Originally posted by Desaad
I beg to differ. I've seen you, on multiple threads, proclaim that the interpretation of the Superman/Zod fight as something of pure force is a fallacy.
Which is irrelevant in THIS debate. Yes, I believe that there was a link between Superman/Zod. It was heavily implied to by the story.
But for the purposes of this thread, I DID mention that the ambiguity of the feat DOES NOT PROVE IN ANY WAY the argument presented by the Superman camp.
Originally posted by Desaad
And, again, you responded to ME when I brought up the ambiguity with a refutation, or an opinion that the other interpretation was more likely, but I have to wonder why I've not seen you bring up the ambiguity when people were arguing the other way in the first place?
Your statement of "present definitive proof of X occuring EXACTLY as you say it" is not a refutation but a transfer of burden of proof. Place YOUR interpretation of what the feat was and present YOUR proof?
Originally posted by Desaad
Where? I'd ask for specific text and quotes highlighting the nature of these implications.
The scans themselves heavily imply it:
"As our skin splits, so does the Earth..."
"For one thing, Johnny, that explosion would have annihilated half the solar system--unless it was somehow deliberately contained"
There exists evidence that seems to imply a certain truth in our interpretations. You need to present proof that:
1) Superman and Zod WERE indeed directly destroying the planet via the force of their blows against each other alone.
2) Some OTHER force other than Gladiator would have tried to contain the blast.
Reaching is when you pull out an interpretation and present no evidence, especially when some (tho, admittedly little and inconclusive) evidence exists to the latter.
Originally posted by Desaad
Again, WHY? Why is it a more logical assumption that Gladiator demonstrated in that one instance powers that he never demonstrated before, that he never demonstrated again? Even under that selfsame writer?
Characters have been shown to "contain explosions" by physical means without the need to add in another power unique to that situation. Hulk thunderclap and Superman containing black holes, anyone?
Originally posted by Desaad
Why is it more likely that there was some mystical connection between the physicalities of Superman/Zod and the structure of the planet in the Phantom Zone than that it was a simple narrative device, one that gets used many times?
Because it was implied on panel.
Originally posted by Desaad
If you're going to claim that Gladiator contained the blast, then I think it should fall upon you to prove without a doubt that he did when he's never demonstrated that kind of power before.
Again, I didn't claim it.
It was made BY A DIFFERENT POSTER IN RESPONSE to the use of ambiguous feats that was used in behalf of Superman.
Originally posted by Desaad
If you're going to say that there was some mystical connection between a planet and a person, fine, but I think it should fall upon you to prove that. Otherwise I'll take them both at their face value.
The problem is your "face value" seems to be: "whatever interpretation suits my argument/side regardless of evidence since it is YOUR job to present it and not mine".
That, sir, is bias.
