Thor Vs. Firelord and Air-Walker

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ Anti-Surfer aura. Just like Drax's anti-Thanos aura. Clearly. You can only see this aura in-between panels though. Author and artist thought it would be so plain to see they didn't bother wasting page space.

uhuh Nobody argues that this Thor was completely vicious and blood-lusted. But stop trying to take the obviousness of that premise and confuse it with a power-amp. Because you're still making a Super Mario-worthy jump from Thor's soul was in torment -------> Thor enjoyed an off-panel power amp that isn't mentioned through 20+ issues.

And, like darthgoober, you're arbitrarily ignoring the absurdity that ensues once you lock in that position that cannot be avoided: a hurt, beat up BRB must have enjoyed a SUPER off-panel amp to lay out this ambiguously amped Thor.

Awesome.

I'm not saying he had an off panel amp. I'm saying he acted and performed in a manner, on panel, which he can't consciously replicate due to the unique circumstances which precipitated his behavior and actions.

And your flippancy is wasted.

Originally posted by illadelph12
I'm not saying he had an off panel amp. I'm saying he acted and performed in a manner, on panel, which he can't consciously replicate due to the unique circumstances which precipitated his behavior and actions.

Originally posted by illadelph12
I'm not saying he had an off panel amp. I'm saying he acted and performed in a manner, on panel, which he can't consciously replicate due to the unique circumstances which precipitated his behavior and actions.

And your flippancy is wasted.

It's for my benefit as much as it is your's. uhuh

Originally posted by darthgoober
So only the fanboys disagree with your interpretation huh? You do realize that your statement could easily be rebutted with something to the effect of "only people with a hard on for Thor believe Warlock meant anything other than that Thor was more powerful" right?

Yeah he does fight differently, and that MIGHT be what Warlock was talking about, but IMO he was saying Thor was more powerful.

I knew that turn around was coming. I forgot what my planed rebuttal was though 🙁 (Stupid Xbox) Anyways, I guess it's only fair, but I've been to other boards, and from what I understand, this "Thor was amped" stance isn't nearly as widely accepted as you make it out to me. Don't get me wrong, some people will argue it would make more sense that Thor was amped, or call it a jobber fest -this has happened more that once- but there simply isn't any evidence to support the stance Thor was amped before he got the Power Gem.

Your entire stance depends on an off hand statement from Warlock as far as I can tell. Or maybe the comment from Bill -who thought Thor was under Warrior Madness by the way- and I simply don't understand how you don't see how illogical and flimsy your case is. It was nearly a 20 issue arc and not once was it clearly stated that Thor was amped. Not once.

An amp wouldn't even make sense. At best you can argue Thor was tapping into some well spring of strength/power he doesn't normally access except when goes Destroyer damaging, Celestial fighting, Mangog killing mode.

Let's for argument's sake agree that Warlock said Thor was more powerful. How does that change anything really? The Thor he fought would have been more powerful than the brick he fought as Him. Simply put Thor's power > His strength. To Warlock, he went from being a Hulk level brick with incredible skill to the powerful monster that we saw.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get across here.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Simple, Thor was easily taking out people far easier than he should be capable of plus Bill and Warlock's statements. It may not be enough to convince you, but that doesn't mean it's not enough to convince others.

I can't prove my interpretation of Warlock's statement anymore than you can prove yours.

Agreeing with you on what? I'm saying that numbers ARE valid in figuring out which is the more obvious interpretation, I thought you were saying differently?

^That right there seems to be the core of your stance to me.

Thor did something you think should be beyond him i.e. stomping the Surfer. So your trying to come up with this vague power up to somehow invalidate the scenes. It doesn't even seem to matter to you that Thor has better feats above what he did during Blood and Thunder. Surfer's involvement and eventual beat down is why your so hung up on this.

Every time Thor overcomes his supposed "limits", or bounces back from a beat down, is there an an amp involved?

Right after Blood and Thunder, Thor defeated Beta Ray Bill with one hit - albeit Bill was off balance. Was he amped there?

Or how about when Thor matched Kurse in a contest of strength -who was outright stated to be over 2x stronger than Thor- and then tossed him not too long after Blood and Thunder? Was he amped there?

Or how about when he overcame the power of the Yggdrasil -Cosmic Axis- and World Engine, turning back time and in turn the end of everything? Thor literally said he must grow and that he doesn't give a shit that he was violating laws. Was he amped there?

Thor's stalemated an enrage Hulk in a contest of strenght for hours, killed both the Hulk and Thing in an armed combat when pissed off. His temporarily put down Mangog, damaged the f*cking Destroyer Armor itself, and even outperformed Odin for Thor's sake. Was he amped in those scenes as well?

You basically just told me that because Thor did something that you think he shouldn't be capable off, he was amped. Do you not see how flawed that is?

And Bill's statement can be interpreted in various ways. For one, Thor's feelings for the Valkyrie could be pushing him, lending him strength. This has happened on more than one occasion in comics. Two weeks ago, Thor defeated Surtur because he drew strength from his rage and so on. Albeit it was a previous Ragnarok cycle but that's the best example I can come up with. I can use Superman if you want.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Trying what?

Fraid it doesn't work like that. See the whole "no PIS" thing is a forum rule so people who argue it aren't the one's who need to find a new subject to debate, the people who refuse to discuss the concept are.

Well I'm not, because the two are too close in power for Bill to end up in a fetal position so quickly. Regardless though, I was just pointing out that I'm not catering to a double standard like you thought.

Debating.

So who get's to decide what PIS is? If Surfer beats down Thor next Wednesday and I declare it PIS, does that make it invalid?

Originally posted by illadelph12
I'm simply saying that the events of Blood & Thunder can't be reproduced because there are additional factors which can't be ignored. That wasn't mere insanity, which was the premise of the arc and reason for Odin's intervention. In my opinion there's no reason to believe that Thor could accomplish those same feats outside of the extraordinary circumstances of that scenario. The manipulations of his soul had, in my opinion, obvious effects on his behavior and abilities. Effects I don't believe he can spontaneously replicate.

Every time Odin created another version of Thor and so on, they took a piece of him. This happened so many times it caused an imbalance in Thor. Odin reduced his son to "bits and pieces". He drove Thor mad.

In what way did that have an effect on Thor's abilities? Are you saying that how powerful Thor is, depends on his state of mind? If so, I'm down.

Thor would struggle to win in a 1v1 against either, so the team crushes him.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Providing a completely plausible and reasonable explanation for their comments is just that. Pointing out how nobody else throughout 20+ issues even comes close to saying anything of the sort throws doubt at your stance. Pointing out how no serious reader ever holds "Spiderman drawing strength from his peerless courage" as if it were an off-panel amp also throws doubt at your stance. Pointing out that BRB necessarily [b](i) enjoyed an even greater off-panel secret amp to topple Thor because Thor was amped, or (ii) was an even GREATER instance of PIS than Thor beating up Surfer and Warlock that nobody ever b1tches about, ALSO throws doubt at your stance.

The fact that nobody b1tches about BRB's feat as being even more incomprehensible without assuming ampage is telling. And projecting your own dissatisfaction of Surfer/Warlock's beatdown onto me doesn't change that it only becomes a ridiculous super-amped/uber-PIS moment for Beta Ray Bill ONLY if you assume Thor was amped in the first place. If you don't assume that, it's completely within BRB's power to do so. [/B]

You ever think that maybe nobody bitches because nobody trys to use it as an actual feat for Bill? As I said before it's not just Bill's statement that supports my interpretation, it's multiple factor's looked at as a whole. Tell you what, nevermind. Go ahead and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's opinion as valid other than your own.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Calling BRB a "pale imitation" is also a massive difference to what Thor has stated of BRB before as being his equal. True or false? Did that statement stop BRB from toppling him in seconds? No. So was Thor unfortunately talking out of his ass? Yes. Can insane and unhinged superheroes talk out of their ass? Yes. So what did you find so damningly probative about Thor's "pathetic" comment again? Hell if I know.

Right. A fraction. And matching Loki's power beforehand, who isn't far off from Thor's own immortal power proves exactly what now? Nice attempt at trying to arbitrarily quantify Surfer's relative strength to Thor for the sake of deflecting from the descension into absurdity that your "Thor-was-amped-off-panel-during-B&T" myth necessitates, i.e., "BRB-was-amped-off-panel-even-more-at-one-point-during-B&T."

I said most people consider their to be an amp and you said bullshit so I pointed out that we can both go quote hunting and you seemed to decline when you pointed out that people also disagree about Wolverine's eye sockets. Then I pointed out that Wolverine didn't really apply to my original point and you seemed to let it drop so you could use my referencing Lightray's "insane" period to Rage to draw me into an arguement I was never actually meaning to take part in. I believe that Thor was amped in the arc for reasons I've already stated, you disagree... and I don't care. Just pretend that only your interpretation holds any merit if it makes you feel better about the situation....

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I knew that turn around was coming. I forgot what my planed rebuttal was though 🙁 (Stupid Xbox) Anyways, I guess it's only fair, but I've been to other boards, and from what I understand, this "Thor was amped" stance isn't nearly as widely accepted as you make it out to me. Don't get me wrong, some people will argue it would make more sense that Thor was amped, or call it a jobber fest -this has happened more that once- but there simply isn't any evidence to support the stance Thor was amped before he got the Power Gem.

Your entire stance depends on an off hand statement from Warlock as far as I can tell. Or maybe the comment from Bill -who thought Thor was under Warrior Madness by the way- and I simply don't understand how you don't see how illogical and flimsy your case is. It was nearly a 20 issue arc and not once was it clearly stated that Thor was amped. Not once.

An amp wouldn't even make sense. At best you can argue Thor was tapping into some well spring of strength/power he doesn't normally access except when goes Destroyer damaging, Celestial fighting, Mangog killing mode.

Let's for argument's sake agree that Warlock said Thor was more powerful. How does that change anything really? The Thor he fought would have been more powerful than the brick he fought as Him. Simply put Thor's power > His strength. To Warlock, he went from being a Hulk level brick with incredible skill to the powerful monster that we saw.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to get across here.

My stance doesn’t depend on any one aspect, there are multiple factors that lead me to believe he was amped.

An amp makes perfect sense because of the way insane people are portrayed in media. Let’s not forget that Michael Myers was just a guy who escaped from an institution in the first two movies. And as I’ve pointed out a couple of times now, just look at “Insane” Lightray.

Well it means that Thor was more powerful in Blood and Thunder than he is in Warrior’s Madness(not trying to argue the point here, just answering your hypothetical). That’s a pretty clear indication of an amp to most.

Not really.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
^That right there seems to be the core of your stance to me.

Thor did something you think should be beyond him i.e. stomping the Surfer. So your trying to come up with this vague power up to somehow invalidate the scenes. It doesn't even seem to matter to you that Thor has better feats above what he did during Blood and Thunder. Surfer's involvement and eventual beat down is why your so hung up on this.

Every time Thor overcomes his supposed "limits", or bounces back from a beat down, is there an an amp involved?

Right after Blood and Thunder, Thor defeated Beta Ray Bill with one hit - albeit Bill was off balance. Was he amped there?

Or how about when Thor matched Kurse in a contest of strength -who was outright stated to be over 2x stronger than Thor- and then tossed him not too long after Blood and Thunder? Was he amped there?

Or how about when he overcame the power of the Yggdrasil -Cosmic Axis- and World Engine, turning back time and in turn the end of everything? Thor literally said he must grow and that he doesn't give a shit that he was violating laws. Was he amped there?

Thor's stalemated an enrage Hulk in a contest of strenght for hours, killed both the Hulk and Thing in an armed combat when pissed off. His temporarily put down Mangog, damaged the f*cking Destroyer Armor itself, and even outperformed Odin for Thor's sake. Was he amped in those scenes as well?

You basically just told me that because Thor did something that you think he shouldn't be capable off, he was amped. Do you not see how flawed that is?

And Bill's statement can be interpreted in various ways. For one, Thor's feelings for the Valkyrie could be pushing him, lending him strength. This has happened on more than one occasion in comics. Two weeks ago, Thor defeated Surtur because he drew strength from his rage and so on. Albeit it was a previous Ragnarok cycle but that's the best example I can come up with. I can use Superman if you want.

Stop trying to act like I’m trying to downplay Thor. No one thinks that any high end feat he performs is done with an amp, we’re talking about one specific arc. I know you’d like it to seem like I am of course, but you overstating what I consider to be an amp doesn’t support your stance because it’s not just about feats to me, it’s about his overall performance against his opponents, Warlock and Bill’s statements, and the fact that everyone though it was true Warrior Madness after seeing Thor in action until after Thor had been subdued.

No I gave more than just one reason.

Your right it can be interpreted various ways, I've pointed that out repeatedly. And one of those ways it can be interpreted, is that Thor was being amped. You’re the one saying that I’m outright, unquestionably wrong in my interpretation, I’m just saying that I disagree with yours.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Debating.

So who get's to decide what PIS is? If Surfer beats down Thor next Wednesday and I declare it PIS, does that make it invalid?

The rules decide it. It’s a subjective subject(so is pretty much everything that’s actually worth debating) so whether or not you can convince someone else that a claim of PIS is valid is on you, but it’s presence in the rules means that it can be thrown out there anytime logic and/or common sense indicate it’s possible presence.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Not even close huh? So Warlock never says that Thor's more dangerous than before(which is easily interpret as an amp)? How about faster? How about everyone thinking that he was under the effects of Warrior Madness(an amped state) for the entire first portion of the arc? You think it throws doubt, I know it doesn't because I know plenty of heroes knock around people that they shouldn't be able to.

You ever think that maybe nobody bitches because nobody trys to use it as an actual feat for Bill? As I said before it's not just Bill's statement that supports my interpretation, it's multiple factor's looked at as a whole. Tell you what, nevermind. Go ahead and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's opinion as valid other than your own.

Nobody b1tches about it because anybody that wants to characterize the entire arc as a PIS wankfest for Thor conveniently wants to forget that very fact so they can go on with their arbitrary dismissal of an entire story arc. And pointing out that BRB toppled him straight up would utterly dispel that notion. It's the same convenient amnesia when people state that B&T Thor one-shotted Surfer, even though he spent the prior issue hammering him while Surfer was holding back. It's the same convenient amnesia when people forget that Odin comes right out and states, "So it's not Warriors Madness."

Originally posted by darthgoober
Tell you what, go ahead and believe what you want about both the arc and myself. See like I said before, I know I can't convince you that Thor was amped so I was never trying to. I told someone who I haven't seen around alot that most people consider Thor to be amped during the arc, and you started trying to make me prove the arguement to you. I keep getting the feeling that you're itching to take this thing to a personal level, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass because I've got a nice high going right now and I'm not going to let you f*ck it up just because you're unhappy with how the forum views the arc.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I said most people consider their to be an amp and you said bullshit so I pointed out that we can both go quote hunting and you seemed to decline when you pointed out that people also disagree about Wolverine's eye sockets. Then I pointed out that Wolverine didn't really apply to my original point and you seemed to let it drop so you could use my referencing Lightray's "insane" period to Rage to draw me into an arguement I was never actually meaning to take part in. I believe that Thor was amped in the arc for reasons I've already stated, you disagree... and I don't care. Just pretend that only your interpretation holds any merit if it makes you feel better about the situation....

Bloodlusted Thor beating the crap out of Warlock and Surfer is not SPvFL or BPvSS PIS. It's as much PIS as if bloodlusted Cap fought Daredevil and Hawkeye and beat the crap out of them. Or if bloodlusted Spiderman beat the crap out of Kaine and Ben Reilly at the same time. As in... it's not PIS. Were you arguing with a Thor fanboy who takes that fight and states, "Thor beat Warlock and Surfer at the same time, so he must beat Surfer 10/10," maybe you'd have a legitimate gripe to deal with and your arguments might serve to temper such a shallow and arbitrary stance. But nobody does. So what's the problem?

Originally posted by Stoic
Not saying much, Ravenous' strength was contended by Ronan, and we all saw his worth in War of Kings.

Wow, context.

Ravenous was beaten by Ronan AFTER Super Skrull ripped his power sources apart (the currs), leaving Ravenous without the Opposing Force, allowing Ronan to smash half his face off.

When they fought and Ravenous had his power, Ravenous was pretty much toying with Ronan, and one blast from Ravenous put Ronan on his knees, from where a half dead Firelord woke up, saved Ronan's ass and put Ravenous to the ground in a huge storm of energy.

In War of Kings Ravenous once again did not have his currs, so couldn't perform particularly well against Xenith. if he had his power then he could have been exponentially more devasting.

Also in Annihilation Firelord didn't have a single bad feat? He was tearing through the invasion fleet, breached the flag ship and took out Annihilus' Queen, then the aforementioned half dead incident, and then post Annihilation he went around killing all of Annihilus' Centurians with complete ease.

So I have no idea what you're talking about when mentioning random 'space pirates' taking him out? Unless you're referencing the energy pirates in the Herald Ordeal? Which was like 20 years ago, so methinks you have your storylines confused.

Team

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
I like the Darkone. He seems to really know his stuff.

What is this, like the third time?

You'd be better off just agreeing with me from the get go.

ha-som

Well I thought I made it clear that I wasn’t going to bother trying to argue all this crap with someone who’s looking at the exact same evidence and interpreting it differently, but I guess I can do one more post on it if ODG feels that his argument is being dismissed unfairly.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Warlock states that Thor is more dangerous than his "distant memory" provides for. Starlin was never one for mincing words. If someone was that powerfully amped, he'd state it outright. Warriors Madness was known for its blood-lust and not its amping up to and through that arc.

Nobody b1tches about it because anybody that wants to characterize the entire arc as a PIS wankfest for Thor conveniently wants to forget that very fact so they can go on with their arbitrary dismissal of an entire story arc. And pointing out that BRB toppled him straight up would utterly dispel that notion. It's the same convenient amnesia when people state that B&T Thor one-shotted Surfer, even though he spent the prior issue hammering him while Surfer was holding back. It's the same convenient amnesia when people forget that Odin comes right out and states, "So it's not Warriors Madness."

Ok correct me if I’m wrong, but in the first portion of your last post weren’t you saying that no one throughout the arc even came close to saying that Thor was amped in the arc? I know we’re discussing multiple things in each section so there may have just been a mix up, but when you said “Pointing out how nobody else throughout 20+ issues even comes close to saying anything of the sort throws doubt at your stance” that’s what it seemed to mean. Because if I’m right and that is what you were saying before, then how is Starlin not coming right out and giving an in depth explanation relevant to your point that there was nothing CLOSE to an indication of an amp given? I mean are you arguing that no one said anything that could logically be interpreted as an indication of an amp, or are you arguing that nothing short of an outright statement from Starlin will suffice to support the interpretation?

Feel free to believe that about everybody else’s motivations if it bothers you that much. You seem to think that things like BRB momentarily beating down Thor somehow proves that either Thor wasn’t amped or that BRB was and I disagree. Just as I would if someone was pointing to Masterson Thor/Thanos w/IG as proof that either Masterson Thor was massively amped or Thanos wasn’t amped at all.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
I'm not trying to convince you either. I'm arguing with your position. Whatever lacings of personal diatribe you think you're starting to see, don't worry about it. If I care to engage in it, you will know straight-up when I'm getting personal. Until that point, this is a pointless deflection that has nothing to do with the merits of our arguments. I've gotten into enough tangential arguments about "the-course-of-the-debate" that I couldn't care less how we came to where we are now. I don't even know what this Lightray "insane" period comment to Rage.Of.Olympus is. But characterizing my position as being an absolute refusal to see any other possibility is a shallow and insipid maneuver. You do have an argument. It's just the vastly weaker one that lends itself to absurdity when you take it at face value and apply it to the entire story-arc and Thor's career equally.

Well you might not care how we got here, but here’s how it started if you get curious…

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12947770#post12947770

As for the rest, I honestly don’t see how you think someone reading what you’ve wrote throughout this thread could interpret your stance as anything BUT a refusal to see any other possibility. I mean when you attribute anyone who disagrees with you as just being “butthurt” right out of the gate you’re not really coming off as a reasonable person who’s open to other people‘s interpretation of events. And it definitely doesn’t help that notion when you repeatedly try to force an argument regarding someone else’s interpretation and attribute things like people not recognizing BRB momentarily taking it to Thor to some kind of massive conspiracy(or something like that) rather than acknowledge that it’s entirely possible/reasonable for someone to think that Thor was amped and BRB pulled a rabbit out of his hat so he’d get a chance to point out that Thor was drawing strength from his madness. You want to say that you’re willing to acknowledge possibilities other than the one you‘ve put forth, fine. Now prove it and let it the f*ck go. You and I have both read the exact same issues of Blood and Thunder, we both looked over the arc in detail and have reached our own conclusions that we’ve made clear to each other and the rest of the forum ad nauseam for a couple of years now. Thor fans tend to feel the arc is legit, others tend to disagree, and that‘s about the sum of it. Just kick back and let the onlookers decide for themselves which category they themselves fall into.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Bloodlusted Thor beating the crap out of Warlock and Surfer is not SPvFL or BPvSS PIS. It's as much PIS as if bloodlusted Cap fought Daredevil and Hawkeye and beat the crap out of them. Or if bloodlusted Spiderman beat the crap out of Kaine and Ben Reilly at the same time. As in... it's not PIS. Were you arguing with a Thor fanboy who takes that fight and states, "Thor beat Warlock and Surfer at the same time, so he must beat Surfer 10/10," maybe you'd have a legitimate gripe to deal with and your arguments might serve to temper such a shallow and arbitrary stance. But nobody does. So what's the problem?

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well I thought I made it clear that I wasn’t going to bother trying to argue all this crap with someone who’s looking at the exact same evidence and interpreting it differently, but I guess I can do one more post on it if ODG feels that his argument is being dismissed unfairly.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Ok correct me if I’m wrong, but in the first portion of your last post weren’t you saying that no one throughout the arc even came close to saying that Thor was amped in the arc? I know we’re discussing multiple things in each section so there may have just been a mix up, but when you said “Pointing out how nobody else throughout 20+ issues even comes close to saying anything of the sort throws doubt at your stance” that’s what it seemed to mean. Because if I’m right and that is what you were saying before, then how is Starlin not coming right out and giving an in depth explanation relevant to your point that there was nothing CLOSE to an indication of an amp given? I mean are you arguing that no one said anything that could logically be interpreted as an indication of an amp, or are you arguing that nothing short of an outright statement from Starlin will suffice to support the interpretation?

Feel free to believe that about everybody else’s motivations if it bothers you that much. You seem to think that things like BRB momentarily beating down Thor somehow proves that either Thor wasn’t amped or that BRB was and I disagree. Just as I would if someone was pointing to Masterson Thor/Thanos w/IG as proof that either Masterson Thor was massively amped or Thanos wasn’t amped at all.

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm just pointing out the glaring fact that nobody wants to talk about how BRB must necessarily have enjoyed a super-secret amp to take down secretly-amped Thor OR that BRB's feat is the biggest moment of super-PIS throughout Blood and Thunder. It's glaring because its inherently ridiculous nature completely dispels any myth that Thor was amped in the first place and reveals the misinformation and tunnel-vision that myth requires. Totally not suspicious at all.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well argue away, but as I’ve already said, I’m not gonna. It was never my intent because I’ve had the same argument with you, Rage, and Quan multiple times in the past so I know exactly how it’s going to turn out. We’ll go back and forth telling each other how we each interpret the evidence from Blood and Thunder and how/why the other has interpreted it wrong. Neither of us will be able to conclusively prove our interpretation over the other’s, so after arguing over it all day and night we’ll eventually go to bed and tomorrow when we wake up we’ll start going in the same circles all over again until/unless Marvel releases some kind of supplement to clear up the events of Blood and Thunder. Well no thanks. I interpret the arc one way, you interpret it another. A few agree with your interpretation but more seem to agree with mine so I’m cool with letting people agree to disagree about it.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Well you might not care how we got here, but here’s how it started if you get curious…

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=12947770#post12947770

Originally posted by darthgoober
As for the rest, I honestly don’t see how you think someone reading what you’ve wrote throughout this thread could interpret your stance as anything BUT a refusal to see any other possibility. I mean when you attribute anyone who disagrees with you as just being “butthurt” right out of the gate you’re not really coming off as a reasonable person who’s open to other people‘s interpretation of events. And it definitely doesn’t help that notion when you repeatedly try to force an argument regarding someone else’s interpretation and attribute things like people not recognizing BRB momentarily taking it to Thor to some kind of massive conspiracy(or something like that) rather than acknowledge that it’s entirely possible/reasonable for someone to think that Thor was amped and BRB pulled a rabbit out of his hat so he’d get a chance to point out that Thor was drawing strength from his madness. You want to say that you’re willing to acknowledge possibilities other than the one you‘ve put forth, fine. Now prove it and let it the f*ck go. You and I have both read the exact same issues of Blood and Thunder, we both looked over the arc in detail and have reached our own conclusions that we’ve made clear to each other and the rest of the forum ad nauseam for a couple of years now. Thor fans tend to feel the arc is legit, others tend to disagree, and that‘s about the sum of it. Just kick back and let the onlookers decide for themselves which category they themselves fall into.

Frankly, posturing like you're leaving the debate in a civilized manner to maintain a demeanor of mutual respect doesn't exactly flow from the transparent and back-handed insults you pepper in those proclamations of maturity.

Originally posted by darthgoober
And you’re welcome to that opinion, I myself have a lower opinion of Thor’s capabilities than you. Not that he’s weak or anything like that mind you, but I myself don’t feel the arc is a legit demonstration of Thor “not holding back“. And now I'm done with this...

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
You're far from being unfair to me. Frankly I can characterize you as being stubborn and completely incapable of changing your opinion and rest my laurels too. I'm just poking at your arguments and your argumentation. To answer your question: yes. Nobody said anything that could logically be interpreted as Thor enjoying an amp. There are comments that could possibly be interpreted that way, but that doesn't make it logical. Because those interpretations require projection, butt-hurt motives and a willingness to descend into absurdity for the sake of establishing the absurd in the first place.

It doesn't bother me at all. I'm just pointing out the glaring fact that nobody wants to talk about how BRB must necessarily have enjoyed a super-secret amp to take down secretly-amped Thor OR that BRB's feat is the biggest moment of super-PIS throughout Blood and Thunder. It's glaring because its inherently ridiculous nature completely dispels any myth that Thor was amped in the first place and reveals the misinformation and tunnel-vision that myth requires. Totally not suspicious at all. Your prerogative. But pointing out a gang of supporters doesn't infuse any merit into your arguments... ... which is basically what I said from the beginning. The circle of life; here it is. Please. I point out absurdity, and you arbitrarily dismiss it. I point out a completely rational interpretation of those ambiguous statements you wish to subject to speculation and attenuation and when have you even admitted as much? Possibility =/= reasonability. Spuriously dismissing the absurdity of taking your arguments for granted =/= cogently rebutting that the argument itself is inherently absurd. And nobody is forcing you to respond to me.

Frankly, posturing like you're leaving the debate in a civilized manner to maintain a demeanor of mutual respect doesn't exactly flow from the transparent and back-handed insults you pepper in those proclamations of maturity. Except that it was literally the entire point of 20+ issues, "What happens when a Mad God goes insane and doesn't hold back his rage?" Not "What happens when a Mad God goes insane -- which grants him an ambiguous amp, making him super dangerous -- and then he gets a second definite amp making him super duper dangerous?" And don't worry, the crusade of misinformation will continue along without you well enough. Of that, I'm confident.

^ My opinion of your position as being attenuated and descending into absurdity doesn't negate my argumentation. You can focus on the tone of my argument as much as you want. I've taken a position. Same as you. I'm not going to edify your attempts to steer this entire conversation into some sort of mutual admission where we respect each others' opinions as "valid." Because that would threaten to infuse your attenuated opinion with validity.

Ultimately, I don't respect the argumentation underlying your opinion (because I think it's crap). I certainly respect that you can have an opinion. And I'm not attacking your right to have an opinion. But apparently, you are attacking my right to have the opinion that your argumentation is utterly faulty. Which is amusingly ironic. Purposeful or not.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ My opinion of your position as being attenuated and descending into absurdity doesn't negate my argumentation. You can focus on the tone of my argument as much as you want. I've taken a position. Same as you. I'm not going to edify your attempts to steer this entire conversation into some sort of mutual admission where we respect each others' opinions as "valid." Because that would threaten to infuse your attenuated opinion with validity.

Ultimately, I don't respect the argumentation underlying your opinion (because I think it's crap). I certainly respect that you can have an opinion. And I'm not attacking your right to have an opinion. But apparently, you are attacking my right to have the opinion that your argumentation is utterly faulty. Which is amusingly ironic. Purposeful or not.

^ I actually kinda liked what I posted when I wrote it.

But you've now rendered it impossible for me to read now, much less appreciate.

Thanks a lot... cockion.

crackers

vin

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ My opinion of your position as being attenuated and descending into absurdity doesn't negate my argumentation. You can focus on the tone of my argument as much as you want. I've taken a position. Same as you. I'm not going to edify your attempts to steer this entire conversation into some sort of mutual admission where we respect each others' opinions as "valid." Because that would threaten to infuse your attenuated opinion with validity.

Ultimately, I don't respect the argumentation underlying your opinion (because I think it's crap). I certainly respect that you can have an opinion. And I'm not attacking your right to have an opinion. But apparently, you are attacking my right to have the opinion that your argumentation is utterly faulty. Which is amusingly ironic. Purposeful or not.