How many thors equal one superman

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, that is your opinion. you really need to learn the difference.

Those are facts, not opinions. Calling them opinions doesn't make them opinions.

Lol, the only way to prove what a writer meant, is by asking the writer what he meant. Otherwise it's hearsay.

Originally posted by h1a8
Those are facts, not opinions. Calling them opinions doesn't make them opinions.

Prove that they are facts and not just your opinion.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
Lol, the only way to prove what a writer meant, is by asking the writer what he meant. Otherwise it's hearsay.

So you don't believe writer's intentions are usually clear?

Here's some facts

1. The writer WANTED the viewers to think about and remember the Reeve feat.
2. The writer tied MOS to the Reeve feat via the headline.

Prove it.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you don't believe writer's intentions are usually clear?

Here's some facts

1. The writer WANTED the viewers to think about and remember the Reeve feat.
2. The writer tied MOS to the Reeve feat via the headline.

Unless you can get a direct quote from the writer then those are your opinions, not facts. You are not the writer, so your opinions are not writer's intent. They are not fact.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Unless you can get a direct quote from the writer then those are your opinions, not facts. You are not the writer, so your opinions are not writer's intent. They are not fact.

So you are saying that the writer DIDNT want us to think about and remember the Reeve feat? And that he randomly created a feat where by chance was the Reeve feat?

Originally posted by h1a8
So you are saying that the writer DIDNT want us to think about and remember the Reeve feat? And that he randomly created a feat where by chance was the Reeve feat?

Stop repeating your opinion and start providing proof.

Originally posted by h1a8
So you don't believe writer's intentions are usually clear?

Here's some facts

1. The writer WANTED the viewers to think about and remember the Reeve feat.
2. The writer tied MOS to the Reeve feat via the headline.

Still going, no life?

Originally posted by h1a8
So you are saying that the writer DIDNT want us to think about and remember the Reeve feat? And that he randomly created a feat where by chance was the Reeve feat?

There was no feat at all. Unless proven otherwise, that was merely an easter egg.

Dude you never offer proof on anything you post, like the idea that Hulkbuster cannot hurt Asgardians, which was embarrassing. You then ran off from the thread, made a butthurt thread, and ran from that one as well.

Reeves feats certainly don't count for Cavilman. That is just silly. However, Cavilman did stop an earthquake, most likely with his strength. To say otherwise is...also silly. It's just people not liking the implications of his strength. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It did. Deal with it. Move past it. Rest assured that your favorite Marvel character, that Cavilman curbs into the ground, can take comfort from being in a much better, more well thought out, and true to the characters movie universe so far.

Froth isn't know for his intellectual ability to move on, if he is forced too he'll make another thread

Originally posted by emporerpants
Reeves feats certainly don't count for Cavilman. That is just silly. However, Cavilman did stop an earthquake, most likely with his strength. To say otherwise is...also silly. It's just people not liking the implications of his strength. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It did. Deal with it. Move past it. Rest assured that your favorite Marvel character, that Cavilman curbs into the ground, can take comfort from being in a much better, more well thought out, and true to the characters movie universe so far.

So you don't actually know how he supposedly stopped the earthquake?

I think it's pretty obvious it was meant as strength. After all, in the movies he was shown pretty good strength feats. What else could he have used? Super science? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't his fortress of solitude analog crash? If you are saying he did this with super tech, when was it showed or implied he had anything he could use to do that, or even the know how to use it if he did? The obvious and most likely scenario is he used strength. Trying to say anything else is being somewhat purposely obtuse.

Originally posted by emporerpants
Reeves feats certainly don't count for Cavilman. That is just silly. However, Cavilman did stop an earthquake, most likely with his strength. To say otherwise is...also silly. It's just people not liking the implications of his strength. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It did. Deal with it. Move past it. Rest assured that your favorite Marvel character, that Cavilman curbs into the ground, can take comfort from being in a much better, more well thought out, and true to the characters movie universe so far.

So post the feat of MOS stopping an earthquake.

Originally posted by emporerpants
I think it's pretty obvious it was meant as strength. After all, in the movies he was shown pretty good strength feats. What else could he have used? Super science? Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't his fortress of solitude analog crash? If you are saying he did this with super tech, when was it showed or implied he had anything he could use to do that, or even the know how to use it if he did? The obvious and most likely scenario is he used strength. Trying to say anything else is being somewhat purposely obtuse.

IOW, I was right. You don't actually know how he supposedly stopped the earthquake.

I think it's likely he did use strength to stop the quake, but it's also not a very good form of proof. That is the main issue there.

We don't even know how trustworthy that newspaper is. Was it just some random tabloid? Was the article factual?

Agreed, hence not the best form of proof. I'm simply saying, if he did it, it was likely accomplished via strength. Again though, it's just tough to use in a debate