Hal and WW vs Superman

Originally posted by carver9

1. I dont believe Flash every move in that comic was atrosecond or if he went attosecond speeds at all. Nothing hinted to it.

2. The writer also wrote Sentry expelling 100 million exploding suns when he fought Hulk. Do you think Hulk was hit with a 100 million exploding suns in his fight against Hulk?

Do you see the difference?

Originally posted by h1a8
1. An attosecond isn't a speed; it's a unit of time.
Rule 1: If a writer explicitly states the magnitude at which a character is operating, and there's no contradictory evidence, then by the writer's intent, the character is functioning at that magnitude.
2. Hulk wasn't getting hit with a million exploding suns - because there is clear contradictory evidence against that interpretation.

Do you see the difference?

Youre just making up sh**. What clears evidence was there that Flash was moving at attosecond speeds?

Originally posted by carver9
Youre just making up sh**. What clears evidence was there that Flash was moving at attosecond speeds?

His statement, without any contradictory evidence, is the clear evidence.

Originally posted by h1a8
1. An attosecond isn't a speed; it's a unit of time.
Rule 1: If a writer explicitly states the magnitude at which a character is operating, and there's no contradictory evidence, then by the writer's intent, the character is functioning at that magnitude.
2. Hulk wasn't getting hit with a million exploding suns - because there is clear contradictory evidence against that interpretation.

Do you see the difference?

So does this mean that collateral damage is a clear sign of the damage and power being displayed? Make your mind up.

Originally posted by h1a8
Again, attosecond is not a speed, it's a unit of time.

His statement, without any contradictory evidence, is the clear evidence.

I highly disagree.

Originally posted by abhilegend
Why do I even bother.

How emasculated are you???

Originally posted by ODG
Yes, please, we want to know, why did you chase after me for 200+ posts across 10+ years while being ignored?

How emasculated are you???

Is this the best you can do after a month?

How doesn’t Hal get one shot by a serious Superman? Team loses badly.

Originally posted by carver9
I highly disagree.

So a character's statement without any surrounding contradictory evidence is considered false?

In the past, you argued that statements supporting Marvel characters are true despite contradictory evidence, but when a DC character's statement lacks contradictory evidence, it's automatically deemed false?

Originally posted by Stoic
So does this mean that collateral damage is a clear sign of the damage and power being displayed? Make your mind up.

"Make up my mind" implies that I gave contradictory statements, but I did not. I stated that a character's statement should be considered true if there is no surrounding contradictory evidence. While my stance is NOT that a lack of collateral damage equals a lack of power, my statement doesn't contradict that position.

It's interesting how you never address Carv when he argues against DC feats based on collateral damage discrepancies.

To answer your first question:

In some cases, yes, and in others, no. It depends on the totality of the circumstances.

In Sentry's case, he has never demonstrated the power of even one exploding sun. Claiming that Sentry exerted the power of a million exploding suns is like saying Spider-Man was exerting the power of a million exploding planets, no reasonable person would believe that based on Spider-Man's career and the vast discrepancy between the claim and the actual collateral damage.

Do I believe both were putting out more power than the collateral damage suggests? Absolutely. But not to the level of a million exploding suns, given the magnitude of the discrepancy and Sentry’s entire history.

In the Beyonder vs. Molecule Man fight, we have supporting evidence of both characters' power based on other feats. Additionally, in fiction, energy blasts can be concentrated and precisely controlled, so the lack of collateral damage is not indicative of the power output.

Originally posted by h1a8
So a character's statement without any surrounding contradictory evidence is considered false?

In the past, you argued that statements supporting Marvel characters are true despite contradictory evidence, but when a DC character's statement lacks contradictory evidence, it's automatically deemed false?

Tell me the clear evidence.

Originally posted by carver9
Tell me the clear evidence.

Of which? You arguing that statements supporting Marvel (even with contradictory evidence) are true while arguing against DC statements, both with and without contradictory evidence?

Originally posted by h1a8
Of which? You arguing that statements supporting Marvel (even with contradictory evidence) are true while arguing against DC statements, both with and without contradictory evidence?

What statement did I accept? Refresh my memory.

Originally posted by carver9
What statement did I accept? Refresh my memory.

Mostly Hulk feats:
• The feat with the spear weighing a star holding Hulk down.
• The feat of tanking a hundred thousand exploding suns.
• The thunderclap that destroyed a dimension.
• And more.

Meanwhile, any DC statements are often criticized due to a lack of collateral damage, among other factors.

The spear was made from an exploding suns.
The narrator said Hulk was withstanding the power of a hundred thousand exploding suns.
We saw the dimension destroyed.

Are you ok?

Originally posted by carver9
The spear was made from an exploding suns.
The narrator said Hulk was withstanding the power of a hundred thousand exploding suns.
We saw the dimension destroyed.

Are you ok?

So you don't understand h1's point, but instead attempt to deflect with a shitty attempt at mocking him? The point is there exists contradictory evidence for all those statements, but we still accept it.....

Originally posted by carver9
The spear was made from an exploding suns.
The narrator said Hulk was withstanding the power of a hundred thousand exploding suns.
We saw the dimension destroyed.

Are you ok?

You misunderstand.
There were inconsistencies with the collateral damage in those feats - do I need to point them out?

Yet, when it comes to DC statement feats, you're quick to point out inconsistencies related to collateral damage or other factors.

Originally posted by h1a8
You misunderstand.
There were inconsistencies with the collateral damage in those feats - do I need to point them out?

Yet, when it comes to DC statement feats, you're quick to point out inconsistencies related to collateral damage or other factors.

Collaterally damage? 🤣🤣🤣

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So you don't understand h1's point, but instead attempt to deflect with a shitty attempt at mocking him? The point is there exists contradictory evidence for all those statements, but we still accept it.....

Narrator statements>>>>>>>>>>>a character statement.

You're still missing the point......

The point here is that you question everything from DC, but not from Marvel.