Even if I did copy him, which I didn't(I didn't see Nib's post until after I posted my list) I still posted it and your claim was that I never mentioned it.
However, even without that one, I still posted this
Originally posted by Silent Master
3. Cap tackles a soldier off an armored vehicle in his first movie
Originally posted by Silent Master
Even if I did copy him, which I didn't(I didn't see Nib's post until after I posted my list) I still posted it and your claim was that I never mentioned it.However, even without that one, I still posted this
You mentioning it after the fact is irrelevant as you claimed I disregarded your examples. I did not ignore the Batroc example as it was given before you did. I disregarded your previous posted examples.
Cap tackling some off a vehicle. I could not find anything but Cap hitting someone with his shield. Post the scene.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Why lie?
The point is you claimed I disregarded your Batroc example.
This is false as you didn't post it until after Nib did. By that time I already accepted Nibs post. So I couldn't have disregarded your copied example.
That is what is meant when I stated that you did not mention it. You did not mention it before I accepted it from Nib.
And the other feat is not Cap shooting and tackling someone to the ground. Unless I have the wrong scene. In that case post the scene.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Here is your claimHere is me proving you wrong.
Troll post. Every one who can read can clearly see you are trolling.
Silent: I listed the Batroc feat and you only accepted it after Nib posted
H1a8: You never mentioned the Batroc feat.
Again listing the feat after it was already listed is not listing it.
You are a liar and a troll. Everyone sees it.
Originally posted by h1a8
So you are not arguing who wins here but derailing the thread in investigating my alleged double standard? Fine.All trolling aside. I ask for objectivity (no bias) in reply to this post.
Failure will result in loss of discussion about the topic. I'll just continue to argue WW wins.Here goes.
To me, it is reasonable that if a person is willing to cut off limbs and also kill then they will have the propensity to attempt to behead. Perhaps not right away. Now I could be wrong here. But that's just my feeling. Now if you honestly disagree that WW will ever try to behead then I can accept that and we can argue around it. But be honest.Nib stated Cap will shoot and tackle Ozy to the ground and submit him.
I never recalled Cap ever tackling someone to the ground (I was wrong). I recalled that he was a pure stand up fighter like IPman. Would asking for proof that IP man will tshoot and tackle someone to the ground if someone is caiming he will reasonable? In other words, Should we ask for proof that Ip man will tackle or just accept it if someone claim it? And is tackling someone to the ground for Ip man as improbable as WW trying to behead eventually?In conclusion, slicing off limbs combined with the willingness to kill implies a possibility to attempt to behead in my eyes. But nothing IP man did suggests that he will ever tackle someone to the ground and submit them. There is nothing to infer from. It's completely out of character while beheading is not. They are simply not comparable in a reasonable sense. But again, I could be wrong.
What do you think? Again be objective as possible. Easier said than done I know.
The exact feat is to shoot and tackle to the ground. That's all. No more and no less.
So would you accept that a pure stand up fighter (like Ip man) would suddenly shoot and tackle someone to the ground if they never was shown to (in that case they wouldn't be a pure striker anymore)?
Asking for clarification why a poster is inconsistent with proof is not trolling.
You asked for specific feats of Cap tackling someone even though Silent already posted a clip of him grappling and fighting on the ground. You were insistent that he needed to post a clip of him tackling someone specifically.
So I'm asking why you're not applying a similar standard to yourself and provide exact proof of WW beheading someone?
Originally posted by h1a8
I recalled that he was a pure stand up fighter like IPman.
Only your "recall" is faulty, as my 10 examples proved that Cap isn't and never was a pure stand up fighter.
Originally posted by Silent Master
Here we go, first the two I've already mentioned1. Cap tackles Red Skull into the flight chair
2. Cap grapples with his younger selfNow, some new ones
3. Cap tackles a soldier off an armored vehicle in his first movie
4. Cap grabs a chitauri in a headlock and then throws him over a railing in Avengers
5. Cap tackles Batroc in Winter Soldier
6-9. Cap uses throws against four people in Winter Soldier
10. Cap throws Iron-man to the ground and then procedes to ground and pound him with the shield in Civil War./Thread over.
It's rather telling that your "faulty" memory is always in your favor.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Asking for clarification why a poster is inconsistent with proof is not trolling.You asked for specific feats of Cap tackling someone even though Silent already posted a clip of him grappling and fighting on the ground. You were insistent that he needed to post a clip of him tackling someone specifically.
So I'm asking why you're not applying a similar standard to yourself and provide exact proof of WW beheading someone?
Omfg
Why cant you understand English?
I DIDN'T ASK FOR EXAMPLES OF CAP GRAPPLING!
NIBEDICUS STATED CAP WILL SHOOT AND TACKLE OZY TO THE GROUND AND THEN SUBMIT HIM (OR GROUND AND POUND). This is because Comedian was shown pushing Ozy back to the wall.
I didn't recall Cap ever tackling someone to the ground. I only remember Cap bring a pure striker. I told Nib that was OOC.
Silent brings stupid ass examples where none of them show Cap tackling someone to the ground. Nibedicus then gives the correct example (Batroc). Silent then piggyback off Nib. I agree with Nib.
Silent lies and states he has been gave the Batroc example (he didn't). He gave dumb illogical examples instead.
Do you understand now?
And I explained the beheading logic in a previous post.
Originally posted by h1a8
To me, it is reasonable that if a person is willing to cut off limbs and also kill then they will have the propensity to attempt to behead. Perhaps not right away. Now I could be wrong here. But that's just my feeling. Now if you honestly disagree that WW will ever try to behead then I can accept that and we can argue around it. But be honest.In conclusion, slicing off limbs combined with the willingness to kill implies a possibility to attempt to behead in my eyes. But nothing IP man did suggests that he will ever tackle someone to the ground and submit them. There is nothing to infer from. It's completely out of character while beheading is not. They are simply not comparable in a reasonable sense. But again, I could be wrong.
What do you think? Again be objective as possible. Easier said than done I know.
So would you accept that a pure stand up fighter (like Ip man) would suddenly shoot and tackle someone to the ground if they never was shown to (in that case they wouldn't be a pure striker anymore)?
You didn't answer the questions.