Absolute Wonder Woman Vs Magik

Originally posted by h1a8
First, I stated that I was unaware of any questions Smurph asked me, so any lack of response wasn't intentional. In reality, I did answer his question later by stating that I believed [b]Absolute Wonder Woman was just mainstream Wonder Woman with an amp, rather than a completely different character.

I never argued or implied that critiquing isn't a form of participation - I already told you this, but I guess it went over your head.

Once again, I disagree with the idea that someone shouldn't participate in order to critique or point out errors in an argument simply because they don't know at least one of the characters well enough. Is that clearer for you?

For example, if someone claims 1+1 = 3, another person - without knowing a character well - could and may still point out the error. Your opinion is your own. [/B]

It did not go over my head - I quoted your own words which did not give specifics, merely that it was your view that one shouldn't participate. If you disagree with that, which you obviously do, go away and argue with a mirror.

And again, whilst you clearly believed - wrongly - that Absolute WW was just normal WW with an amp, that isn't the point. To make it clearer, you - based on an erroneous belief and zero facts - accused me of bias, based on a mistaken feeling that Absolute WW could statue her opponents.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
It did not go over my head - I quoted your own words which did [B]not give specifics, merely that it was your view that one shouldn't participate. If you disagree with that, which you obviously do, go away and argue with a mirror.

And again, whilst you clearly believed - wrongly - that Absolute WW was just normal WW with an amp, that isn't the point. To make it clearer, you - based on an erroneous belief and zero facts - accused me of bias, based on a mistaken feeling that Absolute WW could statue her opponents. [/B]

Your ability to pick up on context clues is terrible. I clearly stated, "I disagree with the notion that someone shouldn't critique..." If I believed that critiquing ≠ participating, I would have led with that and explained why. Instead, I specifically argued that critiquing, as a form of participation, is valid.

I'm just stating facts - you are biased toward Magik, and everyone here knows it. It's common knowledge. People who are biased toward a character tend to show a statistical preference for arguing in that character's favor. Other signs can be to sometimes exaggerate their feats or to sometimes interpret their feats differently than intended or differently from the general consensus.

It's no different from how everyone knows that Abhi is biased toward DC and Superman, Carver toward Gladiator, Hulk, and mostly Marvel, and I lean toward fast and skillful characters.

Originally posted by h1a8
Your ability to pick up on context clues is terrible. I clearly stated, "I disagree with the notion that someone shouldn't critique..." If I believed that critiquing ≠ participating, I would have led with that and explained why. Instead, I specifically argued that [b]critiquing, as a form of participation, is valid.

I'm just stating facts - you are biased toward Magik, and everyone here knows it. It's common knowledge. People who are biased toward a character tend to show a statistical preference for arguing in that character's favor. Other signs can be to sometimes exaggerate their feats or to sometimes interpret their feats differently than intended or differently from the general consensus.

It's no different from how everyone knows that Abhi is biased toward DC and Superman, Carver toward Gladiator, Hulk, and mostly Marvel, and I lean toward fast and skillful characters. [/B]

Again, your initial statement said participation, full stop. You disagree with it? Then argue with yourself.

My bias is not towards Magik, but to characters that have the feats to beat their opponents.

Such as in here. Absolute WW does not have the feats, so I said she'd lose. Magik has the feats, so I said she'd win.Put her up against characters who would beat her, and I'd say she'd lose.

Originally posted by h1a8
I'm right 99% of the time. So me being wrong in every thread is a contradiction.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Again, your initial statement said participation, full stop. You disagree with it? Then argue with yourself.

My bias is not towards Magik, but to characters that have the feats to beat their opponents.

Such as in here. Absolute WW does not have the feats, so I said she'd lose. Magik has the feats, so I said she'd win.Put her up against characters who would beat her, and I'd say she'd lose.

I have no problem with Magik beating this unknown character. In fact, I strongly believe she does. This unknown character has no speed feats that I'm aware of, and I'm biased toward fast characters. A Wonder Woman without great speed is a terrible character to me.

You're mixing up the order.

You initially mentioned "participation", and I then provided a specific form of participation (critiquing) as a valid example. Instead of addressing that, you kept arguing semantics while missing the context clues. Arguing semantics (what words mean instead what the person means) is a sign of a weak argument.

I'm referring to your entire history of repping Magik and sometimes exaggerating or misinterpreting her feats. There's nothing wrong with being biased - we all are. If you think you have no bias, you're fooling yourself. Acknowledging one's shortcomings is a sign of wisdom and growth. I've admitted to being wrong multiple times -you've witnessed it. But I've never seen you admit to being wrong. You're as stubborn as they come.

Originally posted by Smurph

Originally posted by h1a8
I have no problem with Magik beating this unknown character. In fact, I strongly believe she does. This unknown character has no speed feats that I'm aware of, and I'm biased toward fast characters. A Wonder Woman without great speed is a terrible character to me.

You're mixing up the order.

You initially mentioned "participation", and I then provided a specific form of participation (critiquing) as a valid example. Instead of addressing that, you kept arguing semantics while missing the context clues. Arguing semantics (what words mean instead what the person means) is a sign of a weak argument.

I'm referring to your entire history of repping Magik and sometimes exaggerating or misinterpreting her feats. There's nothing wrong with being biased - we all are. If you think you have no bias, you're fooling yourself. Acknowledging one's shortcomings is a sign of wisdom and growth. I've admitted to being wrong multiple times -you've witnessed it. But I've never seen you admit to being wrong. You're as stubborn as they come.

👆 ok

with the last 2 issues it seems this ww is just more powerful than magik

she just unlocked her power in front of hades also her gadgets are too op

So wait, HAS H1 read Absolute Wonder Woman?

Originally posted by Blight
So wait, HAS H1 read Absolute Wonder Woman?

What do I have to do with this? If you read the previous posts, you'll find your answer.

She's a new character with no connection to the mainstream Wonder Woman, so everything comes down to feats.

Originally posted by h1a8
What do I have to do with this? If you read the previous posts, you'll find your answer.

She's a new character with no connection to the mainstream Wonder Woman, so everything comes down to feats.

Originally posted by Blight
Seems like you're doing a lot of legwork to get around the fact that you haven't read it. Do you have trouble with feeling vulnerable?

I said this months ago when I originally thought Absolute WW was just mainstream WW with upgrades:

Originally posted by h1a8
Wait, so Absolute WW doesn't get standard WW's speed feats?
Well nvm them.

Where in that quote do you say you didn't read Absolute Wonder Woman?

Originally posted by Blight
Where in that quote do you say you didn't read Absolute Wonder Woman?

I was planning to apply mainstream WW (whom I've read) feats to her. Basically, I was going to argue for standard WW instead.

In conclusion:
1. I didn't read Absolute WW.
2. I'm not claiming Absolute WW wins here.
3. I acknowledge that she's a different character and needs her own feats to establish her abilities (speed, skill, strength, etc.).

That should be the end of the discussion.

You have a huge issue admitting something you perceive as being vulnerable. I get that this is a forum where people argue as a past time so it's understandable, but even your response that finally (after three people asked you multiple times) admits you haven't read it is incredibly combative. My advice: take a breather. You can admit things that make you feel like you don't have the upper hand sometimes.

Originally posted by Blight
You have a huge issue admitting something you perceive as being vulnerable. I get that this is a forum where people argue as a past time so it's understandable, but even your response that finally (after three people asked you multiple times) admits you haven't read it is incredibly combative. My advice: take a breather. You can admit things that make you feel like you don't have the upper hand sometimes.

I've never been asked if I read Absolute WW. Not once. People lie, you know. After I explained her speed advantage, DS asked me to list some feats for her.

I took his request to mean that Absolute WW doesn't get standard WW's feats because she's a completely different character. From that point, I conceded and agreed.

Then you bring up this nonsense months later after everyone already agreed?

Edit: I just looked back and saw that Smurph asked me three times. I never saw any of those posts. I was only following DS's posts or ones that quoted me, so I missed them. It wasn't intentional.

Bro I just can't.

Even the person you say was the only one you were paying attention to asked you. I'm not going to hammer this any more because it has become unproductive but you really need to take a look at how defensive you get when asked a fairly simple question. To quote a wise man:

Originally posted by Blight
Bro I just can't.

Even the person you say was the only one you were paying attention to asked you. I'm not going to hammer this any more because it has become unproductive but you really need to take a look at how defensive you get when asked a fairly simple question. To quote a wise man:

That just goes to show that people don't always read someone's entire post. Please read the edit at the very bottom of my previous post and get back to me. You'll see that what you did was a complete waste of time. And yes I inserted the edit a while before your last reply.

Also, wouldn't the edit be the necessary truth based off the claim that no one asked me? Either that or I'm bat shit crazy. A little deduction goes a long way.

You're getting incredibly defensive again. Relax. Not everything is a full blown debate. You were asked on multiple occasions and you either ignored them asking or didn't look (showcasing your inability to read what people post, something you keep claiming of others).

Originally posted by Blight
You're getting incredibly defensive again. Relax. Not everything is a full blown debate. You were asked on multiple occasions and you either ignored them asking or didn't look (showcasing your inability to read what people post, something you keep claiming of others).

I wasn't reading everyone's comments; why should I? I was having a direct discussion with DS, and no one else. There's nothing wrong with not seeing Smurph's posts if he never quoted me. Once I realized AWW ≠ WW, I stopped caring about arguments from either side. Maybe quoting me would have made a difference, who knows.

You've been proven wrong for misunderstanding the situation. You assumed I saw his posts and chose to ignore them, which is why you brought my name up after someone bumped the thread.

There was no need to instigate an issue that was resolved long ago. It seems like you're trying to stir up trouble. The fact that you don't fully read people's posts before responding suggests that debating with you might be a waste of time. You want me to admit to things while not acknowledging your own mistakes. That's hypocritical.