Originally posted by GalacticStorm
He wasnt beyond physical harm. He could very much be harmed and was throughout Uncanny Avengers.He did have however amazing regenerative abilities, which meant he could swiftly recover from being harmed.
I'm just stating that physical harm did nothing to him. The guy ripped his own head apart just for theatrics. Not sure how a character with nothing more than physical stats is supposed to win against that and a ton more powers at his disposal.
Originally posted by tkitna
I'm just stating that physical harm did nothing to him. The guy ripped his own head apart just for theatrics. Not sure how a character with nothing more than physical stats is supposed to win against that and a ton more powers at his disposal.
Oh for sure. Wasnt putting a vote in for Hulk. Was just addressing that point about Sentry being beyond physical harm which isnt true.
Originally posted by GalacticStormAgainst plain physical force (punches, kicks, etc) he was. Now magic or some other plot device (some power used to render him powerless) is not plain physical force.
Oh for sure. Wasnt putting a vote in for Hulk. Was just addressing that point about Sentry being beyond physical harm which isnt true.
Originally posted by h1a8
Against plain physical force (punches, kicks, etc) he was. Now magic or some other plot device (some power used to render him powerless) is not plain physical force.
Now we are referring to DS Sentry and no other version.
No. He could demonstrably be physically harmed. However his regenerative abilities meant any harm was short lived as he could regenerate.
You gotta recognise and appreciate the definition of words. 😉
Originally posted by GalacticStormBeyond physical harm doesn't mean can't be temporarily damaged. It means physical harm will effectively do nothing as an end result. Semantics
No. He could demonstrably be physically harmed. However his regenerative abilities meant any harm was short lived as he could regenerate.You gotta recognise and appreciate the definition of words. 😉
Originally posted by h1a8
Beyond physical harm doesn't mean can't be temporarily damaged. It means physical harm will effectively do nothing as an end result. Semantics
Semantics would be you making a debate out of it when ultimately you acknowledged i was correct. Drop the pride. Its ok to just admit im right sometimes. 😉
But he was actually immune to harm. What was seen was just another puppet that Robert under the effects of the death seed imagined himself as being. Take note of the words that he spoke concerning his relationship with death. The Sentry, or Bob in this case is immortal. This will be confirmed with his next appearance.
Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Semantics would be you making a debate out of it when ultimately you acknowledged i was correct. Drop the pride. Its ok to just admit im right sometimes. 😉
In arguing Semantics, you are not correct Sir. There is no all agreed upon or precise definition of "beyond physical harm". The expression can mean exactly what I said it to mean.
For instance, Some characters have been stated "in comics" to be "beyond death" due to the character's ability to come back from death.
All you had to do was CLARIFY what YOU MEANT and that is all. No debating type talk was necessary.
Going by what YOU MEAN, then you are correct Sir. DS can be temporarily damaged by physical force. But that is irrelevant to the previous points given that you commented on. So you were both creating strawmen (and missing the point) and then arguing semantics.
Originally posted by h1a8
In arguing Semantics, you are not correct Sir. There is no all agreed upon or precise definition of "beyond physical harm". The expression can mean exactly what I said it to mean.
For instance, Some characters have been stated "in comics" to be "beyond death" due to the character's ability to come back from death.All you had to do was CLARIFY what YOU MEANT and that is all. No debating type talk was necessary.
Going by what YOU MEAN, then you are correct Sir. DS can be temporarily damaged by physical force. But that is irrelevant to the previous points given that you commented on. So you were both creating strawmen (and missing the point) and then arguing semantics.
Not at all. To harm something is to by definition cause physical damage to something.
To state something is beyond physical harm is to assert that it cannot be damaged in any way.
Clarifying the truth of such a statement is both essential and very relevant to a debate regarding how characters fare comparatively in a physical face off.
So not semantics. You dismissed it as semantics as a substitute for just accepting i was quite correct. The dissertation/thesis was surplus to requirements. All that was needed was a "Youre right GS." 😉 👆
Galactic is correct in stating he was able to be physically harmed as physical force had an effect as his physical body was able to be damaged. Stoic was also correct in stating he was immune to it as it had no lasting effects.
In another words, a character could bash his skull in a million times but it would be useless and never enough because he would just keep reforming and coming back.
Originally posted by GalacticStorm
Not at all. To harm something is to by definition cause physical damage to something.To state something is beyond physical harm is to assert that it cannot be damaged in any way.
Another false statement.Clarifying the truth of such a statement is both essential and very relevant to a debate regarding how characters fare comparatively in a physical face off.
So not semantics. You dismissed it as semantics as a substitute for just accepting i was quite correct. The dissertation/thesis was surplus to requirements. All that was needed was a "Youre right GS." 😉 👆
I just pointed out that you were not correct even if arguing Semantics.
DS can't lose to physical force (stated in a different manner).
You chose to argue the wording and not the point.
What a debater you are.
Originally posted by tkitnaHe's not correct because you didn't argued otherwise nor meant it that way. You clearly meant that DS is able to reform from any damage that came from physical means.
Galactic is correct in stating he was able to be physically harmed as physical force had an effect as his physical body was able to be damaged. Stoic was also correct in stating he was immune to it as it had no lasting effects.In another words, a character could bash his skull in a million times but it would be useless and never enough because he would just keep reforming and coming back.
Basically you said, "DS was beyond physical harm."
He replied,"He wasn't beyond physical harm."
Everyone and their mama knew what you meant, except idiot Galactic who wants to argue the wording and not the meaning.