|
Post by Erik-El on Jul 31, 2011 18:06:13 GMT -5
If I miss shooting you with a gun, would you try to argue that my bullets do not travel at 700mph? Or would you just say you got out of the way in time? Cool, but too bad that's not at all what I've been implying the entire time. I've pointed to examples where people have been able to react accordingly to the shot after it has been fired. Them dodging isn't the impressive aspect, it's the fact they've had the time to react after the blast has been produced. Again, plot. For the sake of it, Captain America has outraced a bullet to its target and Spider-Man beat up Firelord.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jul 31, 2011 18:07:54 GMT -5
The proposal would be ridiculous yes. But still similar to the situation. If you're going to get defensive over people questioning your proposal, don't bring it up in the first place. The whole point is to debate over the statement at hand. Not to attempt to belittle every piece of counter-argument just so we can move on and have it labeled as fact. I'm far from alone in questioning this, and it's upsetting that so far the discussion has been surrounded MOSTLY by judges. If arguing others counter-arguments means I am defensive, then I guess I am wondering how you expect me to do more than simply add my proposal to the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 18:08:28 GMT -5
Cool, but too bad that's not at all what I've been implying the entire time. I've pointed to examples where people have been able to react accordingly to the shot after it has been fired. Them dodging isn't the impressive aspect, it's the fact they've had the time to react after the blast has been produced. Again, plot. For the sake of it, Captain America has outraced a bullet to its target and Spider-Man beat up Firelord. Are you seriously going to limit yourself to ridiculously far fetched examples to counter any argument against this? If there's NUMEROUS displays of evidence against said proposed fact, then it's only fair to bring them up for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 18:09:53 GMT -5
If you're going to get defensive over people questioning your proposal, don't bring it up in the first place. The whole point is to debate over the statement at hand. Not to attempt to belittle every piece of counter-argument just so we can move on and have it labeled as fact. I'm far from alone in questioning this, and it's upsetting that so far the discussion has been surrounded MOSTLY by judges. If arguing others counter-arguments means I am defensive, then I guess I am wondering how you expect me to do more than simply add my proposal to the thread. This is about your current set of replies, not the course of the entire thread. There are legitimate questions over this proposal, and now you're attempting to counter them with absolutely absurd examples (Spider-Man beating Firelord, Superman's low showings, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jul 31, 2011 18:10:54 GMT -5
Again, plot. For the sake of it, Captain America has outraced a bullet to its target and Spider-Man beat up Firelord. Are you seriously going to limit yourself to ridiculously far fetched examples to counter any argument against this? If there's NUMEROUS displays of evidence against said proposed fact, then it's only fair to bring them up for discussion. I was merely using examples that are easy to digest as PIS. I can bring up more subtle ones. Like an assassin throwing a grenade into Wonder Man's mouth and it somehow makes its way into his belly before detonation instantly.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 18:13:00 GMT -5
Trying to personalize it now? Classy. Except we both previously discussed that and reached the conclusion we have no idea how that operated (time/impact/etc).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 18:16:22 GMT -5
At the end of the day, you picked a topic that is indeed open for a big discussion. Sure, it's been stated twice (was it under the same writer?) his power travels at light speed, but the character has been around for decades and plenty of evidence has been produced to bring that into question. We shouldn't just move on quickly if we're going to, as a site, label something as a fact.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jul 31, 2011 18:21:32 GMT -5
Trying to personalize it now? Classy. Except we both previously discussed that and reached the conclusion we have no idea how that operated (time/impact/etc). It was not meant to be taken personally. Just using an example I knew you were aware of. As for the Origins, glossing over the fact that the entire fight was riddled throughout with problems, we have no real confirmation that Wolverine swung after the optics were fired. Going back to the gun example, if you know I am going to shoot you and you pull up something to protect yourself, I would never make the argument that you are faster than the bullets or that my bullets were simply slow. It just means I did not "pull the trigger" fast enough on my target.
|
|
|
Post by Erik-El on Jul 31, 2011 18:22:10 GMT -5
At the end of the day, you picked a topic that is indeed open for a big discussion. Sure, it's been stated twice (was it under the same writer?) his power travels at light speed, but the character has been around for decades and plenty of evidence has been produced to bring that into question. We shouldn't just move on quickly if we're going to, as a site, label something as a fact. Actually stated thrice under different writers.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 21:16:50 GMT -5
I only saw two (Claremont, who is the second?). Wasn't the third scan remarking on North Star's speed?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 21:18:56 GMT -5
Also, the incident involving Wolverine in the sewers was written by Chris Claremont.
"we have no real confirmation that Wolverine swung after the optics were fired."
I agree with Morph's description of the scene.
|
|
Mr.Cob
Sidekick Ledger
Posts: 85
|
Post by Mr.Cob on Jul 31, 2011 21:23:01 GMT -5
Way has written Spidey? Which series was it? I believe it was called tangled web , I can't remember I read an issue or two of it a couple years ago and it wasn't good , he also wrote him for a little over 10 issues in Deadpool in a story called "Monkey Business" it was Deadpools comics but Spidey was teaming up with him.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 31, 2011 21:25:35 GMT -5
Isn't Tangled Web the series where Rhino briefly gains genius level intellect?
|
|
Mr.Cob
Sidekick Ledger
Posts: 85
|
Post by Mr.Cob on Jul 31, 2011 21:40:12 GMT -5
Isn't Tangled Web the series where Rhino briefly gains genius level intellect? I didn't read the whole series , I think different teams took their turn at writing a few issues each I don't think Way wrote the whole thing, can't recall what happened but I think I recall the familiar feeling of resentment for Way after I read a couple issues. Sorry for taking this thread off topic if I did , please continue the debate on Cyclops' blasts. As for the Wolverine reacting to it , not saying this is what happened but a mugger for example knows someone is going to try something before they do due to subconsiously recording pupil dilation just before they do it with Wolverine's superhuman sight it may be possible from that distance , unless Cyclops' visor sheilds his eyes (which it would) , just throwing it out there , don't look in a mugger's eyes if you plan to resist him.
|
|
|
Post by ckal on Aug 1, 2011 11:01:41 GMT -5
So far I have seen one, possibly two, examples that counter Cyclops' optics being light speed, and heard of one other. I suggest that unless we start seeing more evidence, we should avoid repeating ourselves or just stating that there is a ton of evidence out there, because so far, visual evidence for Cyclops' optics being light speed outweigh visual evidence against it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2011 14:08:09 GMT -5
At least three have been provided from what I've seen.
Wolverine detecting the blast and reacting before it reaches him (written by Claremont, by the way) Wolverine deflecting the blast (I agree with Morph's analysis of the panels) Ord deflecting the blast
There's the numerous dodging examples provided, but due to debate over accuracy and such, I'll avoid using them. Then there's Storm also blocking Cyc's optic blast with lightning. However, I've only seen scans of that and haven't read the issue at hand. On the matter of Storm and this subject, should we also believe that Storm can use her powers at a rate "quicker than a conscious thought" too? Because I seem to remember that being used in captions at least twice. As well as her having "lightning fast" reflexes, because that's another caption used twice or so.
At the end of the day, I'm thinking captions saying "at the speed of light" is more of a metaphor. The optic blast is clearly fast, but I think "light speed" is too much. I'm open to more evidence, obviously. But, that's my current thought on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 1, 2011 21:16:01 GMT -5
I'll get involved in some of the others, because I know little to nothing about the details of Scott's beams.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 0:12:03 GMT -5
Well, you can always make a suggestion for the next topic in the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by Strafe Prower on Aug 2, 2011 0:14:45 GMT -5
Well, you can always make a suggestion for the next topic in the other thread. If I make a suggestion, I'll be the only one to participate.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2011 0:16:16 GMT -5
Not true at all. It's just your objective to prove said 'fact.'
|
|