether it could incorporate his conception of magic ... and as the last guy mentioned, it obviously didn't.
Its based entirely on the writers interpretation of "technology", and in the end this is very controversial. And does Mister T's devices work on a conceptional version of technology or just a human development upto a point, perspective??? If it does, I think its bullshit, after all Mister T doesn't really believe in any kind of meta physical form of epistemic's, everything is founded in science.
P.S. really drunk again !!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Mindset
OK, that's completely irrelevant to anything we were talking about, but you would be wrong, anyway.
Cool the attitude, first of all.
Second of all, 'you' weren't discussing anything -- so far as I can tell, your only post was in response to me.
Third of all, I'm sorry that you can't suss out the point I'm making, but there is no reason to get snarky about it. You could have just asked me to clarify.
Reed Richards, perhaps Marvel's most rational mind, still tried to fit magic into the confines of science. It's a standard convention of the genre that scientific geniuses -- no matter HOW rational they might be - refuse to accept 'magic' as something wholly different, unexplainable by science, precisely BECAUSE such a thing would, by definition, be IRRATIONAL.
Therefore, there is nothing inherently 'irrational' about Mr. Terrific not believing in magic, at least in the context of scientific rationale.
Get it?
Originally posted by Desaad
Cool the attitude, first of all.Second of all, 'you' weren't discussing anything -- so far as I can tell, your only post was in response to me.
Third of all, I'm sorry that you can't suss out the point I'm making, but there is no reason to get snarky about it. You could have just asked me to clarify.
Reed Richards, perhaps Marvel's most rational mind, still tried to fit magic into the confines of science. It's a standard convention of the genre that scientific geniuses -- no matter HOW rational they might be - refuse to accept 'magic' as something wholly different, unexplainable by science, precisely BECAUSE such a thing would, by definition, be IRRATIONAL.
Therefore, there is nothing inherently 'irrational' about Mr. Terrific not believing in magic, at least in the context of scientific rationale.
Get it?
U are making a good point, but there is no 1,2,3, points here, u are just re articulating the same point three times.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
U are making a good point, but there is no 1,2,3, points here, u are just re articulating the same point three times.
You're drunk, so I'm going to excuse your reading ability here, but my 'first of all' wasn't a point, it was telling him to cool it. My 'second of all', was pointing out that he wasn't a part of the original conversation, despite trying to insert himself into it. And then my 'third of all' was my actual point.
I was saying I had 3 points. I was breaking up the things I had to say.
Originally posted by Desaad
You're drunk, so I'm going to excuse your reading ability here, but my 'first of all' wasn't a point, it was telling him to cool it. My 'second of all', was pointing out that he wasn't a part of the original conversation, despite trying to insert himself into it. And then my 'third of all' was my actual point.I was saying I had 3 points. I was breaking up the things I had to say.
1.) Anybody
2.)Can
3.)DO
4.)that
5.)but
6.),
7.)There
8.)Is
9.)No
10.)Need
because it looks really pretentious, unless u are making as many different points. Even when Im drunk, I can understand that. U are just putting a weird kind of spin on the claim u are making."I have three criticisms", when I really only have one etc.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
1.) Anybody
2.)Can
3.)DO
4.)that
5.)but
6.),
7.)There
8.)Is
9.)No
10.)Need
I think the saddest thing is that you really believe that breaking up words is the same thing as breaking up statements.
because it looks really pretentious,
"First of all" is just about the least pretentious phrase one can use, I would think. If I wanted to appear erudite, I would use more esoteric terms to make it clear that I was belittling one's intelligence.
But I didn't do that, despite the obviously dismissive nature of Mindset's second response to me. It was just a stylistic choice of how to organize my response to him, nothing else.
unless u are making as many different points. Even when Im drunk, I can understand that. U are just putting a weird kind of spin on the claim u are making."I have three criticisms", when I really only have one etc.
But...no. Again, I don't think you're understanding. I was simply marking out each statement to be clearer. I wasn't pretending to have three points, just three, discrete, unrelated things to say. Nothing more than that. You're reading far too much into it.
Originally posted by DesaadThank you.
Cool the attitude, first of all.Second of all, 'you' weren't discussing anything -- so far as I can tell, your only post was in response to me.
Third of all, I'm sorry that you can't suss out the point I'm making, but there is no reason to get snarky about it. You could have just asked me to clarify.
Reed Richards, perhaps Marvel's most rational mind, still tried to fit magic into the confines of science. It's a standard convention of the genre that scientific geniuses -- no matter HOW rational they might be - refuse to accept 'magic' as something wholly different, unexplainable by science, precisely BECAUSE such a thing would, by definition, be IRRATIONAL.
Therefore, there is nothing inherently 'irrational' about Mr. Terrific not believing in magic, at least in the context of scientific rationale.
Get it?
My response included me into the discussion.
Reed eventually accepted magic as being something wholly different.
Originally posted by Desaad
I think the saddest thing is that you really believe that breaking up words is the same thing as breaking up statements."First of all" is just about the least pretentious phrase one can use, I would think. If I wanted to appear erudite, I would use more esoteric terms to make it clear that I was belittling one's intelligence.
But I didn't do that, despite the obviously dismissive nature of Mindset's second response to me. It was just a stylistic choice of how to organize my response to him, nothing else.
But...no. Again, I don't think you're understanding. I was simply marking out each statement to be clearer. I wasn't pretending to have three points, just three, discrete, unrelated things to say. Nothing more than that. You're reading far too much into it.
This is what u claimed before ... I'm only reading into what u are suggesting.
U can read back, its quite clear this is what u claimed.