Originally posted by MrMind
where was this ever stated in comics, post the scan
Originally posted by carver9
https://ibb.co/9ryJVZ3
playing havoc is not destroy
with the way you misinterpret things I would not want you to be a kfc manager
Originally posted by Smurph
A classic Astner double down.You can take the Nostradamus horse to water, but you can't make him learn how words work.
And you still pretend that your redefinition of Nostradamus has any weight to it. This is the point I was making with analogy pertaining to the red car: you keep insinuating that the red car is orange. All you're conveying with this is the fact that you're obtuse.
Originally posted by Smurph
The funniest parts of this exchange are whenever Astner starts criticizing his own arguments and behaviour.lol, or more to the point:
Originally posted by Smurph
Anybody can explain anything if they explain it wrong.
But that's not what you're doing, now is it?
Originally posted by Astner
I pointed out that you're doubling down, and your response is "no, you are doubling down," without any explanation or pointers to what I'm supposedly doubling down on.And you still pretend that your redefinition of Nostradamus has any weight to it. This is the point I was making with analogy pertaining to the red car: you keep insinuating that the red car is orange. All you're conveying with this is the fact that you're obtuse.
No, I'm explaining why the grammatical structure is correct. I'm not backtracking on what I said, or trying to redefine things like you did when you confused analogue for analogy.
If I were wrong (and you knew it) then you'd explain why. Because that would get me to concede, shut up, or look like an idiot trying to stick up for a refuted position.
But that's not what you're doing, now is it?
It's definitely the third option of your list.
Not because you're trying to stick up for a refuted position, but just because.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's definitely the third option of your list.
There are plenty of instances in unrelated debates when I have conceded my arguments. The same can't be said for you or Smurph. When you're proven wrong, then you double down on it and attack the opposition.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not because you're trying to stick up for a refuted position, but just because.
Originally posted by MrMind
the fact that most people pick marvel in a fight yet dc characters are more powerful
It depends on the characters. Some DC characters are more powerful than some Marvel characters, and some Marvel characters are more powerful than some DC characters.
If you look at Hulk vs Superman, then their strength and constitution are similar enough to be considered equal. But Superman would win because he's faster, can fly, etc. which allows him to reliably avoid the Hulk's blows while simultaneously keep bashing him until he's down, alternatively throw him into orbit where the Hulk be powerless to do anything. Not that there aren't cases that can't be made for the Hulk (e.g. Superman being poisoned by gamma-radiation), but those cases are a lot weaker.
But if you compare Superman to the Silver Surfer, then the tables turn, because Superman's arsenal of powers only make up a small fraction of the Silver Surfer's powers. Not to mention that there are weaknesses (pertaining to red- and yellow sunlight, and arguably Kryptonite) that the Silver Surfer would notice (due to his cosmic awareness), could easily exploit, and that has a consistent record of working against Superman.
- Justice League of America (2006) #23
Of course you're going to have people that are going to argue that Hulk would beat Superman, and that Superman would beat Silver Surfer. But those are fanboys that couldn't care less about how these characters are written or what their powers are.
Originally posted by Astner
No, because I readily concede when proven wrong.There are plenty of instances in unrelated debates when I have conceded my arguments. The same can't be said for you or Smurph. When you're proven wrong, then you double down on it and attack the opposition.
You're not saving face by being facetious.
No, I'm saving face by being right. But then we both agree that you're a real Nostradamus, always have done so.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
No, I'm saving face by being right.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
But then we both agree that you're a real Nostradamus, always have done so.
Originally posted by Astner
No. You failed to comply with the burden of the rejoinder, that's formally an implicit concession. And even if your claims were right (which they weren't), all that proves is that you weren't able to defend correct claims.You lost, get over it.
You already said I was technically correct, so that's all I needed.
Anything else was just you feeding me.
Originally posted by Astner
If I were wrong (and you knew it) then you'd explain why. Because that would get me to concede, shut up, or look like an idiot trying to stick up for a refuted position.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It's definitely the third option of your list.Not because you're trying to stick up for a refuted position, but just because.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
You already said I was technically correct, so that's all I needed.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Anything else was just you feeding me.
The only reason I'm humoring you is because I'm at work, and we're troubleshooting a satellite antenna, and there's a lot of downtime where I have nothing better to do.
If I were at home I'd be rolling my eyes and let your posts speak for themselves.
