Silver Surfer vs Green Lantern

Originally posted by Delta1938
So you're arguing Air-Walker had zero energy left?

Originally posted by celeyhyga17
When I said his dying body did not play a "huge" part in the feat I meant that it was of little to no significance. I'm really just going by what was said in the comic. Now if it wad stated or even hinted that he manipulated Air Walker's energy, then I'd be more inclined to take your claim into consideration.

We specifically see Surfer do something to Air-Walker's body, then the discharge as he's flying away. Is there something other than one statement that just says Surfer did it?

Originally posted by Philosophía
That's not true.

The Black Hole wasn't generated by him destroying the planet, it was from him purposely warping Air-Walker's dying body into a black hole.

Don't leave pages out/twist information just to fit the agenda. C'mon now..

Originally posted by Ambient
It specifically stated on the next page by Thanos that the blackhole was a direct result from Surfer's energy discharge. I don't know why you even question the validity of the the feat when its clear and specific in the scan u quoted?

Everything I said there is true.

The black hole wasn't:
a). Involuntary
b). Created by Surfer destroying the planet

If you agree with either of those two, on which psycho gundam's point was resting, you're wrong.

The blackhole was created by surfers blast that is where the evidence point at base on the statement on panel, adding more to it; ie: was it voluntary? Direct result from the planet? Well now your just adding speculation to the equation. There is absolutely nothing vaque about this feat as there is valid depiction and narration corresponding to the feat. Simple!

Originally posted by Ambient
The blackhole was created by surfers blast that is where the evidence point at base on the statement on panel, adding more to it; ie: was it voluntary? Direct result from the planet? Well now your just adding speculation to the equation. There is absolutely nothing vaque about this feat as there is valid depiction and narration corresponding to the feat. Simple!

Surfer destroying the planet has nothing to do with the blackhole.

Surfer intentionally created the blackhole by blasting Air-Walker's body, which happened after he destroyed the planet. This can be clear as day seen on panel.

Both you, and psycho gundam, are wrong.

PS: Try to form fully coherent sentences, I feel like I'm reading gibberish in your post.

Fully chronological sequence:

a). Surfer fights Ravenous and destroys the planet
b). Surfer leaves with Air-Walker in toe
c). Surfer has a conversation with Air-Walker
d). Air-Walker deactivates, and Surfer fashions a blackhole out of his remains
e). Thanos notices the blackhole

Conclusions:
Him destroying a planet and him creating a blackhole are different scenes entirely
It is most definitely intentional

I could careless about the planet and yes he blasted Airwalker's body. So what? That does not take away how the blackhole was created. Im not seeing what your trying to point out here, your not making any sense.

PS. My sentence is clear enough, we are not exactly writing a thesis here.

Originally posted by Ambient
I could careless about the planet and yes he blasted Airwalker's body. So what? That does not take away how the blackhole was created. Im not seeing what your trying to point out here, your not making any sense.

PS. My sentence is clear enough, we are not exactly writing a thesis here.

Your sentences aren't clear enough, since you're incoherent, and don't understand what I'm addressing.

Psycho Gundam has said:

a). The blackhole was created from Surfer destroying the planet
b). It was a side-effect, and not intentionally created

Both of those are wrong. Both of those I addressed.

The rest is your trying to talk to me about something I never even discussed.

Did you try to talk to Delta (who is the one arguing the influence of Air-Walker's body on the feat), but quote me, or are you just inexplicably dumb?

loll! You should look at your writing before you start demeaning once ability to write. Yours is not exactly polish and calling me dumb is insulting, I've work very hard to finish my education and get me where I am now.

As for this debate, I meant to quote Delta. So yes my mistake but that's no excuse for your high and mighty attitude.. ****ing insulting.

Originally posted by Ambient
loll! You should look at your writing before you start demeaning once ability to write. Yours is not exactly polish and calling me dumb is insulting, I've work very hard to finish my education and get me where I am now.

As for this debate, I meant to quote Delta. So yes my mistake but that's no excuse for your high and mighty attitude.. ****ing insulting.

That's the problem with people being pedantic. No one's perfect.

Exactly.

Not to mention, your typing one handed in your mobile phone.

Maybe his an English professor or something..

Originally posted by Ambient
loll! You should look at your writing before you start demeaning once ability to write. Yours is not exactly polish and calling me dumb is insulting, I've work very hard to finish my education and get me where I am now.

As for this debate, I meant to quote Delta. So yes my mistake but that's no excuse for your high and mighty attitude.. ****ing insulting.

See, you can write fully formed sentences.

Also, it's ones* ability to write not once* ability to write. And it's polished* not polish*. And worked* not work.

6/10.

I'm busting your balls about the grammar, before you get your feathers ruffled.

But I wasn't joking about your sentences - it really was hard to decode what you were getting at.

Originally posted by Ambient
Exactly.

Not to mention, your typing one handed in your mobile phone.

Maybe his an English professor or something..

He is* not his*.

Typing one handed (are you furiously masturbating to the Surfer scans with the other?) doesn't make you your sentences a bunch of jibberish. Gramatical errors are ok. Being incoherent is not.

I'm on a mobile phone right now Working at VGH hospital, and sentence structure, grammar, spelling I'm not too concern about as long as it's adequate and clear enough to get my point across.

All I could say is look at your post, it's not exactly easy to follow.

Originally posted by Ambient
All I could say is look at your post, it's not exactly easy to follow.

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?".

Anyway, back to the thread..

That black hole was brought about by the Surfers energy discharge. What the phuck is the problem here?

I can see why it can be interpreted as a side effect since the scene was a bit vague in regards to Surfer's intentions, but I would call it intentional. Still a massive feat no matter how you look at it.

What's up with the quote option, I can't see what or who I'm quoting.

Anyhow, Yes! Back to the thread..

So! Surfer blow up a planet, then make a blackhole. I'm fine with that.

Clear enough or are my writing still incoherent there Mr. Philosophia. Lol's

😆

Originally posted by Ambient
So! Surfer blow up a planet, then make a blackhole. I'm fine with that.

It wasn't me saying that it was created as a result of the planet destruction, or that it was unintentional and try to make it more impressive than it is by comparing it to Hulk's footsteps.

Originally posted by "Id"
That black hole was brought about by the Surfers energy discharge. What the phuck is the problem here?

Phil is right.

When viewed sequentially, and in its entirety, the comic is quite clear: Surfer intentionally created the singularity out of Air-Walker's corpse. The planetary destruction he preformed a few pages beforehand was a completely separate showing.