Originally posted by Astner
This is what I get for getting into an argument with Indian Tech Support and the local cackhead.
Oh now it's flat out racism when you get schooled?
The issue is that the guidebook makes it clear that the omniverse is (only) possibly infinite, implying that it's not actually known and that it could be finite.
Keep in mind that the word infinity can be used both figuratively and literally. In other words you can use the word infinity to describe something finite, e.g.
So the word "infinity" (regardless of how many times it's repeated) does not enforce a literal reading of it. For a literal reading of it proper context eliminating a figurative reading of it required.
So despite the fact that multiverse is stated to be infinite multiple times, it's not because a guidebook said so but celestials and Beyonders are infinite, eh retard?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
I did keep it in mind. I also kept in mind how quick you are to infer the Celestials are infinite in power, based on .....well, a link that was a lot more tenuous than this.
Either way, the Celestials aren't really releavant to this thread.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Oh now it's flat out racism when you get schooled?
Originally posted by abhilegend
So despite the fact that multiverse is stated to be infinite multiple times,
I can say that there are infinitely many stars in the galaxy a hundred times and be 100% grammatically correct, despite there the number of stars in the galaxy being finite.
What you need to prove that it's literally infinite is proper context. That's just how the English language works.
Originally posted by abhilegend
it's not because a guidebook said so
Originally posted by abhilegend
but celestials and Beyonders are infinite, eh retard?
Originally posted by abhilegend
Its hilarious.
Originally posted by AstnerI can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.
Yes, all indians are tech support and all Swedish get raped by Muslims.
You're not just a clown, you're the entire circus.
Yes. This is completely irrelevant.
Cause, you said so?
I can say that there are infinitely many stars in the galaxy a hundred times and be 100% grammatically correct, despite there the number of stars in the galaxy being finite.
I'm not making these claims you idiot, the comics, you know the main source does.
What you need to prove that it's literally infinite is proper context. That's just how the English language works.
No, I don't. The comic repeatedly says so, so it is.
I'm not saying that it isn't, I'm simply making a point of that there's a reason to question it.
Well yes, actually no isn't an argument.
It's*.馃槀
Even that's incorrect.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Cause, you said so?
Originally posted by abhilegend
I'm not making these claims you idiot, the comics, you know the main source does.
Originally posted by abhilegend
No, I don't. The comic repeatedly says so, so it is.
Originally posted by abhilegend
Well yes, actually no isn't an argument.
Originally posted by abhilegend
馃槀Even that's incorrect.
"It's" is a contraction of "it is," e.g. It's raining today.
"Its" is the possessive form it "it," e.g. Its surface is smooth.
What you attempted to say was "it (referring to what's I'm saying) is hilarious," hence "it's hilarious" is correct.
Originally posted by Diesldude
What are we arguing about? Asking for a Mod. 馃槀
So far not a single piece has ruled out a figurative interpretation. But since abhi struggles with basic English it's taking him some time to catch on.
Originally posted by Astneroh ok
Whether or not there exist sufficient evidence to suggest that there are (literally) infinte multiverses in the DC Omniverse. This is put into question because the handbook explicitly points out that the omniverse contains a "potentially infinite" number of universes.So far not a single piece has ruled out a figurative interpretation. But since abhi struggles with basic English it's taking him some time to catch on.
But GEB is on TOAA level. He鈥檚 trying yo overthrow the presence. If he was in marvel he would be doing the same thing. The heros throw would throw the balance in TOAA鈥檚 favor.
Originally posted by Astner
If memory serves I conceded that point and I'm currently withholding my judgement until it's further clarified.Either way, the Celestials aren't really releavant to this thread.
Your willingness to question and accept 'proofs' when it agrees/disagrees with you, is what I am debating. Which makes it relevant.
Also, the word you are looking for is 'relevant'. 'Releavant', AFAIK, does not exist as a word.
Far be it from me to correct the English of others, but as you are doing so for abhi, it is only fair we hold you to a high and lofty standard, right?
I always thought the guidebooks only can be used as secondary source? I remembered it because Galan talked about it when I posted its link on this forum
Originally posted by Galan007
Sort of just reaffirms why the comics themselves should always take absolute precedence in matters of canonicity, and why handbooks/guidebooks should only be used as supplementary evidence when they align with on-panel happenings.
Also in the same book, it mentioned Perpetua has infinite power........
Originally posted by Astner
No, I explained why.
English language you mean?
You're missing the point, reread and try again.It doesn't matter.
Are you drunk?
No.
Scintillation arguments.
"It's" is a contraction of "it is," e.g. It's raining today."Its" is the possessive form it "it," e.g. Its surface is smooth.
What you attempted to say was "it (referring to what's I'm saying) is hilarious," hence "it's hilarious" is correct.
馃槀
Originally posted by AstnerI don't quite understand what you're asking for here?
Whether or not there exist sufficient evidence to suggest that there are (literally) infinte multiverses in the DC Omniverse. This is put into question because the handbook explicitly points out that the omniverse contains a "potentially infinite" number of universes.So far not a single piece has ruled out a figurative interpretation. But since abhi struggles with basic English it's taking him some time to catch on.
If you are refusing to accept on-panel sources that refer to the omniverse as infinite, then what exactly do you need to see? An artist [impossibly] drawing an infinite amount of universes/multiverses on-panel, in an [impossible] one-shot issue?
I understand your "infinity could just be an exaggeration" point, but unless we are given a legitimate, on-panel reason to assume the omniverse is sub-infinite or w/e, then I don't see why the scans should be taken at anything less than face value..? Not because of a single blurb from a guidebook, surely?
I'd also argue that there is a difference between characters who are stated to be infinite, and cosmology that is stated to be infinite. With the former, it's easy enough to deduce if they *actually* wield infinite power, based on their showings(ie. does anyone surpass them? Have they shown limits? etc.)... But with the latter, we kind of just have to go by what the comics say, for obvious reasons(ie. an artist cannot possibly draw an infinite amount of anythings in a comic book, so they have to convey scope/scale through dialogue alone.)
Originally posted by Astner
This is what I get for getting into an argument with Indian Tech Support and the local cackhead.
Originally posted by Astneralso, while we're talking about the basics of interpreting everything in context
I can't even imagine how miserable you'd have to be to consider your nationality and profession to be a racial slur.
no, it's not automatically racist to simply refer to someone's nationality and profession
yes, it's plainly racist to say "This is what I get for arguing with" someone of that nationality
denying the racism by playing dumb does nothing to hide the racism, but successfully makes you look dumb 馃憜