Originally posted by Damborgson
I don't know where he got that from. Since when does the destroyer take away existing powers from the host?
He doesn't want Mjolnir in this match, he already tried banning it and BFR from the thread....when it was pointed out that he's not the OP, he tried arguing that Mjolnir isn't standard equipment for the Destroyer.
When it was pointed out that King Thor is animating the Destroyer and Mjolnir counts as standard equipment for Thor, he switched to saying that animating the Destroyer armor removes Thor's ability to summon Mjolnir.
Originally posted by Silent MasterWhy would he claim that king Thor can summon the hammer? Everyone knows that silly boy.
No, Jack claimed that King Thor could summon Mjolnir, you on the other hand are claiming that animating the Destroyer somehow removes Thor's ability to summon Mjolnir.Therefore the burden is on you.
He claimed King Thor can do it WHILE animating Destroyer's armor.
Originally posted by h1a8
Why would he claim that king Thor can summon the hammer? Everyone knows that silly boy.He claimed King Thor can do it WHILE animating Destroyer's armor.
See, we are back to you claiming that animating the Destroyer removes King Thor's ability to summon Mjolnir and then demanding that other people prove you wrong.
That isn't how debates work, you made the claim so the burden is on you.
Originally posted by h1a8
No it isn't. There is no contradictory showings in comics of people not being able to use Mjolnir in zero gravity. If there were then you might be right.
Yes it is.
Mjolnir cannot be used by someone who is unworthy. The Red Hulk is unworthy. Zero gravity only allows for someone to pick it up. So Red Hulk could have clubbed Thor with it sure, but the lightning wouldn't have been summoned. It's not like gravity is the basis of Mjolnir's abilities, and therefore without it, anyone can use it. 😬
So yeah, PIS. Deal with it.
Originally posted by Silent Master
He doesn't want Mjolnir in this match, he already tried banning it and BFR from the thread....when it was pointed out that he's not the OP, he tried arguing that Mjolnir isn't standard equipment for the Destroyer.When it was pointed out that King Thor is animating the Destroyer and Mjolnir counts as standard equipment for Thor, he switched to saying that animating the Destroyer armor removes Thor's ability to summon Mjolnir.
Jake said, Destroyer can summon it. I said he can't unless it is shown. So did Pr. Simply really.
Originally posted by Silent Master
There is no reason to assume that animating the Destroyer removed Thor's ability to summon Mjolnir, seeing as he retained the ability to use it's powers.As of yet all h1a8 has offered is speculation, if he wants to prove that Thor lost the ability to summon Mjolnir, he needs to show a scan of Thor attempting to summon Mjolnir and failing.
I agree with your interpretation, but it's not definitive enough as is, for a mod ruling. Like I asked, is there proof that Odin was animating the destroyer before he summoned the hammer?
Originally posted by DarkOdin
actually the power is also see in destroyer as it was getting animated this was scene when loki was taking the seed out of destoyer so once again your wrong , how can you even debate when you didn't read the comic god man up and just admit your wrong or just stop posting nonsense
What?
Originally posted by h1a8
Something is false if not proven true.
No it isn't. What kind of horrible logic is that?
======
And yes, the Red Hulk instance is utter bullshit.
Originally posted by Damborgson
Yes it is.Mjolnir cannot be used by someone who is unworthy. The Red Hulk is unworthy. Zero gravity only allows for someone to pick it up. So Red Hulk could have clubbed Thor with it sure, but the lightning wouldn't have been summoned. It's not like gravity is the basis of Mjolnir's abilities, and therefore without it, anyone can use it. 😬
So yeah, PIS. Deal with it.
Prehaps picking it up causes it to be able to be used. This is comics where writers have the power, not us.
More than lightning was summoned. Rulk actually used Mjolnir's flight abilities.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I agree with your interpretation, but it's not definitive enough as is, for a mod ruling. Like I asked, is there proof that Odin was animating the destroyer before he summoned the hammer?What?
No it isn't. What kind of horrible logic is that?
======
And yes, the Red Hulk instance is utter bullshit.
proven means evidence to support it. It's not horrible logic. The contrary would be.
We can say stuff like Superman grow wings and get away with it.
If there is no evidence to support something being true then it is considered isn't. Otherwise people can claim anything and be right.
Originally posted by h1a8
Prehaps picking it up causes it to be able to be used. This is comics where writers have the power, not us.More than lightning was summoned. Rulk actually used Mjolnir's flight abilities.
"perhaps"? What type of argument is that supposed to be? Yeah, Loeb did have the power, and he wrote PIS.
Yes. More PIS. Glad we agree.
Originally posted by h1a8
proven means evidence to support it. It's not horrible logic. The contrary would be.
We can say stuff like Superman grow wings and get away with it.If there is no evidence to support something being true then it is considered isn't. Otherwise people can claim anything and be right.
No, it wouldn't.
Saying that something is automatically false unless proven true, is some of the most broken logic i've ever heard. Especially when the reverse is true in most cases.
Originally posted by DamborgsonI disagree that it is PIS. Why can't Mjolnir be used in zero gravity? Maybe the enchantment is only for where there is gravity and enchantment is off when no gravity exists. Writer's can do this. It doesn't contradict anything else on panel.
"perhaps"? What type of argument is that supposed to be? Yeah, Loeb did have the power, and he wrote PIS.Yes. More PIS. Glad we agree.
Originally posted by -Pr-
No, it wouldn't.Saying that something is automatically false unless proven true, is some of the most broken logic i've ever heard. Especially when the reverse is true in most cases.
Pr we are arguing semantics. 'Proven' in the context I'm using means 'evidence to support'. If there is ZERO evidence to support something then explain why should we accept it as true?
Originally posted by -Pr-
I agree with your interpretation, but it's not definitive enough as is, for a mod ruling. Like I asked, is there proof that Odin was animating the destroyer before he summoned the hammer?
That's just it though, both Thor and Odin have used their other powers while in the Destroyer armor, however despite this h1a8 is claiming that animating sed armor removes their ability to summon Mjolnir....yet all he posts is speculation.