Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I may be wrong actually.It may have been a false statement from someone else.
Seek clarification from the OP. It's the only way to be sure.
As per rules, at this point however, he can only base his stips on what was written. Not to add more stips to the thread now that arguments have been put forth.
Thus this is what the Kryptonians get:
Originally posted by Viritrilbia
Krypton: Almost Complete Control Over Matter- ability for Liquids and Solids to interchange, near-indestructible armor, gravity manipulation, metal that can Shift and "flow" into the air seeking targets faster than Superman can Fly, after which it solidifies.
Which looks like basically their tech.
Adding yellow sun would DEF be an added stip.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Wrong. Both the examples you've used have had extensive explanation on how it works.in the case of Galactus, we have the background. And if it sounds like a Strawman, then why do people claim "Planet busta" immediately? Thats immediately going for the high speculation rather than the reasonable mid level.I never avoided it. I answered it directly and even requoted it. It's not my fault you refuse to read and I'm not repeating myself just to satisfy your ego.
I believe it can churn up the surface of krypton, and yes that will result in the deaths of the vast majority of the population, but those who get off the surface will wreck havoc. Considering the Kryptonians are now fully sun powered, this is a non issue.
Didn't you just say that whatever is shown on screen trumps whatever explanation the characters may have said? But it seems to me you're willing to give Galactus and the World Engine a pass but not the Bifrost. Your bias is clearly showing.
Anyway, you can turn a blind eye to the bifrost's planet destroying capabilities. Me, I'd rather take the word of the Asgardians who were using it (and by extension the writer's and director's intent) over some random guy on the net who's insisting he knows more about the movie mechanics than the characters in the movie itself.
In any case it won't matter how you define planet destruction. Bottom line is the Asgardians can decimate the Kryptonian and Cybertron armies before they've even left their planet.
I already clarified if Kryptonians get yellow sun or not. This was the OP's response when I asked if yellow sun was allowed.
Originally posted by Viritrilbia
Well, that stipulation would turn the fight boring, IMO. What would happen is Krypton's armies (think: entire race of supermen) would utterly wipe out Asgard's armies, and then Asgard would have to resort to something like Frozen Bifrost or Aether. That's boring IMO.What I'm interested in is an actual fight between the armies. Now Kryptonians, even without superpowers, have a whole lot of technology and vehicles. I'm sure their suits are able to independently move and they look pretty damn durable to me. 😛
How about we give a select few their superpowers, like Asgard has Thor. How about Zod, Superman, Faora, and the others on that ship get sun-induced powers?
Originally posted by FrothByte
I already clarified if Kryptonians get yellow sun or not. This was the OP's response when I asked if yellow sun was allowed.
His response more like a question to try and determine "fair grounds" than an actual stip addition to me. And sounded kinda vague.
Hard to debate when we don't have exact details.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Didn't you just say that whatever is shown on screen trumps whatever explanation the characters may have said? But it seems to me you're willing to give Galactus and the World Engine a pass but not the Bifrost. Your bias is clearly showing.Anyway, you can turn a blind eye to the bifrost's planet destroying capabilities. Me, I'd rather take the word of the Asgardians who were using it (and by extension the writer's and director's intent) over some random guy on the net who's insisting he knows more about the movie mechanics than the characters in the movie itself.
In any case it won't matter how you define planet destruction. Bottom line is the Asgardians can decimate the Kryptonian and Cybertron armies before they've even left their planet.
Jeezus f@cking christ....
Not only do you not read, you don't even get the LITERAL meaning of words correct.
Screw it, talking with you has given me an even worse terminal illness than the one I already have. Put words in my mouth and claim I said things I never actually said.... This bullshit is why I go on VERY long hiatus' often.
Originally posted by h1a8
Odin was at war in Thor the movie. He refused to use such a weapon. Otherwise he would have.
It's against Odins character to destroy ANYONE'S planet.
Is it really that out of character? In Thor: The Dark World Odin showed us how much of a dick he truly is. In the first movie he seemed more honorable, then it's like he suddenly flipped. He has a very "might makes right" attitude in TDW.
Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
What Odin is doing is irrelevant, seeing as Loki was on the throne at the end of Thor: The Dark World.
True, but
Spoiler:
in the post credits scene for Doctor Strange we learn Thor and Loki are searching for Odin.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Jeezus f@cking christ....Not only do you not read, you don't even get the LITERAL meaning of words correct.
Screw it, talking with you has given me an even worse terminal illness than the one I already have. Put words in my mouth and claim I said things I never actually said.... This bullshit is why I go on VERY long hiatus' often.
So you're denying you ever said this?
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Visuals take precedence over character statements.
Apparently, your response to being shown a contradiction in your statements is to throw a tantrum. How bout be a man about it and just admit you were mistaken and then clarify your stance.
Originally posted by FrothByte
So you're denying you ever said this?
Not in the context you are using no.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Apparently, your response to being shown a contradiction in your statements is to throw a tantrum. How bout be a man about it and just admit you were mistaken and then clarify your stance.
Hows about you not apply a context to a line of text that it was not intended for? Because you have, several times, applied that line to a context it was not intended for, and then you ask me to clarify a statement I made perfectly clear by repeating the same thing, and THEN asserting I said the opposite of what I said. That is bad faith debating and it's dishonest.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Not in the context you are using no.Hows about you not apply a context to a line of text that it was not intended for? Because you have, several times, applied that line to a context it was not intended for, and then you ask me to clarify a statement I made perfectly clear by repeating the same thing, and THEN asserting I said the opposite of what I said. That is bad faith debating and it's dishonest.
Well then maybe you want to clarify what exactly you mean by
"Visuals take precedence over character statements"
Because it seems you only want to apply it to the bifrost and then completely ignore it for others. Makes you a hypocrite.
Also, when have I ever been dishonest with you? All I've been doing is showing you how you contradict yourself. You might want to work on your sentence construction, help avoid misunderstandings.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Well then maybe you want to clarify what exactly you mean by"Visuals take precedence over character statements"
Because it seems you only want to apply it to the bifrost and then completely ignore it for others. Makes you a hypocrite.
Also, when have I ever been dishonest with you? All I've been doing is showing you how you contradict yourself. You might want to work on your sentence construction, help avoid misunderstandings.
Once again, you put words and meanings into my mouth outside of my intended message, which remains clear. I even requoted it to you.
The only way to misconstrue what I actually said is by being dishonest. You even stated I said something completely the opposite of what I actually said to satisfy yourself. That is the very definition of dishonest. because of this, and you continuing to try and portray me as either a hypocrite or an idiot, we are done. I'm not going to play this game with you. I have better things to do that entertain you.
Originally posted by Surtur
True, but Loki obviously isn't on the throne anymore.
I was just pointing out he was there last, in response to the Odin comments. Bottom line is, Odin himself is not currently in the picture. Based on the set photos from Thor: Ragnarok, he's running around on Earth as a crazy homeless man. Though, that does beg the question, if Loki and Thor is off looking for Homeless Odin, who is currently ruling? Thor's mom is dead, so that's not an option.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Once again, you put words and meanings into my mouth outside of my intended message, which remains clear. I even requoted it to you.The only way to misconstrue what I actually said is by being dishonest. You even stated I said something completely the opposite of what I actually said to satisfy yourself. That is the very definition of dishonest. because of this, and you continuing to try and portray me as either a hypocrite or an idiot, we are done. I'm not going to play this game with you. I have better things to do that entertain you.
How can I understand what your intended meaning is supposed to be when you never actually explain them? Everytime I ask for you to clarify or explain something all you do is reply with an angry convoluted paragraph.
Just like now. I've asked you to explain your stance once more and clarify what you meant by "Visuals take precedence over character statements" so I can understand why you want to apply it to the Birfrost scenario and not to any other villains' plots. All you did was just reply with another angry sentence instead of actually explaining your side. You know, like how an actual debate should work?
Seems to me like I caught you contradicting yourself and you're trying to weasel out if it by hiding behind an angry wall of text.
Originally posted by FrothByte
How can I understand what your intended meaning is supposed to be when you never actually explain them? Everytime I ask for you to clarify or explain something all you do is reply with an angry convoluted paragraph.
I did explain them. You asked me if the Bifrost could wipe out the Kryptonians, to which I responded in the positive. I even quoted it. You then went ahead and claimed I said no, and ran with it. That is how you twisted my words to suit yourself. Killing Kryptonians by churning the surface of Krypton is a far cry from destroying a planetary mass entirely. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that's not my problem.
What is my problem is that you misconstrue what I said so badly as to mean something entirely the opposite. How the hell do you do that?
Originally posted by FrothByte
Just like now. I've asked you to explain your stance once more and clarify what you meant by "Visuals take precedence over character statements" so I can understand why you want to apply it to the Birfrost scenario and not to any other villains' plots. All you did was just reply with another angry sentence instead of actually explaining your side. You know, like how an actual debate should work?
Because you are taking things off topic by doing that. But I answered you regarding the World Engine. Again, you didn't read.
What makes me angry is that you THINK you can pull the hypocrite card as a means to disregard what I actually said. Galactus has nothing to do with this thread, but the World Engine may. The World engine is explained in detail as to what it is, and what it does. We SEE what it does do onscreen, in that it at least alters the planetary gravitational pull. Wether or not it on it's own actually completes the terraforming process by altering the atmosphere of Earth to match Krypton, or make our Sun into a Red Star to complete the process is completely unknown.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Seems to me like I caught you contradicting yourself and you're trying to weasel out if it by hiding behind an angry wall of text.
No, you pissed me off by throwing meanings at me until you could stick something of only because I disagreed with you. I said visuals take precedence over dialogue, I didn't say disregard dialogue. Look, until you can show people HOW Bifrost destroys a planet, you don't know how, nor does anyone else. How long does it take? Is it survivable by a person or people with sufficient power? Is it escapable? Can it be stopped by a person/people besides the Asgardians?
Too many vague parts to simply say "World Killer I Win Button!" the way you threw it out there like it's supposed to mean something.
Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I did explain them. You asked me if the Bifrost could wipe out the Kryptonians, to which I responded in the positive. I even quoted it. You then went ahead and claimed I said no, and ran with it. That is how you twisted my words to suit yourself. Killing Kryptonians by churning the surface of Krypton is a far cry from destroying a planetary mass entirely. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that's not my problem.What is my problem is that you misconstrue what I said so badly as to mean something entirely the opposite. How the hell do you do that?
Because you are taking things off topic by doing that. But I answered you regarding the World Engine. Again, you didn't read.
What makes me angry is that you THINK you can pull the hypocrite card as a means to disregard what I actually said. Galactus has nothing to do with this thread, but the World Engine may. The World engine is explained in detail as to what it is, and what it does. We SEE what it does do onscreen, in that it at least alters the planetary gravitational pull. Wether or not it on it's own actually completes the terraforming process by altering the atmosphere of Earth to match Krypton, or make our Sun into a Red Star to complete the process is completely unknown.
No, you pissed me off by throwing meanings at me until you could stick something of only because I disagreed with you. I said visuals take precedence over dialogue, I didn't say disregard dialogue. Look, until you can show people HOW Bifrost destroys a planet, you don't know how, nor does anyone else. How long does it take? Is it survivable by a person or people with sufficient power? Is it escapable? Can it be stopped by a person/people besides the Asgardians?
Too many vague parts to simply say "World Killer I Win Button!" the way you threw it out there like it's supposed to mean something.
Asking you to clarify whether you thought the Kryptonians could be killed by the Bifrost or not is not "putting words into your mouth" nor is it misconstruing anything. It is asking for clarification. I was asking you to give a definitive answer instead of beating around the bush.
And it is not even the main thing I've been asking you in these last dozen posts, which leads me to believe you have not actually been reading my posts.
My question was how can you apply your logic of "visuals take precedence over character statements" in the Bifrost scene and then completely ignore it for Galactus' world eating feat and don't even want to stand by it with the World engine feat? I mean, we see that it destroys a few blocks of buildings and cars but using your logic, that's not enough to consider it a world ending threat yes? Or maybe you're saying that Ronan with the Infinity stone couldn't actually destroy Xandar because it was never shown? According to you, it doesn't matter how much explanation was mentioned by characters on the show, as long as it wasn't shown then we can't believe what they said because "visuals take precedence over character statements" is what you said.
Now quite your whining and debate like an actual adult.
It took you an entire week to come back with nothing but rehash? Damn dude,leave it be if you really can't be bothered reading then simply recycling old shit.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Asking you to clarify whether you thought the Kryptonians could be killed by the Bifrost or not is not "putting words into your mouth" nor is it misconstruing anything. It is asking for clarification. I was asking you to give a definitive answer instead of beating around the bush.
I made perfectly clear the first time what I thought. The fact is, you don't read, and then try to piss on me by trying to force me to repeat myself ad nauseum. I'm not in the business of rehashing and repeating like a tape recorder for your amusement. Thats not asking for clarification, thats bad faith debating.
Originally posted by FrothByte
And it is not even the main thing I've been asking you in these last dozen posts, which leads me to believe you have not actually been reading my posts.
Frankly, at this stage, after simply driving a plethora of assumptions, then bad faith debate tactics while trying to "catch me out" by repeatedly asking me to repeat a perfectly clear argument is bullshit, and I believe you should retract and apologize for trying to f@ck me over.
Originally posted by FrothByte
My question was how can you apply your logic of "visuals take precedence over character statements" in the Bifrost scene and then completely ignore it for Galactus' world eating feat and don't even want to stand by it with the World engine feat? I mean, we see that it destroys a few blocks of buildings and cars but using your logic, that's not enough to consider it a world ending threat yes? Or maybe you're saying that Ronan with the Infinity stone couldn't actually destroy Xandar because it was never shown? According to you, it doesn't matter how much explanation was mentioned by characters on the show, as long as it wasn't shown then we can't believe what they said because "visuals take precedence over character statements" is what you said.
This entire diatribe proves 2 things. #1: you either have the reading comprehension of a carrot, or you deliberately are not reading anything I say. #2: Once again, you are applying out of context situations that are completely different to what I am actually saying. I already spoke regarding the World Engine. The rest is completely irrelevant to this debate. If I went by pure character statement like you, I could pull so much shit out of transformers lore to squash the other two forces combined.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Now quite your whining and debate like an actual adult.
Ironic coming from someone who went wild for 2 pages because I said visuals take precedence over character statement. Are you saying that characters within the narrative, who are fallible BTW, are actually a better source than what we see on screen with our own eyes?
Here's the situation you face right now Froth. You claim that bifrost destroys planets entirely based on one liner statements from Thor and Loki, right? They are experts in the subject field apparently right? Ok.... The thing is, this would actually hold more weight IF and only IF they actually explained one prior time that bifrost has done this.
The World Engine, even though I never SAID it would complete the terraforming on it's own (Once again, you put words in my mouth) We get an explanation that the Kryptonians have completed Terraforming projects before, hence why they had colonies. So we know they CAN do it, just not HOW they did it.
And even though this is off topic, Galactus has a history of planetary consumption, as explained by Surfer. This is more than simple character statement and a one line effect, because Surfer explains the history in detail. Thats much more powerful evidence than a four word tagline. We get a sense of scale and measure through the details.