Herochat

Silver Surfer VS Orion

Pillow Biter

  • ******
  • 2079
  • +5/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #120 on: March 12, 2018, 05:38:39 AM »
I think we are pretty much in agreement. There are no strict rules on which sources can be used to inform an answer to a comics question.
Canon and continuity do exist, of course; and they certainly have their effects. I just do my best to look at the issue the same way writers and editors do.

Abhilegend

  • *******
  • 6592
  • +24/-29
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #121 on: March 13, 2018, 01:00:26 AM »
Surfer was shown taking four hammerblows on-panel in that issue, prior to saying he'd held back long enough (after which he was KOed by one further hammerblow).

http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-86?id=11807#8
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-86?id=11807#12
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-86?id=11807#17

Where is it stated that him being hurt somehow factored into him getting koed?

I don't believe it was stated that the first four blows, or the final one for that matter, had anything to do with the Surfer getting KOed. Perhaps he just fell asleep, eh, like Grandpa Simpson?


So nothing? Good to know.

You can always use a handbook though.
Quote


I didn't say I had no idea when the Surfer goes all out. I said I wasn't sure I'd actually seen him go all out. It's very possible he went all out against Mephisto though.

That's exactly what I want to know. Give a definite answer.

Did he go all out against Mephisto, yes or no?

I don't know for sure. I haven't read any of those issues in a while.


Classic Shuruku. Needs definite answers from every one else but never gives definite answers himself.
Quote


Just because you say so, or because you have reasoning and/or evidence in support of the proposition that the Surfer going all out made no difference against Mephisto?

I have both.

So what is your reasoning and evidence, vis-a-vis the Surfer's performance/s against Mephisto?


Him going all out rarely makes any difference in his performance.

Read his comics and you will find out too.
 
Quote


I don't believe you. So prove you're telling the truth, by copying and pasting the relevant text here.

If you can't read, that's not my problem.

I already explained it to you. I'm not going to do that again.

I didn't ask you to explain anything again. I asked you to copy and paste the explanation you claim you already provided. That shouldn't require much effort, if the relevant text exists.*


Yes, you do.

I simply refuse to play by your rules. If you want just copy/paste you can find them yourself.
Quote


(*In case you've forgotten what it was I asked you to explain in the first place, here's the question again: Why is it significant whether Thor had true Warrior's Madness or not, if his strength level would've been the same either way?

I copied and pasted that text, BTW. It wasn't difficult. :)))


Because that's all you do. I'm not doing your job for you.
Quote


You're the one who's insisting on interpreting Pluto's statement in a way that makes no sense. In doing so, you put an onus on yourself to explain why Marz would script a line that makes no sense, and has no obvious purpose in the story.
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Thor-1966/Issue-462?id=8166#17

Based on what you said regarding Cyborg Superman under Marz. What's good for Cyborg is also good for Ares especially under the same writer.

I didn't argue anything about the Henshaw showing that didn't make sense. You are interpreting Pluto's statement in a way that doesn't make sense, so there's an onus on you to resolve that. Can you make sense of it, or can't you?
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Thor-1966/Issue-462?id=8166#17


Yes, you did. It's all there Shuruku.

It applies to Pluto and Ares as well.
Quote


Why reject Thor's insanity as the cause of his adrenaline surge, if you can't think of an alternative?

Because who knows? Default answer, you know?

We do know what caused Thor's adrenaline surge though: his insanity. The letters page says as much.

"Due to his insanity, Thor maintained a state of violent anger which, in turn, boosted his strength."



The insanity only maintained his level of anger. He had adrenaline surge because of his anger.

You seriously can't read, can you?
Quote


To demonstrate that I could construct a bullshit hierarchy just as easily as fangirl did.

So you were simply trolling, eh? Why would Superman beating Thor be considered as a bullshit hierarchy?

Superman beating Thor isn't bullshit, and neither would the reverse be. Suggesting that one fight and outcome are definitive though is highly questionable.


So where is the proof of Thor beating Superman to think otherwise?
Quote


That's not a clear yes or no answer to the question asked. Do you think Marz intended what Tyrant said about the Surfer's power to be taken as untrue?
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-82?id=11790#36

He didn't show it in his writing. So yeah, take it as you want.

I didn't ask you whether Marz showed the Surfer to be more powerful than Bill. I asked you if you think he intended what Tyrant said about the Surfer's power level to be taken as untrue. I'm still waiting for a clear yes or no answer. Or if you don't have an opinion either way, you can say that too.
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-82?id=11790#36


I answered it as well as you do.

Don't expect direct answer if you don't give them yourself.

Marz only gave lip service to Surfer. That's it.
Quote


Now answer my question: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer went all out against Thor?

Once again, answer my question: Why are you so insistent that he didn't went all out when he himself said so?

I don't believe the Surfer was motivated to go all out there, and I doubt he was in peak condition at that point. I'm not ruling out the possibility he was performing at his maximum capability though. It just seems unlikely to me.


What you believe is irrelevant. You yourself said that you don't have any idea when Surfer goes all out.

So how do you know Surfer didn't went all out here.

Quote


Now answer my question: why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor there?


Once again, answer my question: Why are you so insistent that he didn't went all out when he himself said so?
Quote


I can't find statements that don't exist. But if they do exist, you can prove it by copying and pasting them here. If you refuse to do so, I'll take it as a concession that they don't, and that you're just flat out lying here.

They exist. You just don't want to read it.

Not my problem. You can assume whatever you want. I've already taken your concession that you can't read for shit and need everything spoofed to you.

You claim these statements exist, but you're either unwilling or unable to copy and paste them here. Which is it? Unwilling or unable?


Neither. Just read them yourself.
Quote


So what's your stance on citing Handbook bios as evidence then? Are they every bit as valid as stories, or not usable at all?

What's yours? Usable when it suits you and unusable when it doesn't?

My stance is that it's always reasonable to reference the Handbooks, but that they're weaker evidence than canon stories.


So usable when they suit you and unusable when they don't.

Figures.
Quote


So how about you? Are Handbook bios every bit as valid as stories, or not usable at all?


First answer my question in a definite way. Are they canon and usable or non canon and not usable.

They can't be both simultaneously.
Quote


So I accepted writer statements as canon, because I didn't say they weren't canon?

Don't deflect the question.

I was responding to the following statements...

Abhilegend: "So yes, you accepted that they are canon. Because non canon "facts" can't be used as a proof like Xerxes said."

Neither of those are questions.


That's not a point of contention. Don't deflect the question.
Quote


Did or didn't you use bios as a proof?

This question is redundant, since I very clearly answered it in my previous reply.

Shuruku: "Sure, I cited the bio, just as I've cited other sources that were either definitely non-canon, or of questionable canonicity."

Feel free to ask it again in your next post though, in a desperate attempt to make it seem as if I'm being as evasive as you are.


Nobody is as desperate as you are.

So as we established that you have used handbooks as proof now, why does your ass chafes when it is used here?
Quote


If they are non canon, why would they be proof?

They're not proof, in a concrete sense. But I do find them worthy of consideration, similar to the way I find the opinions of writers worthy of consideration.


Give a definitive answer. Either they are proof or they aren't.

So answer once again.
Quote


And if you can use them as proof, why bitch now about them when someone else uses it?

I didn't complain about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, I just pointed out that they're not a canon source. You're perfectly welcome to cite the Handbooks any time you want as far as I'm concerned, but you should know that most people around here don't consider them canon or especially trustworthy.


Yes, you did. You cited them as non canon and how can anyone use them as proof.

Don't bitch out now.
Quote


I don't see any problem with people citing What Ifs in a debate, as long as it's understood that What Ifs don't have the same weight as canon stories.

And why would that be? They are non canon and are for other realities.

Yeah, but they can still reflect a writer's opinion on something. Also, some match-ups have only ever happened in What Ifs. Conan vs. Wolverine, for example, or Cosmic Spider-Man vs. Thor. It seems like a waste to refuse to discuss these showings at all, even if they aren't canon.


So now we can use say Ultimate Marvel as proof for 616 universe?

Where does it end? When you want to?

Quote


Can you prove handbooks are for other realities when they describe 616 universe ?

Curious question. Pretty sure the answer would be "no" though, for whatever that's worth.


So they are canon? Published by marvel and detailed information about 616 universe is non canon on what basis?
Quote


Sure, I cited the bio, just as I've cited other sources that were either definitely non-canon, or of questionable canonicity. I've also cited stuff from the Handbooks that I was openly disagreeing with, as evidence of why the Handbook is an unreliable source of information.

That's not what you said. You asked AP to prove bios wrong basing that they were absolutely true.

Even if there is no contrary evidence regarding Fandral's swordsmanship being unsurpassed in Asgard, that doesn't make the statement in his bio absolutely true. It just makes it plausible, something that could very possibly be true.


So now bios are totally right and you have to prove them wrong.

But here bios are wrong by default and you've to prove them right?

Do you know how hypocritical you are right now?
Quote


I don't know of any canonical facts that show that JLA/Avengers is non-canon. Equally, I know of no canonical facts that show that it is.

Except handbooks. After all some proof is better than no proof such as yours, wouldn't you say?

The fact that the Handbooks acknowledge the events of JLA/Avengers is worthy of consideration IMO. But it's not as strong in evidential terms as an in-story reference.
So they are canon unless you can show them being non canon right?

Like Fandral example, eh?

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #122 on: March 13, 2018, 10:28:47 AM »
I don't know for sure. I haven't read any of those issues in a while.

Classic Shuruku. Needs definite answers from every one else but never gives definite answers himself.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no reason why I should have a clear memory of some random issue you choose to bring up. You didn't even name a specific issue.

So what is your reasoning and evidence, vis-a-vis the Surfer's performance/s against Mephisto?

Him going all out rarely makes any difference in his performance.

Read his comics and you will find out too.

What is it about his performance/s against Mephisto that indicates it made no difference there?

I didn't ask you to explain anything again. I asked you to copy and paste the explanation you claim you already provided. That shouldn't require much effort, if the relevant text exists.*

Yes, you do.

I simply refuse to play by your rules. If you want just copy/paste you can find them yourself.

My rules? Proving your claims is a standard expectation in a debate. If you can't handle the burden of proof, then don't make claims in the first place.

And I'm happy to accept your tacit concession that there was no meaningful difference between the insanity Thor had in Blood & Thunder and true Warrior's Madness (beyond the fact that the insanity was Odin's fault and not Thor's). As such, when Beta Ray Bill said Thor was drawing strength from his madness, he was absolutely right.



I didn't argue anything about the Henshaw showing that didn't make sense. You are interpreting Pluto's statement in a way that doesn't make sense, so there's an onus on you to resolve that. Can you make sense of it, or can't you?
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Thor-1966/Issue-462?id=8166#17

Yes, you did. It's all there Shuruku.

It applies to Pluto and Ares as well.

What did I argue about Henshaw's showing under Marz that didn't make sense?

We do know what caused Thor's adrenaline surge though: his insanity. The letters page says as much.

"Due to his insanity, Thor maintained a state of violent anger which, in turn, boosted his strength."


The insanity only maintained his level of anger. He had adrenaline surge because of his anger.

It wasn't standard anger though. Thor was clearly angrier and stronger than normal, due to his insanity. There was no other reason for him to be so angry, aside from his insanity.

Superman beating Thor isn't bullshit, and neither would the reverse be. Suggesting that one fight and outcome are definitive though is highly questionable.

So where is the proof of Thor beating Superman to think otherwise?

We don't need to see a Thor/Superman rematch to question their fight, just like we don't need to see a Superman/Venom rematch to question that fight.

I didn't ask you whether Marz showed the Surfer to be more powerful than Bill. I asked you if you think he intended what Tyrant said about the Surfer's power level to be taken as untrue. I'm still waiting for a clear yes or no answer. Or if you don't have an opinion either way, you can say that too.
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-82?id=11790#36

I answered it as well as you do.

Don't expect direct answer if you don't give them yourself.

Marz only gave lip service to Surfer. That's it.

But did Marz intend that lip service to be taken as true, or untrue?

I don't believe the Surfer was motivated to go all out there, and I doubt he was in peak condition at that point. I'm not ruling out the possibility he was performing at his maximum capability though. It just seems unlikely to me.

What you believe is irrelevant. You yourself said that you don't have any idea when Surfer goes all out.

Negative. I corrected you on this point once before.

Shuruku: "I didn't say I had no idea when the Surfer goes all out. I said I wasn't sure I'd actually seen him go all out."

So how do you know Surfer didn't went all out here.

I don't know for a fact whether he went all out or not (and neither do you). But I don't think he went all out, for the aforementioned reasons:

1) He didn't say he was going all out.
2) I don't believe his motivation was sufficient to make him go all out.
3) He was likely already hurt by that point.

Now answer my question: why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor there?

Once again, answer my question: Why are you so insistent that he didn't went all out when he himself said so?

You already asked this question above, and I answered it above (in this post, and two previous ones).

Now answer my question, which you've repeatedly avoided: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

You claim these statements exist, but you're either unwilling or unable to copy and paste them here. Which is it? Unwilling or unable?

Neither. Just read them yourself.

I'd love to, but you didn't post these statements, since they didn't exist in the first place. No Marvel staffers have ever declared the Handbooks to be canon, and your claim to the contrary was nothing more than a barefaced lie.

So how about you? Are Handbook bios every bit as valid as stories, or not usable at all?

First answer my question in a definite way. Are they canon and usable or non canon and not usable.

Neither. This is a false dilemma fallacy, since you're ignoring the third option that the Handbooks are both non-canon and usable. That is a definite answer, and it's my answer.

Now what's your position? It's been six pages since you posted those Handbook bios, and you still haven't clarified whether you consider your own evidence to be valid or not.

They can't be both simultaneously.

Sure they can. I cite non-canon stuff on a regular basis, and I've been doing so since before you ever posted here, with no complaints till now.

They're not proof, in a concrete sense. But I do find them worthy of consideration, similar to the way I find the opinions of writers worthy of consideration.

Give a definitive answer. Either they are proof or they aren't.

So answer once again.

They're a weak form of proof.

I didn't complain about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, I just pointed out that they're not a canon source. You're perfectly welcome to cite the Handbooks any time you want as far as I'm concerned, but you should know that most people around here don't consider them canon or especially trustworthy.

Yes, you did.

I complained about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, as distinct from merely pointing out that they aren't canon? Quote me then.

Yeah, but they can still reflect a writer's opinion on something. Also, some match-ups have only ever happened in What Ifs. Conan vs. Wolverine, for example, or Cosmic Spider-Man vs. Thor. It seems like a waste to refuse to discuss these showings at all, even if they aren't canon.

So now we can use say Ultimate Marvel as proof for 616 universe?

I wouldn't use Ultimate characters, because they're clearly intended to be different in certain ways. But What If characters aren't necessarily intended to be different from the 616 versions.

Curious question. Pretty sure the answer would be "no" though, for whatever that's worth.

So they are canon? Published by marvel and detailed information about 616 universe is non canon on what basis?

On the basis that it was never established in a canon story. Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating; canon or not, in your view?

Even if there is no contrary evidence regarding Fandral's swordsmanship being unsurpassed in Asgard, that doesn't make the statement in his bio absolutely true. It just makes it plausible, something that could very possibly be true.

So now bios are totally right and you have to prove them wrong.

But here bios are wrong by default and you've to prove them right?

Do you know how hypocritical you are right now?

The bios are neither right nor wrong by default. You're just too simple-minded to grasp nuance or grey areas.

The fact that the Handbooks acknowledge the events of JLA/Avengers is worthy of consideration IMO. But it's not as strong in evidential terms as an in-story reference.

So they are canon unless you can show them being non canon right?

Like Fandral example, eh?

They're never canon, but always citable as a weak form of evidence.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 11:04:58 AM by The Shuruku Demon »

Abhilegend

  • *******
  • 6592
  • +24/-29
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #123 on: March 13, 2018, 01:34:10 PM »
I don't know for sure. I haven't read any of those issues in a while.

Classic Shuruku. Needs definite answers from every one else but never gives definite answers himself.

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no reason why I should have a clear memory of some random issue you choose to bring up. You didn't even name a specific issue.


Is it now? You can go ahead and read them now.

Come back with a definite answer.
Quote


So what is your reasoning and evidence, vis-a-vis the Surfer's performance/s against Mephisto?

Him going all out rarely makes any difference in his performance.

Read his comics and you will find out too.

What is it about his performance/s against Mephisto that indicates it made no difference there?


He gets beaten with same ease as before.
Quote


I didn't ask you to explain anything again. I asked you to copy and paste the explanation you claim you already provided. That shouldn't require much effort, if the relevant text exists.*

Yes, you do.

I simply refuse to play by your rules. If you want just copy/paste you can find them yourself.

My rules? Proving your claims is a standard expectation in a debate. If you can't handle the burden of proof, then don't make claims in the first place.


Yes, yours. It's standard tactic for you to ask for this and ask again if it's given.

Not happening. Go ahead and read yourself.
Quote


And I'm happy to accept your tacit concession that there was no meaningful difference between the insanity Thor had in Blood & Thunder and true Warrior's Madness (beyond the fact that the insanity was Odin's fault and not Thor's). As such, when Beta Ray Bill said Thor was drawing strength from his madness, he was absolutely right.



LMAO, what? I already showed that it was different. Warriors madness is incurable and Odin sentenced him to death upon discovering it. Then he was informed that it wasn't warriors madness and reversed his decision.

Why would Odin change his decision if it was all the same. And how would this be a concession unless you're just a retard?

You're such a whiny bitch it's not even funny anymore.
Quote


I didn't argue anything about the Henshaw showing that didn't make sense. You are interpreting Pluto's statement in a way that doesn't make sense, so there's an onus on you to resolve that. Can you make sense of it, or can't you?
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Thor-1966/Issue-462?id=8166#17

Yes, you did. It's all there Shuruku.

It applies to Pluto and Ares as well.

What did I argue about Henshaw's showing under Marz that didn't make sense?


That Marz followed Jurgens work. Sane applies here.
Quote


We do know what caused Thor's adrenaline surge though: his insanity. The letters page says as much.

"Due to his insanity, Thor maintained a state of violent anger which, in turn, boosted his strength."


The insanity only maintained his level of anger. He had adrenaline surge because of his anger.

It wasn't standard anger though. Thor was clearly angrier and stronger than normal, due to his insanity. There was no other reason for him to be so angry, aside from his insanity.


No, he was angry because he felt betrayed.

There is no mention of him being unusually angry. If there is, show us the proof.
Quote


Superman beating Thor isn't bullshit, and neither would the reverse be. Suggesting that one fight and outcome are definitive though is highly questionable.

So where is the proof of Thor beating Superman to think otherwise?

We don't need to see a Thor/Superman rematch to question their fight, just like we don't need to see a Superman/Venom rematch to question that fight.


So in essence Superman beating Thor is equivalent to Venom beating Superman?
Quote

I didn't ask you whether Marz showed the Surfer to be more powerful than Bill. I asked you if you think he intended what Tyrant said about the Surfer's power level to be taken as untrue. I'm still waiting for a clear yes or no answer. Or if you don't have an opinion either way, you can say that too.
http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-82?id=11790#36

I answered it as well as you do.

Don't expect direct answer if you don't give them yourself.

Marz only gave lip service to Surfer. That's it.

But did Marz intend that lip service to be taken as true, or untrue?


I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Don't know.

Pick one.

Quote

I don't believe the Surfer was motivated to go all out there, and I doubt he was in peak condition at that point. I'm not ruling out the possibility he was performing at his maximum capability though. It just seems unlikely to me.

What you believe is irrelevant. You yourself said that you don't have any idea when Surfer goes all out.

Negative. I corrected you on this point once before.

Shuruku: "I didn't say I had no idea when the Surfer goes all out. I said I wasn't sure I'd actually seen him go all out."

So how do you know Surfer didn't went all out here.

I don't know for a fact whether he went all out or not (and neither do you). But I don't think he went all out, for the aforementioned reasons:

1) He didn't say he was going all out.
2) I don't believe his motivation was sufficient to make him go all out.
3) He was likely already hurt by that point.


This is what you call a bareface lie.

Quote

Because avenging the beatdown of an ally isn't as powerful a motivating force as fighting to save a loved one. It clearly wasn't for Superman.

So Surfer trying to beat Mephisto for Shalla Ball is not going all out either?

What does it takes for Surfer to go all out then?

I don't know. I didn't say he didn't go all out against Mephisto though.

Nothing you can say changes anything. Surfer went all out.

Deal with it. Or don't. Not my problem.

This point is finished.
Quote



Now answer my question: why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor there?

Once again, answer my question: Why are you so insistent that he didn't went all out when he himself said so?

You already asked this question above, and I answered it above (in this post, and two previous ones).

Now answer my question, which you've repeatedly avoided: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?


That's not answer.

Not that it matters now. That point is finished.
Quote




You claim these statements exist, but you're either unwilling or unable to copy and paste them here. Which is it? Unwilling or unable?

Neither. Just read them yourself.

I'd love to, but you didn't post these statements, since they didn't exist in the first place. No Marvel staffers have ever declared the Handbooks to be canon, and your claim to the contrary was nothing more than a barefaced lie.


And who better than you about barefaced lies, eh?
Quote


So how about you? Are Handbook bios every bit as valid as stories, or not usable at all?

First answer my question in a definite way. Are they canon and usable or non canon and not usable.

Neither. This is a false dilemma fallacy, since you're ignoring the third option that the Handbooks are both non-canon and usable. That is a definite answer, and it's my answer.

Now what's your position? It's been six pages since you posted those Handbook bios, and you still haven't clarified whether you consider your own evidence to be valid or not.


Wrong answer. Chose one of the two.

You thought you had a third choice? This is not your made up rules Shuruku.
Quote


They can't be both simultaneously.

Sure they can. I cite non-canon stuff on a regular basis, and I've been doing so since before you ever posted here, with no complaints till now.


So you admit that you are essentially using unusable evidence all this time?

Good to know.
Quote


They're not proof, in a concrete sense. But I do find them worthy of consideration, similar to the way I find the opinions of writers worthy of consideration.

Give a definitive answer. Either they are proof or they aren't.

So answer once again.

They're a weak form of proof.


Wrong answer. Once again, this time with more feelings.
Quote


I didn't complain about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, I just pointed out that they're not a canon source. You're perfectly welcome to cite the Handbooks any time you want as far as I'm concerned, but you should know that most people around here don't consider them canon or especially trustworthy.

Yes, you did.

I complained about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, as distinct from merely pointing out that they aren't canon? Quote me then.


You did it the whole thread. I can't quote the full thread now, can I?
Quote


Yeah, but they can still reflect a writer's opinion on something. Also, some match-ups have only ever happened in What Ifs. Conan vs. Wolverine, for example, or Cosmic Spider-Man vs. Thor. It seems like a waste to refuse to discuss these showings at all, even if they aren't canon.

So now we can use say Ultimate Marvel as proof for 616 universe?

I wouldn't use Ultimate characters, because they're clearly intended to be different in certain ways. But What If characters aren't necessarily intended to be different from the 616 versions.


Yes, they are. Explicitly so.

What kind of comic reader are you?
Quote


Curious question. Pretty sure the answer would be "no" though, for whatever that's worth.

So they are canon? Published by marvel and detailed information about 616 universe is non canon on what basis?

On the basis that it was never established in a canon story. Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating; canon or not, in your view?


What about the facts that are established? Are you certain that comics don't make such mistakes?

I guess all the comics which contradict previous comics are non canon too?
Quote


Even if there is no contrary evidence regarding Fandral's swordsmanship being unsurpassed in Asgard, that doesn't make the statement in his bio absolutely true. It just makes it plausible, something that could very possibly be true.

So now bios are totally right and you have to prove them wrong.

But here bios are wrong by default and you've to prove them right?

Do you know how hypocritical you are right now?

The bios are neither right nor wrong by default. You're just too simple-minded to grasp nuance or grey areas.


Or I can see through your hypocrisy.

This isn't rocket science. I know you are in a tough position having to face your own hypocrisy but get used to it.

Quote


The fact that the Handbooks acknowledge the events of JLA/Avengers is worthy of consideration IMO. But it's not as strong in evidential terms as an in-story reference.

So they are canon unless you can show them being non canon right?

Like Fandral example, eh?

They're never canon, but always citable as a weak form of evidence.
So even "weak form of evidence" establishes JLA/Avengers is canon, right?

Commander

  • *****
  • 1046
  • +19/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #124 on: March 13, 2018, 03:50:25 PM »
Lol...

Only when it suits te argument like... you know Fandral.

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #125 on: March 13, 2018, 05:11:04 PM »
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no reason why I should have a clear memory of some random issue you choose to bring up. You didn't even name a specific issue.

Is it now? You can go ahead and read them now.

Come back with a definite answer.

You're the one who wants to discuss those issues, so the onus is on you to present your evidence.

What is it about his performance/s against Mephisto that indicates it made no difference there?

He gets beaten with same ease as before.

Name your examples.

My rules? Proving your claims is a standard expectation in a debate. If you can't handle the burden of proof, then don't make claims in the first place.

Yes, yours. It's standard tactic for you to ask for this and ask again if it's given.

Funny how in 15 years of posting on this board, you're the only person who's ever mentioned this "standard tactic" of mine.

Not happening. Go ahead and read yourself.

Why would I search for something you haven't proven exists? You might as well ask me to go find a unicorn.

And I'm happy to accept your tacit concession that there was no meaningful difference between the insanity Thor had in Blood & Thunder and true Warrior's Madness (beyond the fact that the insanity was Odin's fault and not Thor's). As such, when Beta Ray Bill said Thor was drawing strength from his madness, he was absolutely right.


LMAO, what? I already showed that it was different. Warriors madness is incurable and Odin sentenced him to death upon discovering it. Then he was informed that it wasn't warriors madness and reversed his decision.

Why would Odin change his decision if it was all the same.

I already acknowledged the that the cause of the madness was different, in the sense that it was Odin's fault and not Thor's. But that doesn't mean the effect of the madness was different in any meaningful way. You already acknowledged that there's no reason to think true Warrior's Madness grants any more strength than the madness Thor had in Blood & Thunder. You've also acknowledged that Thor was stronger than normal in that story, because of the madness. And yet you've repeatedly denied that Thor drew strength from his madness, like Bill said he did. Thor was stronger because of the madness, but he didn't draw strength from it? As is often the case, your position makes no sense when closely examined.

And how would this be a concession unless you're just a retard?

You're such a whiny bitch it's not even funny anymore.

I can tell you're getting frustrated when you start calling me a bitch. :)

And it'd be a tacit concession, because you refused to support your claim despite repeated requests, which suggests you're unable to support your claim.

What did I argue about Henshaw's showing under Marz that didn't make sense?

That Marz followed Jurgens work. Sane applies here.

Why doesn't it make sense to think that Marz read Henshaw's prior appearances? You think he wrote the character without knowing anything about him?

It wasn't standard anger though. Thor was clearly angrier and stronger than normal, due to his insanity. There was no other reason for him to be so angry, aside from his insanity.

No, he was angry because he felt betrayed.

And he felt betrayed all of a sudden because he was insane. Perhaps he felt betrayed all along on some level, but he was never that angry about it till he went insane.

There is no mention of him being unusually angry. If there is, show us the proof.

The proof is that he was in a berserker rage. Is that normal for him?

We don't need to see a Thor/Superman rematch to question their fight, just like we don't need to see a Superman/Venom rematch to question that fight.

So in essence Superman beating Thor is equivalent to Venom beating Superman?

No, but both fights can be questioned on the basis that one fight is not the be-all, end-all of a comparison between two characters. It's a very simple point, Abhi, and you make yourself look dimwitted by needing me to explain this to you.

But did Marz intend that lip service to be taken as true, or untrue?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Don't know.

Pick one.

Sounds like an "I don't know" to me, which is a valid answer. But if you aren't sure Marz intended Tyrant's statement to be taken as untrue, then it could very well be that he believed the Surfer to be more powerful than Thor and Bill.

http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Silver-Surfer-1987/Issue-82?id=11790#36

I don't know for a fact whether he went all out or not (and neither do you). But I don't think he went all out, for the aforementioned reasons:

1) He didn't say he was going all out.
2) I don't believe his motivation was sufficient to make him go all out.
3) He was likely already hurt by that point.

This is what you call a bareface lie.

You have a habit of parroting what I and others say. Aren't you clever enough to come up with your own wording? Actually, don't answer that; I already know you're a birdbrain. :))

And is it really a lie that the Surfer was likely already hurt by that point? He'd taken four hammerblows, and it only took one more to finish him off.

I don't know. I didn't say he didn't go all out against Mephisto though.

Nothing you can say changes anything. Surfer went all out.

Deal with it. Or don't. Not my problem.

This point is finished.

I'll deal with your claim when you prove it's definitely accurate, which you've thus far been unwilling or unable to do.

You already asked this question above, and I answered it above (in this post, and two previous ones).

Now answer my question, which you've repeatedly avoided: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

That's not answer.

It's an answer, just not the one you wanted.

Not that it matters now. That point is finished.

The point isn't finished when you still haven't answered the question: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer went all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

I'd love to, but you didn't post these statements, since they didn't exist in the first place. No Marvel staffers have ever declared the Handbooks to be canon, and your claim to the contrary was nothing more than a barefaced lie.

And who better than you about barefaced lies, eh?

Cite an example of me lying about something.

And prove you weren't lying here by posting the statements of Marvel staffers declaring the Handbook to be canon, which you claimed you posted earlier.

Neither. This is a false dilemma fallacy, since you're ignoring the third option that the Handbooks are both non-canon and usable. That is a definite answer, and it's my answer.

Now what's your position? It's been six pages since you posted those Handbook bios, and you still haven't clarified whether you consider your own evidence to be valid or not.

Wrong answer. Chose one of the two.

You thought you had a third choice? This is not your made up rules Shuruku.

I've already pointed out that this is a false dilemma fallacy. You're not even denying it, and yet you're still trying to get away with it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Sure they can. I cite non-canon stuff on a regular basis, and I've been doing so since before you ever posted here, with no complaints till now.

So you admit that you are essentially using unusable evidence all this time?

Good to know.

I'm admitting that I regularly cite stuff from sources which are either non-canon, or of questionable canonicity, and that I don't expect people to lend such references the same weight as canon references.

They're a weak form of proof.

Wrong answer. Once again, this time with more feelings.

That's my answer. Explain why it's "wrong".

I complained about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, as distinct from merely pointing out that they aren't canon? Quote me then.

You did it the whole thread. I can't quote the full thread now, can I?

Pick one example then. It should be extremely easy if I was complaining throughout the thread.

I wouldn't use Ultimate characters, because they're clearly intended to be different in certain ways. But What If characters aren't necessarily intended to be different from the 616 versions.

Yes, they are. Explicitly so.

What If characters usually have the same powers and backgrounds as their 616 counterparts. This isn't the case with Ultimate characters, who often have distinctly different powersets.

On the basis that it was never established in a canon story. Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating; canon or not, in your view?

What about the facts that are established?

Facts? Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating, you mean? That's both wrong and non-canon IMO. Do you agree or disagree?

Are you certain that comics don't make such mistakes?

I guess all the comics which contradict previous comics are non canon too?

Comics can make "mistakes", in the sense that they can contradict facts established in earlier stories. But if those "mistakes" appear in canon stories, then they become part of the canon. The same isn't true of mistakes that appear in the Handbooks.

The bios are neither right nor wrong by default. You're just too simple-minded to grasp nuance or grey areas.

Or I can see through your hypocrisy.

This isn't rocket science. I know you are in a tough position having to face your own hypocrisy but get used to it.

There's no hypocrisy, since I'm attributing the same weak level of legitimacy to my Handbook references as I am to yours.

What's telling here is that you've repeatedly refused to express your own view on the legitimacy of Handbooks references. You've spent the whole thread hiding behind a distortion of my position, without outlining yours. And your own position on this is of central relevance, because if you don't consider Handbook references valid, then the prolonged argument you've made on this point has been utterly hollow; an intellectual sham.

They're never canon, but always citable as a weak form of evidence.

So even "weak form of evidence" establishes JLA/Avengers is canon, right?

No, but it lends some weight to the claim that it's canon.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 10:35:57 PM by The Shuruku Demon »

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #126 on: March 13, 2018, 05:16:35 PM »
Lol...

Only when it suits te argument like... you know Fandral.

So what's your position on Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating? Canon or not?

If you're going to argue that the Handbook is canon, then you need to follow it through by acknowledging the above stat as canon, or admit that the Handbook's canonical status is less than robust.

Commander

  • *****
  • 1046
  • +19/-3
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #127 on: March 13, 2018, 09:07:20 PM »
So what comic has Fandral been shown to lift 30 tons and being superior to Balder in the use of swords?

We can play your hypocratic lines here.

fangirl101

  • ********
  • 12485
  • +37/-57
  • Didn't see Wonder Woman yet so no spoilers BITCHES
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #128 on: March 13, 2018, 09:26:21 PM »
Lol...

Only when it suits te argument like... you know Fandral.

So what's your position on Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating? Canon or not?

If you're going to argue that the Handbook is canon, then you need to follow it through by acknowledging the above stat as canon, or admit that the Handbook's canonical status is less than robust.
If he lifts above 40 tons ever, then it's canon. Or if it is a standard for Asgardians. If he tries and FAILS, then it is non canon.

Abhilegend

  • *******
  • 6592
  • +24/-29
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #129 on: March 13, 2018, 11:35:10 PM »
"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. There's no reason why I should have a clear memory of some random issue you choose to bring up. You didn't even name a specific issue.

Is it now? You can go ahead and read them now.

Come back with a definite answer.

You're the one who wants to discuss those issues, so the onus is on you to present your evidence.


You said you don't have time to read the issues. First make the time and come back.
Quote


What is it about his performance/s against Mephisto that indicates it made no difference there?

He gets beaten with same ease as before.

Name your examples.


Pick any Surfer/Mephisto fight.
Quote


My rules? Proving your claims is a standard expectation in a debate. If you can't handle the burden of proof, then don't make claims in the first place.

Yes, yours. It's standard tactic for you to ask for this and ask again if it's given.

Funny how in 15 years of posting on this board, you're the only person who's ever mentioned this "standard tactic" of mine.


I know right.
Quote


Not happening. Go ahead and read yourself.

Why would I search for something you haven't proven exists? You might as well ask me to go find a unicorn.


Oh it exists. You just have to read it.
Quote


And I'm happy to accept your tacit concession that there was no meaningful difference between the insanity Thor had in Blood & Thunder and true Warrior's Madness (beyond the fact that the insanity was Odin's fault and not Thor's). As such, when Beta Ray Bill said Thor was drawing strength from his madness, he was absolutely right.


LMAO, what? I already showed that it was different. Warriors madness is incurable and Odin sentenced him to death upon discovering it. Then he was informed that it wasn't warriors madness and reversed his decision.

Why would Odin change his decision if it was all the same.

I already acknowledged the that the cause of the madness was different, in the sense that it was Odin's fault and not Thor's. But that doesn't mean the effect of the madness was different in any meaningful way. You already acknowledged that there's no reason to think true Warrior's Madness grants any more strength than the madness Thor had in Blood & Thunder. You've also acknowledged that Thor was stronger than normal in that story, because of the madness. And yet you've repeatedly denied that Thor drew strength from his madness, like Bill said he did. Thor was stronger because of the madness, but he didn't draw strength from it? As is often the case, your position makes no sense when closely examined.


The cause was different, the result was different and the cure was different.

But somehow in all other aspects it was true?

What a retard.
Quote


And how would this be a concession unless you're just a retard?

You're such a whiny bitch it's not even funny anymore.

I can tell you're getting frustrated when you start calling me a bitch. :)


Or you're just one.
Quote


And it'd be a tacit concession, because you refused to support your claim despite repeated requests, which suggests you're unable to support your claim.


I already did show you the proof with issues link posted.

This is the standard tactic. Ask again and again, and post how the other poster's not able to prove it.

Such a passive aggressive bitch.
Quote


What did I argue about Henshaw's showing under Marz that didn't make sense?

That Marz followed Jurgens work. Sane applies here.

Why doesn't it make sense to think that Marz read Henshaw's prior appearances? You think he wrote the character without knowing anything about him?


Why does it not applies to Ares then?
Quote


It wasn't standard anger though. Thor was clearly angrier and stronger than normal, due to his insanity. There was no other reason for him to be so angry, aside from his insanity.

No, he was angry because he felt betrayed.

And he felt betrayed all of a sudden because he was insane. Perhaps he felt betrayed all along on some level, but he was never that angry about it till he went insane.


There is no mention of it being anymore than standard anger.

You're welcome to post any proof of it being a special kind of anger though.

Quote


There is no mention of him being unusually angry. If there is, show us the proof.

The proof is that he was in a berserker rage. Is that normal for him?


That's not a proof of being unusually angry.

Try again.
Quote


We don't need to see a Thor/Superman rematch to question their fight, just like we don't need to see a Superman/Venom rematch to question that fight.

So in essence Superman beating Thor is equivalent to Venom beating Superman?

No, but both fights can be questioned on the basis that one fight is not the be-all, end-all of a comparison between two characters. It's a very simple point, Abhi, and you make yourself look dimwitted by needing me to explain this to you.


Well, you're bringing up Venom beating Superman every time and then claiming it's an outlier. What is it? Either its regular showing for Superman which you can use every time or it's an outlier which you can't use everytime you want.

Are you sure you are not retarded?
Quote


But did Marz intend that lip service to be taken as true, or untrue?

I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Don't know.

Pick one.

Sounds like an "I don't know" to me, which is a valid answer. But if you aren't sure Marz intended Tyrant's statement to be taken as untrue, then it could very well be that he believed the Surfer to be more powerful than Thor and Bill.


Oh I know. It's a lip service, nothing more.

Did Marz show Thor less powerful than Surfer in blood and Thunder?

Was Thor powered up externally?

Answer these and you'll know what Marz wanted to say.
Quote




I don't know for a fact whether he went all out or not (and neither do you). But I don't think he went all out, for the aforementioned reasons:

1) He didn't say he was going all out.
2) I don't believe his motivation was sufficient to make him go all out.
3) He was likely already hurt by that point.

This is what you call a bareface lie.

You have a habit of parroting what I and others say. Aren't you clever enough to come up with your own wording? Actually, don't answer that; I already know you're a birdbrain. :))


So no acknowledgement of lying straight faced huh?

Typical.
Quote


And is it really a lie that the Surfer was likely already hurt by that point? He'd taken four hammerblows, and it only took one more to finish him off.

You said you don't know what it takes for Surfer to go all out Shuruku.

No need to lie again.
Quote


I don't know. I didn't say he didn't go all out against Mephisto though.

Nothing you can say changes anything. Surfer went all out.

Deal with it. Or don't. Not my problem.

This point is finished.

I'll deal with your claim when you prove it's definitely accurate, which you've thus far been unwilling or unable to do.


You already accepted you don't know when Surfer goes all out.

The point is finished.
Quote


You already asked this question above, and I answered it above (in this post, and two previous ones).

Now answer my question, which you've repeatedly avoided: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer did go all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

That's not answer.

It's an answer, just not the one you wanted.


No, it's not an answer.
Quote


Not that it matters now. That point is finished.

The point isn't finished when you still haven't answered the question: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer went all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?


Oh its finished. You already conceded.

Game over son.
Quote


I'd love to, but you didn't post these statements, since they didn't exist in the first place. No Marvel staffers have ever declared the Handbooks to be canon, and your claim to the contrary was nothing more than a barefaced lie.

And who better than you about barefaced lies, eh?

Cite an example of me lying about something.


Just posted above.
Quote


And prove you weren't lying here by posting the statements of Marvel staffers declaring the Handbook to be canon, which you claimed you posted earlier.


Hello there snake eyes.

Quote


Neither. This is a false dilemma fallacy, since you're ignoring the third option that the Handbooks are both non-canon and usable. That is a definite answer, and it's my answer.

Now what's your position? It's been six pages since you posted those Handbook bios, and you still haven't clarified whether you consider your own evidence to be valid or not.

Wrong answer. Chose one of the two.

You thought you had a third choice? This is not your made up rules Shuruku.

I've already pointed out that this is a false dilemma fallacy. You're not even denying it, and yet you're still trying to get away with it?


It's not. It's not your made up rules.

Pucker up and chose one.

I know you can do it.
Quote


Sure they can. I cite non-canon stuff on a regular basis, and I've been doing so since before you ever posted here, with no complaints till now.

So you admit that you are essentially using unusable evidence all this time?

Good to know.

I'm admitting that I regularly cite stuff from sources which are either non-canon, or of questionable canonicity, and that I don't expect people to lend such references the same weight as canon references.


So in effect none of your evidence can be trusted because you frequently use non canon stuff.

Good to know.
Quote


They're a weak form of proof.

Wrong answer. Once again, this time with more feelings.

That's my answer. Explain why it's "wrong".


Because it's a wrong choice. You're not given this option.

Now once again with some more feeling.
Quote


I complained about the fact that the Handbooks were cited, as distinct from merely pointing out that they aren't canon? Quote me then.

You did it the whole thread. I can't quote the full thread now, can I?

Pick one example then. It should be extremely easy if I was complaining throughout the thread.


Or you can read the whole thread.
Quote


I wouldn't use Ultimate characters, because they're clearly intended to be different in certain ways. But What If characters aren't necessarily intended to be different from the 616 versions.

Yes, they are. Explicitly so.

What If characters usually have the same powers and backgrounds as their 616 counterparts. This isn't the case with Ultimate characters, who often have distinctly different powersets.


They are different reality characters in what if.

But now I can use Gambit destroying mjolnir and Cap's shield thanks to you Shuruku.
Quote


On the basis that it was never established in a canon story. Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating; canon or not, in your view?

What about the facts that are established?

Facts? Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating, you mean? That's both wrong and non-canon IMO. Do you agree or disagree?


What about the facts which are already established? Do the comics never show any incorrect facts?
Quote


Are you certain that comics don't make such mistakes?

I guess all the comics which contradict previous comics are non canon too?

Comics can make "mistakes", in the sense that they can contradict facts established in earlier stories. But if those "mistakes" appear in canon stories, then they become part of the canon. The same isn't true of mistakes that appear in the Handbooks.


Why not? Both are published by marvel detailing 616 characters, don't they?
Quote


The bios are neither right nor wrong by default. You're just too simple-minded to grasp nuance or grey areas.

Or I can see through your hypocrisy.

This isn't rocket science. I know you are in a tough position having to face your own hypocrisy but get used to it.

There's no hypocrisy, since I'm attributing the same weak level of legitimacy to my Handbook references as I am to yours.


Of course there is. It's there to all to see.

You've posted no proof of your claims that handbooks are non canon.
Quote


What's telling here is that you've repeatedly refused to express your own view on the legitimacy of Handbooks references. You've spent the whole thread hiding behind a distortion of my position, without outlining yours. And your own position on this is of central relevance, because if you don't consider Handbook references valid, then the prolonged argument you've made on this point has been utterly hollow; an intellectual sham.


Blah de blah. Cry some more.

I've made my position on the handbooks clear from the start.
Quote


They're never canon, but always citable as a weak form of evidence.

So even "weak form of evidence" establishes JLA/Avengers is canon, right?

No, but it lends some weight to the claim that it's canon.
So it's canon. Good to know unless you have some proof that it's non canon.

GG Shuruku.

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #130 on: March 14, 2018, 05:17:04 PM »
Name your examples.

Pick any Surfer/Mephisto fight.

You want me to name your evidence for you? Fine, how about SILVER SURFER Vol 2 #1? The Surfer physically overpowered Mephisto in that one, but you'd insist that him going all out there (if he did) made no difference? That he'd have achieved the same if he were holding back?

Funny how in 15 years of posting on this board, you're the only person who's ever mentioned this "standard tactic" of mine.

I know right.

The fact that no one else has mentioned it in 15 years of me posting here suggests it isn't a standard tactic for me to repeatedly request the same item of evidence. Perhaps I only do it when I'm dealing with evasive posters like you who refuse to provide said evidence.

Why would I search for something you haven't proven exists? You might as well ask me to go find a unicorn.

Oh it exists. You just have to read it.

If this explanation of yours truly exists, prove it by copying and pasting it here for all to see. You don't have nearly enough credibility for your claims to be taken on trust.

I already acknowledged the that the cause of the madness was different, in the sense that it was Odin's fault and not Thor's. But that doesn't mean the effect of the madness was different in any meaningful way. You already acknowledged that there's no reason to think true Warrior's Madness grants any more strength than the madness Thor had in Blood & Thunder. You've also acknowledged that Thor was stronger than normal in that story, because of the madness. And yet you've repeatedly denied that Thor drew strength from his madness, like Bill said he did. Thor was stronger because of the madness, but he didn't draw strength from it? As is often the case, your position makes no sense when closely examined.

The cause was different, the result was different and the cure was different.

But somehow in all other aspects it was true?

If Warrior's Madness is fundamentally just a berserker rage, as I believe it is, then there's no reason to think it enhances Thor physically more than the berserker rage he had in Blood & Thunder. This means that when Bill said Thor drew strength from his madness, he was almost certainly correct, irrespective of the fact that it wasn't true Warrior's Madness. This conclusion is not only based on reasoning, but on the fact that he -- and we, as the readers -- actually observed Thor drawing strength from his madness, using it to rise to his feet after a beating that likely would've kept him down longer under normal circumstances.



I can tell you're getting frustrated when you start calling me a bitch. :)

Or you're just one.

You're the one getting bent over and intellectually sodomised here. :)

And it'd be a tacit concession, because you refused to support your claim despite repeated requests, which suggests you're unable to support your claim.

I already did show you the proof with issues link posted.

This is the standard tactic. Ask again and again, and post how the other poster's not able to prove it.

Sure, I'll ask again and again, if the answers or evidence I'm requesting aren't forthcoming. I rarely need to do that though, except with you.

Such a passive aggressive bitch.

Haha, there it is; I knew it was coming. And it's a sure sign the butthurt is kicking in. :))

Why doesn't it make sense to think that Marz read Henshaw's prior appearances? You think he wrote the character without knowing anything about him?

Why does it not applies to Ares then?

Because you're interpreting Pluto's comment in the Thor/Ares fight under Marz in a way that doesn't make sense. Whereas my interpretation of the Superman/Henshaw fight under Marz makes perfect sense.

The proof is that he was in a berserker rage. Is that normal for him?

That's not a proof of being unusually angry.

Try again.

So being in a berserker rage is standard for Thor?

No, but both fights can be questioned on the basis that one fight is not the be-all, end-all of a comparison between two characters. It's a very simple point, Abhi, and you make yourself look dimwitted by needing me to explain this to you.

Well, you're bringing up Venom beating Superman every time and then claiming it's an outlier. What is it? Either its regular showing for Superman which you can use every time or it's an outlier which you can't use everytime you want.

It's an outlier which I can and will bring up any time I feel it's appropriate. Maybe you should try being a bit less sensitive about Superman's low showings, considering you routinely cite the low showings of other characters.

Are you sure you are not retarded?

Do you normally lose debates to retards? Wouldn't surprise me if you did. :))

Sounds like an "I don't know" to me, which is a valid answer. But if you aren't sure Marz intended Tyrant's statement to be taken as untrue, then it could very well be that he believed the Surfer to be more powerful than Thor and Bill.

Oh I know. It's a lip service, nothing more.

Did Marz show Thor less powerful than Surfer in blood and Thunder?

Was Thor powered up externally?

Answer these and you'll know what Marz wanted to say.

My answers are "no" and "no", but when we consider what Tyrant had to say, it appears that Marz thought the Surfer was more powerful than Thor in spite of all that. It's very telling that you can't actually reconcile Tyrant's statement with your position. You're forced to brush it under the carpet, because it doesn't fit with the picture you're trying to paint.

And is it really a lie that the Surfer was likely already hurt by that point? He'd taken four hammerblows, and it only took one more to finish him off.

You said you don't know what it takes for Surfer to go all out Shuruku.

No need to lie again.

I don't recall saying that, and am almost certain I didn't (because it doesn't sound like something I would've said). So post the quote.

It's an answer, just not the one you wanted.

No, it's not an answer.

Explain why the following quote of mine is "not an answer" to the question you asked me.

Abhilegend: "So how do you know Surfer didn't went all out here."

Shuruku: "I don't know for a fact whether he went all out or not (and neither do you). But I don't think he went all out, for the aforementioned reasons:

1) He didn't say he was going all out.
2) I don't believe his motivation was sufficient to make him go all out.
3) He was likely already hurt by that point."


The point isn't finished when you still haven't answered the question: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer went all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

Oh its finished. You already conceded.

Game over son.

You still haven't answered the question, so I'll ask it yet again: Why are you so insistent that the Surfer went all out against Thor in SILVER SURFER #86?

And prove you weren't lying here by posting the statements of Marvel staffers declaring the Handbook to be canon, which you claimed you posted earlier.

Hello there snake eyes.

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if you've lied to him as well. But why don't you prove you weren't lying here by copying and pasting the relevant quotes?

I've already pointed out that this is a false dilemma fallacy. You're not even denying it, and yet you're still trying to get away with it?

It's not. It's not your made up rules.

Pucker up and chose one.

I know you can do it.

It's not a false dilemma... because you say it's not? Is that the extent of your "counterargument" here...? To be fair, it is a characteristic Abhilegend response: a flat denial with no reasoning or evidence to back it up.

I'm admitting that I regularly cite stuff from sources which are either non-canon, or of questionable canonicity, and that I don't expect people to lend such references the same weight as canon references.

So in effect none of your evidence can be trusted because you frequently use non canon stuff.

Good to know.

Most of the evidence I use is canon evidence.

That's my answer. Explain why it's "wrong".

Because it's a wrong choice. You're not given this option.

Now once again with some more feeling.

Again, my answer -- that Handbook bios are a weak form of evidence -- is "wrong"... because you say it's wrong? I don't have that "option"... because you say I don't? Assertions like these have no weight if you can't substantiate them with reasoning or evidence.

Pick one example then. It should be extremely easy if I was complaining throughout the thread.

Or you can read the whole thread.

So I've been "complaining" about you citing the Handbooks throughout the thread, but you can't quote one solitary instance of me doing so? I guess we can chalk this up as another barefaced lie then.

What If characters usually have the same powers and backgrounds as their 616 counterparts. This isn't the case with Ultimate characters, who often have distinctly different powersets.

They are different reality characters in what if.

They're from different realities, but they're supposed to have the same powers as their 616 counterparts. OTOH, I expect writers can take more liberties with What Ifs than they can with canon stories.

But now I can use Gambit destroying mjolnir and Cap's shield thanks to you Shuruku.

You're perfectly free to cite that stuff, although they won't have the same weight as canon references.

Facts? Like Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating, you mean? That's both wrong and non-canon IMO. Do you agree or disagree?


What about the facts which are already established? Do the comics never show any incorrect facts?

Stories can be "wrong" in the sense that they can contradict facts established in earlier stories. But if something happened in canon, then it happened, regardless of whether it's consistent with other stories or not.

Now answer my question: Is Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating canon in your view?

Comics can make "mistakes", in the sense that they can contradict facts established in earlier stories. But if those "mistakes" appear in canon stories, then they become part of the canon. The same isn't true of mistakes that appear in the Handbooks.

Why not? Both are published by marvel detailing 616 characters, don't they?

The canon of the Marvel universe is the established history of that universe, the events which are known to have happened within it. The Handbooks didn't happen within the Marvel universe. They don't exist within the Marvel universe. They therefore can't be part of it's canon, they can only document it. Describing a Handbook bio as canon is like describing a posthumous autobiography as a part of it's subject life.

There's no hypocrisy, since I'm attributing the same weak level of legitimacy to my Handbook references as I am to yours.

Of course there is. It's there to all to see.

Because you say so, right? That's what your arguments have been reduced to at this point: proposition 'X' is true, because Abhilegend says it is. You've literally run out of arguments, and are just posting flat denials now.

You've posted no proof of your claims that handbooks are non canon.

I did provide reasoning though, whereas you've offered neither reasoning nor evidence for your claims that the Handbooks are canon.

What's telling here is that you've repeatedly refused to express your own view on the legitimacy of Handbooks references. You've spent the whole thread hiding behind a distortion of my position, without outlining yours. And your own position on this is of central relevance, because if you don't consider Handbook references valid, then the prolonged argument you've made on this point has been utterly hollow; an intellectual sham.

Blah de blah. Cry some more.

I've made my position on the handbooks clear from the start.

That position being...?

No, but it lends some weight to the claim that it's canon.

So it's canon. Good to know unless you have some proof that it's non canon.

GG Shuruku.

JLA/Avengers may or may not be canon, but the Handbooks definitely aren't (IMO). ;)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 08:25:27 PM by The Shuruku Demon »

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #131 on: March 14, 2018, 05:19:30 PM »
So what comic has Fandral been shown to lift 30 tons

I answered the question about Fandral before.

Shuruku: "Not that I can recall offhand, but his peers have shown that level of strength, and he's shown durability commensurate with someone on or above that level."

and being superior to Balder in the use of swords?

I never claimed Fandral was a better swordsman than Balder.

Now please answer my question, instead of deflecting it: Do you consider Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating to be canon or not? If you don't think it is, you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

We can play your hypocratic lines here.

How have I been hypocritical? I haven't said you can't or shouldn't cite the Handbook, like I did. I'm just letting you guys know it's considered a weak form of evidence by most. Always has been. But then, you fangirl and Abhi are all relatively new here, compared to Xerxes and I, so you don't know the history of this board as well as we do.

The Shuruku Demon

  • ******
  • 2685
  • +32/-7
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #132 on: March 14, 2018, 05:20:09 PM »
So what's your position on Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating? Canon or not?

If you're going to argue that the Handbook is canon, then you need to follow it through by acknowledging the above stat as canon, or admit that the Handbook's canonical status is less than robust.

If he lifts above 40 tons ever, then it's canon. Or if it is a standard for Asgardians. If he tries and FAILS, then it is non canon.

What if he's never tried to lift 40 tons, but he couldn't break webbing, couldn't break restraints Spider-Man broke, and was manhandled or knocked out by three different Goblins?

Panthergod

  • ********
  • 7709
  • +45/-82
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #133 on: March 14, 2018, 05:43:01 PM »
Hey SD.. Surfer  was portrayed as having more innate power than Bill. So? What does this have to do with Thors power?

fangirl101

  • ********
  • 12485
  • +37/-57
  • Didn't see Wonder Woman yet so no spoilers BITCHES
    • View Profile
Re: Silver Surfer VS Orion
« Reply #134 on: March 14, 2018, 05:50:46 PM »
So what's your position on Molten Man's 40 ton strength rating? Canon or not?

If you're going to argue that the Handbook is canon, then you need to follow it through by acknowledging the above stat as canon, or admit that the Handbook's canonical status is less than robust.

If he lifts above 40 tons ever, then it's canon. Or if it is a standard for Asgardians. If he tries and FAILS, then it is non canon.

What if he's never tried to lift 40 tons, but he couldn't break webbing, couldn't break restraints Spider-Man broke, and was manhandled or knocked out by three different Goblins?
The webbing held Iron Man who is class 100 definitely. Try another example. Even Mantis couldn't tear it easily. And he is high class 100.