Originally posted by abhilegend
Where's either of omniverse or source wall are mentioned there?
Originally posted by Astner
And while the Source Wall isn't specifically mentioned in Infinite Frontier #0 (as far as I remember), Perpetua breaking out of (and destroying) the Source Wall, is the catalyst Death Mental, which concludes by confirming that now that the Source Wall is gone, the Multiverse is no longer walled off from the Omniverse.
This is why it makes sense to refer to the Omniverse as the Multiverse, because they're no longer separate entities in the sense they were before. That said, it's more straight-forward to treat them as separate entities, because all the components of the Multiverse are still situated within the former perimeter of the Source Wall (as made clear by the repeated use of Morrison's map).
Originally posted by abhilegend
It doesn't. That's what I'm telling, this shit is inconsistent
Originally posted by abhilegend
Are you always this dense? I never said this makes sense.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Maybe read the next issue, you idiot.
Originally posted by Astner
Considering how you're unable to discern proper use of the term, from improper use, I doubt it.It's a noun, just like the word "rant," (which also happens to be synonymous), so if the word rant can be used in its place then it's grammatically accurate. And as you can see by my original phrasing, "that entire
tiraderant is so cringe-worthy I winced reading it," it is correct.Right, so in this case it doesn't make sense to refer to Nostradamus, or his characteristics, as an "analogy," because those are the analogues.
The confusion arose from your misuse of words. It's like describing the color of a red car as "orange," and when corrected, engage in damage control by looking up hues of orange that are close to the color red.
No it doesn't. In no context is "Nostradamus" an analogy.
I'm not sure why you insist on doubling down when you're wrong. At first it was just ignorance on your part (and that would be fine), but now you're just being obtuse.
Let's take another look at the proper use of the term.
"I'd like to say that we are Nostradamus filmmakers and we saw that coming, but none of us did, life threw a curveball, and I think though I view the election outcome as a tragedy, I think the movie becomes more relevant than ever." - Matt Tyrnauer, on CNN
Notice how this sentence makes no sense if you interpret Nostradamus to mean "charlatan," "pseudo-intellectual," or "pretentious."
No. My point was that (as a working adult) you're a terrible person for asking your parents to buy you a video game console on Christmas because you think it's too expensive.
😂 I mean, kudos to you for calling cdtm out at least....but as I said, if you wanted to liken yourself to a practitioner of the 'science' that is astrology, you do you.
People who know what astrology really is, will also agree with you.
Originally posted by sdsfsfsfsfsfsfsAnd I am agreeing with Astner, he is a regular Nostradamus🙂
Is it so hard for you to accept that you were wrong, that you took literally something that has a figurative meaning and is used to say that someone was right when making predictions? Have some respect for yourself and stop looking like an idiot, astner has already explained what your mistake is.
I don't know why you're so salty about that. Do you not agree he is a Nostradamus, random new person who is definitely a newbie and has never been here before?
He is nostradamus in the sense that he was right in his predictions as the popular belief that nostradamus was someone who made prophecies and they were always fulfilled, it is not nostradamus in the sense that he is a charlatan, it is funny that you think that seriously someone would call himself or call nostradamus to someone else with the intention of saying charlatan, for that better use the name of deepak chopra.
Originally posted by sdsfsfsfsfsfsfs
He is nostradamus in the sense that he was right in his predictions as the popular belief that nostradamus was someone who made prophecies and they were always fulfilled, it is not nostradamus in the sense that he is a charlatan, it is funny that you think that seriously someone would call himself or call nostradamus to someone else with the intention of saying charlatan, for that better use the name of deepak chopra.
😂 peace be upon you
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I mean, kudos to you for calling cdtm out at least....
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
but as I said, if you wanted to liken yourself to a practitioner of the 'science' that is astrology, you do you.People who know what astrology really is, will also agree with you.
This is also why I don't consider you a good debater. Because even something as insignificant as misconstruing a meme is not something you're able to concede to. And this permeates the versus debating environment as well: you never concede. When proven wrong you simply stop replying and actively try to avoid the topic whenever it's brought up. Just like you did with my latest response to you in this thread.
In other words, you're more interested in appearing to be correct than actually being correct. Which is the hallmark of a terrible debater.
Originally posted by Astner
The Omniverse and its relation to the Multiverse is mentioned on the pages just before, in the segment I cropped. I'll repost it for you:
Multiverse being infinite doesn't has anything to do with opening up to omniverse in either title
And while the Source Wall isn't specifically mentioned in Infinite Frontier #0 (as far as I remember), Perpetua breaking out of (and destroying) the Source Wall, is the catalyst Death Mental, which concludes by confirming that now that the Source Wall is gone, the Multiverse is no longer walled off from the Omniverse.
So again, nothing but your idiocy.
This is why it makes sense to refer to the Omniverse as the Multiverse, because they're no longer separate entities in the sense they were before. That said, it's more straight-forward to treat them as separate entities, because all the components of the Multiverse are still situated within the former perimeter of the Source Wall (as made clear by the repeated use of Morrison's map).
Lol, you can't even keep your one para straight on what you want to say.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. For me to be wrong you need to be able to point to a consistent model where I can be proved wrong.
I already did.
If you're not trying to make sense of it, then what reason is there to listen to you?
I said DC's treatment of the multiverse doesn't makes sense.
I don't think you know what the word "stalemates" mean. Darkseid getting rag-dolled by the Empty Hand before being tricked into walking into his trap is not a stalemate.
Empty Hand was amped and still got harmed and Darkseid still got up without any problems.
If Empty Hand was so much more powerful compared to Darkseid as you tried to portray, he wouldn't need to place a trap even after he was amped.
Originally posted by sdsfsfsfsfsfsfs
Is it so hard for you to accept that you were wrong, that you took literally something that has a figurative meaning and is used to say that someone was right when making predictions? Have some respect for yourself and stop looking like an idiot, astner has already explained what your mistake is.
Originally posted by sdsfsfsfsfsfsfs
He is nostradamus in the sense that he was right in his predictions as the popular belief that nostradamus was someone who made prophecies and they were always fulfilled, it is not nostradamus in the sense that he is a charlatan, it is funny that you think that seriously someone would call himself or call nostradamus to someone else with the intention of saying charlatan, for that better use the name of deepak chopra.
Mr master is not one to emulate Astner.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Multiverse being infinite doesn't has anything to do with opening up to omniverse in either title
Originally posted by abhilegend
So again, nothing but your idiocy.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Lol, you can't even keep your one para straight on what you want to say.
Originally posted by abhilegend
I already did.I said DC's treatment of the multiverse doesn't makes sense.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Empty Hand was amped and still got harmed and Darkseid still got up without any problems.If Empty Hand was so much more powerful compared to Darkseid as you tried to portray, he wouldn't need to place a trap even after he was amped.
Darkseid approached the Empty Hand with his Multiversal Crack in hand, he then tried to use it to dispose of the Empty Hand but it had no effect. The Empty Hand then pulls the Crack out of his chest (and this is what I think you're referring to when you say that the Empty Hand was amped) and then uses it to open a rift to the Great Darkness.
At no point in their scuffle did Darkseid ever put up much of a fight. And this is supposed to be "True Form" Darkseid.
Originally posted by Astner
Unlike you, I call people out on their bullshit, whether they side with me or not. It does nothing for me to have someone validating my position and smearing my opponents.You sperged out in response to a meme, and since then you've been jumping through all of these mental hoops in a petty attempt of justifying your conjectured nonsense. This is not how normal people behave.
This is also why I don't consider you a good debater. Because even something as insignificant as misconstruing a meme is not something you're able to concede to. And this permeates the versus debating environment as well: you never concede. When proven wrong you simply stop replying and actively try to avoid the topic whenever it's brought up. Just like you did with my latest response to you in this thread.
In other words, you're more interested in appearing to be correct than actually being correct. Which is the hallmark of a terrible debater.
That's because you never addressed my initial point, so there's nothing to debate.
I said if you wanted to liken yourself to a guy who the great public think is an accurate prophet, but those 'in the know' thought of as a hack.....that's fine. Strange, but fine.
Nothing you've spewed since has actually addressed that. All you've done is....'address' my point of him being a lowest common denominator, as it were, with....CNN quotes, lol.
You literally have no point to make.
Is Nostradamus seen as an accurate prophet with uncanny predictions by the general uneducated masses? Yes. Never argued against this.
Is he seen as one, by people with a modicum of knowledge on the subject, of science? Well.....
And so, if you want to make yourself analogous to such a character, I heartily agree.
That's what you seem salty about- that we didn't immediately bow down and lick your boots and proclaim your 'genius'.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
That's because you never addressed my initial point, so there's nothing to debate.I said if you wanted to liken yourself to a guy who the great public think is an accurate prophet, but those 'in the know' thought of as a hack.....that's fine. Strange, but fine.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Nothing you've spewed since has actually addressed that. All you've done is....'address' my point of him being a lowest common denominator, as it were, with....CNN quotes, lol.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You literally have no point to make.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Is Nostradamus seen as an accurate prophet with uncanny predictions by the general uneducated masses? Yes. Never argued against this.Is he seen as one, by people with a modicum of knowledge on the subject, of science? Well.....
And so, if you want to make yourself analogous to such a character, I heartily agree.
"Being an Einstein" has a very specific meaning, as does "being a Nostradamus," and no amount of damage control on your part is going to change that.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
That's what you seem salty about- that we didn't immediately bow down and lick your boots and proclaim your 'genius'.
The issue is your poor grasp of dialectics and your lack of adherence to decorum.
Originally posted by Astner
So what's your explanation then?
Shoddy writing.
No...based off of Death Metal.
Death Metal?
Can you be a bit more specific on what you part of my paragraph you have trouble grasping?
Pretty much everything.
That's an excuse, not an explanation.
Because there's no explanation.
You're deluded.
Darkseid approached the Empty Hand with his Multiversal Crack in hand, he then tried to use it to dispose of the Empty Hand but it had no effect. The Empty Hand then pulls the Crack out of his chest (and this is what I think you're referring to when you say that the Empty Hand was amped) and then uses it to open a rift to the Great Darkness.
You really can't read, can you?
"Your power is impressive but nothing compared to whom I serve"
"The crack in the multiverse gives me a direct connection to the Great Darkness"
"I was already more than your equal before, but now"
What do you think he was talking about? The crack amped him by connecting him to great darkness.
At no point in their scuffle did Darkseid ever put up much of a fight. And this is supposed to be "True Form" Darkseid.
Against an amped up Empty Hand, mind you.
He still harms him with his omega beams and gets up after Empty Hand punched him down, no worse for wear.
That's a textbook stalemate. Just like Thanos almost fought Odin to standstill like you said.
Originally posted by Astner
Thanos was tapping into Tyrants own power when he fought him, hence the enchantment ball, yet he lost quickly.
Thanos almost fought Odin a standstill.