Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Other thoughts in mind:6 blind men and elephant.
All convinced they are right.
All right to some extent.
All wrong to some extent.
Would benefit greatly from being able to share what they are experiencing with each other, but have to be willing to listen and take the time to do that ...-------------------------------------------------------------------
That might be true to a degree. But considering that you've failed to account for proof in some of your arguments, such as the fact that Superman's had a power-up between ACTION COMICS #586 and SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF TOMORROW #13, and had a power-up(technically multiple power-ups) between SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL #13 and WONDER WOMAN #219, and have failed to provide any ACTUAL showings for Wonder Woman being stronger, you would be blind, deaf AND dumb(note, I'm referring to you can't speak, not insulting your intelligence. But I REFUSE to be Politically Correct and say "mute" instead, just like I refuse to refer to autistic people with a genius-skill as "savants" instead of the previously used "idiot-savant" and refuse to refer to midgets as "Little People" because F being Politically Correct!! It's stupid and is causing problems that shouldn't be happening; but I'm clarifying because even in this context "dumb" can indeed be confused).
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"bouncing around eras charge" is a catch-22It's what I SAID I would do almost from the beginning.
And it's really not bouncing around. Scan through the thread from the beginning and you will find it going in chronological order, slowly but surely, 1940s and William Marston, 1950s and Kanigher, JLA and Gardner Fox, 1960s ...
The older comics are useful for making analogies and illustrations.
Simpler with less complex stories, but often more extreme situations.
So you can often illustrate principles and concepts a lot easier and then demonstrate how they are at work in more contemporary stories.
This coming from the guy who dismisses examples from before 2003 as they "don't count" because they "are really different characters" and refusing to concede when proven wrong multiple times.
Now, I understand what you're trying to argue. Too bad though that it's all a strawman argument, and thus is irrelevant. Stick to the actual showings of feats, direct contests of strength, and comparative performances against common opponents. Superman beats her in those categories all through-out 1986-2011. Of course we don't need to include everything between 1986 and 2003 to prove it, but using those examples just strengthens the point.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It's also the only real way to address an argument that may or may not have been said here, but ALWAYS comes up on other board discussions of Superman and Wonder Woman and whether or not it is "legitimate" to have her ranked with him. Does Wonder Woman have a HISTORY to justify people's regard?Again, our friend Suprememan provides 3rd party illustration:
suprememanPosts: 21
Registered: 6/1/07Re: How MUCH stronger than Superman is Diana?
Posted: Sep 14, 2010 5:18 PM in response to: guest2Conceptually or not though, Superman has a history of doing things like moving planets. It's fine to add that to her abilities but it is something new although it is justifiable under her concept.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme was then shown some instances of Wonder Woman moving the heavy stuff then, though, much as you can see in this thread and have probably seen elsewhere by now, and note the response ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suprememanPosts: 21
Registered: 6/1/07Re: How MUCH stronger than Superman is Diana?
Posted: Sep 16, 2010 7:51 PM in response to: guest2Well, color me amazed. Obviously Superman doing stuff like that (and I'm sure some other characters did such things too though not necessarily by strength) is simply more remembered and hyped.
Strangely enough, I am quite happy to lose this argument. I have felt that Wonder Woman *should be* portrayed as on Superman's level though I can see arguments both ways on that one and have ocasionally gone the other way but I never really thought she had been portrayed as being on his strength level which was the primary issue for me. But clearly there were events where she was.
So, this stuff DOES affect how people think about the characters.
And it DOES matter to people.The very fact that this thread got more than 10,000 views added to it since I started posting here should tell you that, and I actually took one or two screen captures of the KMC viewcounts FOR this thread and posted THAT earlier IN this very thread if you want to prove that to yourself.
The problem with using Supermeman's response is he's ignorant of Superman's history, is effected by the "Shock-And-Awe" effect of learning Wonder Woman's feats, or some combination of both, to miss that, even though you've proven she's pretty strong even in the past, she's still inferior to Superman. Superman creating a star still beats Wonder Woman towing one. As I pointed-out, a more accurate analogy than your "what's more impressive? Moving a house or building it with bricks?" is my "what's more impressive? Moving a doghouse made of titanium or molding a mass of titanium into a doghouse with your bare hands?"