Originally posted by abhilegendThe comic doesn't note feats. That's not a thing.
What a bunch of garbage. It's a feat because the comic notes it's a feat, not because I argue that.I didn't put the picosecond in the comic, the writer did.
Yeah, the writer wrote the word picosecond. You're the reader. So you have to read.
Originally posted by Smurph
The comic doesn't note feats. That's not a thing.Yeah, the writer wrote the word picosecond. You're the reader. So you have to read.
Originally posted by abhilegendNo. This is a feat. Jon actually... does something at the relevant speed.
This is the same type of scene here published the same week ironically, Jon is actually powerless to stop his momentum but still thinking at superspeed to the point he can turn microseconds into minutes.Does that mean Jon didn't use his superspeed at all despite the narration saying otherwise? Of course he did, just like Superman did here.
The other thing is merely a statement about what Superman didn't do within a picosecond. Categorically, not a feat.
Maybe you should take a few trillion picoseconds to hesitate and re-read the posts between me and qwerty.
Originally posted by Smurph
No. This is a feat. Jon actually... does something at the relevant speed.
Which is? He was unable to stop himself from crashing into the building.
The other thing is merely a statement about what Superman didn't do within a picosecond. Categorically, not a feat.
Superman actually did do something unlike Jon lol.
Maybe you should take a few trillion picoseconds to hesitate and re-read the posts between me and qwerty.
I can't act in an individual picosecond lol. Maybe you can?
Originally posted by abhilegendHey, if you want to commit to looking like you can't read, fill your boots. I think the "we" in your post is really just you, but carver's gonna carver, abhi's gonna abhi, whatever.
Yes, that's what makes a feat, well a feat. The writer writes it, we understand it. If you don't understand it, doesn't invalidate the feat.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Yeah...so there are no rules saying that I have to do that, right? So whether I choose to cite the source really just depends on my mood.You cite your sources? Cool!
But I see no reasons for criticizing others who not doing it
Yup, I just went to double check and discovered that I totally misunderstood the exchange. That's 100% my bad qwerty, I totally missed that he was questioning why you didn't mention it was from a different comic somehow and thought you meant you weren't required to post evidence or something. Things hit my brain weird when I first get off work, gets better after I smoke weed lol
Originally posted by Astner
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I'm guessing this is all we'll get for feats in Action Comics #1061.
Originally posted by abhilegend
So Superman didn't fly in the vortex?
Originally posted by abhilegend
Nonsense, you simply can't hesitate within a single picosecond because you can't experience it. Superman can because he can experience individual picosecond.
Hesitation is an action, the lack of hesitation isn't. I don't have to be able to react to not hesitate. In fact I'm not hesitating, not even for a single picosecond, that I will take a sip from my tea right now.
Originally posted by darthgoober
I might be missing part of you guys' exchange and therefore misunderstand what's being discussed(in which case please forgive me), but unless I'm remembering incorrectly there actually is a rule against biased claims that says if you make a claim about a character that you have to prove it via cannon source. That's not to imply that anyone talking about a character needs to post a scan where there claims are echoed in an "on the nose manner", but one is generally expected to at least be willing and able to point to the source material that supports what's being said if it's being called into question