Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not deflecting, I asked you because I want to see if you just post out of context scans and make stuff up without checking.This way, when we debate on any other topic, I know whether you lie or make stuff up.
Very relevant, right? 😎
Literally everything i say on comics is true, LITERALLY. You believing it or not isn't my issue so no its not relevant
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Literally everything i say on comics is true, LITERALLY. You believing it or not isn't my issue so no its not relevant
Like when you said Surfer used his own power to rewrite the universe, and a mod had to step in and correct you with me?
Or a recent example where you said Superman has NEVER used wind to create a vacuum against his opponents?
Again, relevant because it shows that you lie and gloss over your own mistakes.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvilBwhahahaha another excuse and concession 😆 you’re so weak.
Titan, I'm not discussing the feat no more with you, I already debunked it, NOW if you think it's a feat that's cool xD but you can keep that delusion to yourself, don't bring that nonsense around me, i hate liars. we're done, I'll respond to you when you post a different feat thats quantifiable
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Good post. It's....debateable. Anyway, Surfer has loads of other feats to fall back on.
Pretty much but suppose we did decided collectively that he did tank it.
What then?
Do we disregard? No because a feat is a feat.
But it would be considered an outlier that is inconsistent with what we normally see him do and thus not really something we'd use in a debate. I always find it weird when people rush straight to extreme showings to prove a character can defeat xyz. It's disingenuous.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Like when you said Surfer used his own power to rewrite the universe, and a mod had to step in and correct you with me?Or a recent example where you said Superman has NEVER used wind to create a vacuum against his opponents?
Again, relevant because it shows that you lie and gloss over your own mistakes.
None of those were lies. You DIDN'T even POST Superman doing that on that same thread 😂
All i got was a statement, its a difference between DOING something and STATING something
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Pretty much but suppose we did decided collectively that he did tank it.
What then?Do we disregard? No because a feat is a feat.
But it would be considered an outlier that is inconsistent with what we normally see him do and thus not really something we'd use in a debate. I always find it weird when people rush straight to extreme showings to prove a character can defeat xyz. It's disingenuous.
I mean, it certainly wouldn't/shouldn't be thrown out just because Surfer has low showings.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Pretty much but suppose we did decided collectively that he did tank it.
What then?Do we disregard? No because a feat is a feat.
But it would be considered an outlier that is inconsistent with what we normally see him do and thus not really something we'd use in a debate. I always find it weird when people rush straight to extreme showings to prove a character can defeat xyz. It's disingenuous.
Then outliers needs to be across the board for all characters. People tend to not get this and use every high showing as a norm. This is called being bias.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
Pretty much but suppose we did decided collectively that he did tank it.
What then?Do we disregard? No because a feat is a feat.
But it would be considered an outlier that is inconsistent with what we normally see him do and thus not really something we'd use in a debate. I always find it weird when people rush straight to extreme showings to prove a character can defeat xyz. It's disingenuous.
SUPERMAN "destroying" a planet while weakened is an OUTLIER, if anything. We have repeated statement of HIMSELF admittingcouldn't bust a meteor less than mile wide even in his recent depiction and not being able to destroy a bomb strong enough to survive tank the heat of the earths core, i have the scans for both instances, let me know if you want
Originally posted by Sin I AM
It’s debatable.On one hand you have the obvious, Norrin is outside the ship. You can visually see it. So upon a quick glance you’d say he just tanked the big bang.
On the other hand you have the dialogue, “we must cleave to Galactus’s mighty craft as the universe ends”.The phrase “cleaves to” suggests he needed the ship for support/protection to escape the cosmic storm. As in a child “cleaves to” his mother’s dress. Or since Norrin tends to be poetic, a more biblical reference "For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father and shall cleave to his wife"…becoming one flesh etc.
That’s why don’t like to use it.
Anyways this is wrong sin, cleave could simply mean hang onto. The reason why is because the context is that he had to guide the ship after time travelling
Originally posted by carver9
Then outliers needs to be across the board for all characters. People tend to not get this and use every high showing as a norm. This is called being bias.
It's a case by case scenario.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
SUPERMAN "destroying" a planet while weakened is an OUTLIER, if anything. We have repeated statement of HIMSELF admittingcouldn't bust a meteor less than mile wide even in his recent depiction and not being able to destroy a bomb strong enough to survive tank the heat of the earths core, i have the scans for both instances, let me know if you want
I never mentioned Superman. Not sure your point.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvil
Anyways this is wrong sin, cleave could simply mean hang onto. The reason why is because the context is that he had to guide the ship after time travelling
If he we've able to withstand it why would he need to hang onto the ship? There also was no time traveling not did he guide the ship.
Originally posted by Sin I AM
It's a case by case scenario.I never mentioned Superman. Not sure your point.
If he we've able to withstand it why would he need to hang onto the ship? There also was no time traveling not did he guide the ship.
can’t be losing galactus ship in the Big Bang. The expansion could send it anywhere
Originally posted by Insane TitanHere I say it’s “god power in energy form”
Thanos has never been in the Big Bang so you cant say he wouldn’t withstand it. In comparing feats they’ve both faced Surfer fails. Thanos withstood the naked energies of the HOTU and mastered it. That’s the power of god in energy form.
Originally posted by AlbertoJohnAvilHere you say “God in a energy form”
^save your complains for somebody else. Don't misinterpret another scan when i'm here, when you wanna get debunked again you can make a post about it, not this one though, that's not the topic. my biggest pet peeve is I hate liars, and you DEF lied about feat you tried to wank as it being "god in energy" form. This is why people make fun of you 😂as much as i'd like to entertain your bucket of tears i got work. post another out of context thanos feat again and I'll lecture you once again
So tell me Trollberto from this scan tell whos power/energy it is https://imgur.com/gallery/TucLdUv.
Don’t wimp out by giving a excuse or trying to ignore it. You think you can debate here you big chance to prove me wrong 😂