Originally posted by -Pr-
I read the comic. And we've been through this before. Funny how you're still pulling the "maybe he's forgotten and I can get away with this argument" act.
Lol... you proved me wrong with Gladiator tanking it... after being hit by the blast, it fatigued him. Not what I'm disputing. What I am saying is...Gladiator contained the blast. The previous scan after Gladiator is being hit is... Gladiator strikes and a star is born. This scan from Reeds on mouth states "the blast is being contained", which it was being contained because Gladiator was containing it.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
😆Keep reading. You'll get it eventually.
Concession accepted. I'll take that as trolling on your part. You don't want to debate then fine. Just don't troll. Either point out incorrect reasoning or statements or just ignore.
I have no problems being wrong. I'm humble in the light of reasonable evidence and can accept it.
Originally posted by carver9actually, we can safely conclude that was caused by whatever mechanism the skrulls activated just before gladiator hit the ship. it rigged the ship like a bomb.
When Gladiator strikes, a star is born next to pluto.http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/carver9/media/GladiatorSolarSystem_zpsc0b32ca3.jpg.html
Originally posted by carver9show us gladiator containing it. in fact, post the entire sequence that shows he contained the blast and that i was his pwoer output that led to starlike explosion near pluto and not the skrull's ship.
Lol... you proved me wrong with Gladiator tanking it... after being hit by the blast, it fatigued him. Not what I'm disputing. What I am saying is...Gladiator contained the blast. The previous scan after Gladiator is being hit is... Gladiator strikes and a star is born. This scan from Reeds on mouth states "the blast is being contained", which it was being contained because Gladiator was containing it.
Originally posted by ares834
Except, he supports his notion that its a "small" planet with stuff from the narrative. It's not just a random assumption.As for the so called "moons", in the first panel we see Gladiator flying past tons of objects floating in same. Quite simply those appear to be planets in the distance, not sure why the ones in the panel with Glads punching the planets couldnt be other planets as well.
Anyway, I'm not arguin that he is right. But I feel heis making a compelling case.
Actually, if you've read the scan, you'll see that the narrative DOESN'T support his silly "too small to have an atmosphere" theory as the comic already states and I quote "The race w/c it spawned....", meaning that the planet was once inhabited.
Like I said, the art is vague, but it can be interpreted either way. You say distant planets, I say moon (IMO looks more like moons than distance planets to me, but w/e). H1'd like you to think of the planet as small but there is as much evidence of it being huge as there is evidence of it being small. W/c is my point. Art is vague and we should not base any conclusions on it but use narratives to support our theories/interpretations.
How can his argument is that "the planet has no atmosphere, thus it is small" be "compelling" when he has presented ZERO evidence to prove this theory?
Originally posted by 753
show us gladiator containing it. in fact, post the entire sequence that shows he contained the blast and that i was his pwoer output that led to starlike explosion near pluto and not the skrull's ship.
It wasn't the skrulls that contained the blast and if it was their ship that exploded, then they would have died. Remember, the Xmen showed up to battle Gladiator in that same comic but it wasn't truly the Xmen, it was the same Skrulls Gladiator hawked down (that also hit him with that solar system destroying blast).
Why do I need to show you him containing it when we clearly see him in the heart of the blast and the narrator saying "Gladiator strikes and a star is born)? Clear as day.
Originally posted by h1a8
Concession accepted. I'll take that as trolling on your part. You don't want to debate then fine. Just don't troll. Either point out incorrect reasoning or statements or just ignore.I have no problems being wrong. I'm humble in the light of reasonable evidence and can accept it.
😆
There was so much wrong with your statement, that I just simply don't wanna waste time trying to correct you if you don't see what should be blatantly obvious. I just don't respect you enough to care.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
😆There was so much wrong with your statement, that I just simply don't wanna waste time trying to correct you if you don't see what should be blatantly obvious. I just don't respect you enough to care.
Then fine, just don't troll. I think you are lying though. You can't find anything wrong with what i said. You just don't like what I said.
Originally posted by h1a8
Then fine, just don't troll. I think you are lying though. You can't find anything wrong with what i said. You just don't like what I said.
😆
Keep telling yourself that.
Branlor saw it. I saw it. I'm sure everyone else who gives your posts 2 hoots (w/c is rare) saw it. Accusing ppl of lying, too. Lousy bait attempt. You're pathetic, h1.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Actually, if you've read the scan, you'll see that the narrative DOESN'T support his silly "too small to have an atmosphere" theory as the comic already states and I quote "The race w/c it spawned....", meaning that the planet was once inhabited.Like I said, the art is vague, but it can be interpreted either way. You say distant planets, I say moon (IMO looks more like moons than distance planets to me, but w/e). H1'd like you to think of the planet as small but there is as much evidence of it being huge as there is evidence of it being small. W/c is my point. Art is vague and we should not base any conclusions on it but use narratives to support our theories/interpretations.
How can his argument is that "the planet has no atmosphere, thus it is small" be "compelling" when he has presented ZERO evidence to prove this theory?
It wasn't silly in the light of not noticing the race of beings being spawned. I agree when it was pointed out.
The evidence to support the statement lies in the fact that small planets have no atmosphere while bigger planets do. So your statement, "he has presented ZERO evidence to prove this theory" is false.
Originally posted by NibedicusIt's not a bait attempt. If you thought you said something correct and another is saying no but not pointing it out then what would you think?
😆Keep telling yourself that.
Branlor saw it. I saw it. I'm sure everyone else who gives your posts 2 hoots (w/c is rare) saw it. Accusing ppl of lying, too. Lousy bait attempt. You're pathetic, h1.
