VeganDiet's forum posts

#1 Edited by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio
@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet:

A. You called me a d!ck in your first post directed at me. That is an insult.

A.You called me a liar first, and I just stated the obvious. I said you were being a d!ck. There's a distinct and obvious difference. And, again, you were. To coin your attitude; I know these distinctions are hard for you to comprehend.

B. And never manages to do any significant damage. In the showing drawn by John Romita Jr. you just posted Spider-man is able to do a minimal amount of damage to Hulk, pry himself from Hulk's grip at one point, is able to take a few blows from Hulk and keep fighting, and his webbing at one point takes the Hulk a decent bit of time to tear off. The second showing is from Ultimate Marvel, so it has no bearing here. The third showing is tow panels from different stories. One of which is just a back up story where Spider-man explains his powers. The other one is from a storyline in which the Hulk is amped by a Gamma virus, and is one of Spider-man's better showings against the Hulk, as he is able to knock both Hulk and Samson down with a tackle and throw the Hulk off his feet. And in the specific panel you posted there, where Hulk body slams Spider-man, Spidey recovers pretty quickly. By the next page, he's on his feet and back in the fight. Compare that to his fight in the Conway era, where after being tagged once, he's down for the count. Thanks for giving more credence to my point. Do you want to cite more things out of context? Because it's been working fabulously at proving my points for me.

B. Nah. The over all template is exactly the same. Your drive-by commentary notwithstanding. Spider-Man "survives" the Hulk. Until he doesn't, then is saved by plot. The other details do add and detract to a "degree", but overall basic plot lines remain as they were. No one reinvented the wheel. His speed, agility and spider-sense let him survive. His strength levels are pretty much irrelevant against Hulk (though impressive all the same to varying degree), and we all know the ultimate outcome. Again, as already stated, writing gets more sophisticated over time. Art work details encounters more vividly. But Spider-Man remains with his high points and low points throughout his career.

C. You don't have to read the comics you're talking about? Really? Lunacy.

C. I will read the book from cover to back, when I feel that A. it looks like an interesting read and / or B. I truly think it will add to the context of what the panels outlining the fight itself are delineating. In the showings in question, I don't have hard copies or digital copies, nor am I interested in having them. So I was unable to connect the fights to a book cover and issue number as all I had access to were the panels themselves. All I'm interested in are the feats for now - as I'm treating all that is said herein quite loosely and very cursorily and nothing you've stated detracts or matters all that much. I really do not take this, or you, nearly seriously enough to study these eras from top to bottom. I don't even care whose "right or wrong" ... I'm just killing time at a slow day in the office.

Funny thing about that '66 feat you're touting. It's not in the 70s. I know this is hard for you, since you apparently hate to read so much you refuse to read the actual comics you're citing, but you're going to need to read what I actually write. The 70s era was Spider-man's low period power level wise. I'm not saying showings in that era need to be entirely ignored. I'm saying they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as I would say if someone posted a Wolverine showing from the Cornell era or from an issue written by Ennis.

D. I could agree that he had lower end showings, some less than flattering creative periods, but not that it was his low level "power" wise. I have been reading thanks. Just making a distinction between treatment of a character, and their power levels is all. As I've been making since the out set.

D. Look. I get it. You're embarrassed that I proved my point, but it's rather bad form for you to promise to acquiesce when shown proof, then refuse to do so. Concrete proof is in front of your face that Spider-man was written at a lower level in the 70s than in the 80s. The power creep theory for Wolverine may not work, but it is ridiculously clear to anyone who isn't plugging their ears and throwing a tantrum that, on average, the Spider-man from the 80s onwards is written as more powerful than the Spider-man from the 70s era.

E. Yes. So embarrassed. The anonymity of the internet has me oh so exposed. And my heart breaks at what all the adolescent teens will think of my online persona forever more. Lol. I actually haven't even considered the bottom half of your previous post yet, or the feats you highlighted. It would require I actually start to sift through far more 70's material on Spider-Man than I truly care to to be perfectly honest. If I cared to, and if I cared to take the time, I could cherry pick low end feats highlighting a very mediocre Peter Parker from the 80's, 90's and onward. That's fact. So your point remains very circular, is little more than a blanket comment taken on a whole. But I do agree Parker has some distinct low end showings from the 70's. But then again, also from the 80's as well ... also from the 90's, and the, well, hopefully you get the point.

on average, the Spider-man from the 80s onwards is written as more powerful than the Spider-man from the 70s era.

F. Finally, posting a few showings does not mean you've come anywhere near proving the "on average" to be close to the absolute truth. I will give you the benefit of the doubt though, as you have most definitely proven you've got far more Spider-Man comics from that era in your possession than I do, and I have come to respect that you do appear to know your Spider-Man stuff fairly well.

Thanks for taking the time to give honest answers in a debate format, and not just tit for tat scathing remarks coupled with opinion and little else. That's something.

A. I asked why you were lying about something. Which you were, so it's hardly that grievous of an insult. If you're going to be so obnoxious all the time, I highly recommend you thickening your skin.

B. So that's how you react when you're proven wrong? "Nah." Genius. Well your clever debate tactic aside, you ignoring the points that I brought up doesn't make them go away. Both of the 616 fights you posted, feature Peter doing far better against the Hulk than he did in Conway's run.

C. If you haven't read the comic in question, or don't know the context to a fight, it's really much smarter not to post about it.

D. Just forget it. You're wrong. I've posted proof that, power wise, Spider-man was at his lowest in the 70s, yet you've continued to ignore it while posting nothing of substance to contradict my claim. Plug your ears, ignore it until the cows come home. At the end of the day, you're still wrong, I'm still right. I can live with that.

E. I get the point that you're speaking from a place of ignorance. If that's the point you wanted across, don't worry I got it during our first interaction in this thread.

F. Cool.

Peace, I'm done here, as this conversation has gotten tedious.

#2 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegandiet:

A.You insulted me first, and the word a$$ is the only "cuss" word I've posted uncensored, and if a mod takes exception to it, I'll edit it out. And "under my skin" huh? You got a funny definition of that.

A. No I didn't. No it isn't. And no I don't.

B.Why? Because you say so? Because the only shred of evidence you've posted has been debunked.

No it was not the only "shred" of evidence. And no it hasn't been debunked. Only shown that I got the issue number reference wrong for the feat.

C. I've already said, that in ASM 119-120, Spider-man does not do anything remotely as impressive as catching a thrown car by the Hulk. He spends most of both issues getting his ass kicked, and not doing remotely as well as he's done in later years.

B.He avoids Hulk for the most part. Till he inevitably gets nailed. Which exactly as he's performed against Hulk throughout the"years".

1.

.

2.

3.

He dodges, does "OK" ... until he doesn't. Same as he did in 1973. Oh, how times change so very much. Lol.

D. Marvel Team Up Issue #126 published in Feb 1983, well after the beginning Roger Stern's run, who wrote one of the most powerful Spideys ever. I've actually read it, and know what I'm talking about. I'd recommend you do the same before you act like you know what you're talking about.

C. I don't have to for the point I was making to stand. Every iteration of characters has writers who treat a certain icon differently. Doesn't mean we can just write off or excuse away what happened due to "power creep" over time. You, in one fell swoop, actually continue to prove my point. Stan Lee's 1966 Spider-Man holds one of his greatest strength feats. In 1983, he pulls off one of his more impressive feats against Hulk. So in 1978, we have to write off and overlook the CA showing because poor Spider-Man was oh so much weaker?

The power creep over time theory does not hold.

I say Wolverine getting KO'd by Mister X was bad writing. And it was. But it happened. Wolverine's treatment at the hands of Cornell is crap. But it happened. Logan got punched into outer space and survived reentry into earth's atmosphere in the late 70's early 80's, survived two point blank blasts from Firestar with no more than an "owie" at this time as well. Then Claremont and Miller come around and have Wolverine take days to heal from poison, and even longer to survive and heal from being impaled. Point is, Wolverine as a character has gone back and forth in power levels over the years. BACK AND FORTH. As has Spider-Man. It is not one linear progression going from BAD TO BETTER from the distant past to today.

D. Ergo, the 1978 showing stands, and needs to be juxtaposition against a series of both low end and high end showings from Parker in general, and not just written off because Parker was oh so much weaker at that era.

A. You called me a d!ck in your first post directed at me. That is an insult.

B. And never manages to do any significant damage. In the showing drawn by John Romita Jr. you just posted Spider-man is able to do a minimal amount of damage to Hulk, pry himself from Hulk's grip at one point, is able to take a few blows from Hulk and keep fighting, and his webbing at one point takes the Hulk a decent bit of time to tear off. The second showing is from Ultimate Marvel, so it has no bearing here. The third showing is tow panels from different stories. One of which is just a back up story where Spider-man explains his powers. The other one is from a storyline in which the Hulk is amped by a Gamma virus, and is one of Spider-man's better showings against the Hulk, as he is able to knock both Hulk and Samson down with a tackle and throw the Hulk off his feet. And in the specific panel you posted there, where Hulk body slams Spider-man, Spidey recovers pretty quickly. By the next page, he's on his feet and back in the fight. Compare that to his fight in the Conway era, where after being tagged once, he's down for the count. Thanks for giving more credence to my point. Do you want to cite more things out of context? Because it's been working fabulously at proving my points for me.

C. You don't have to read the comics you're talking about? Really? Lunacy.

Funny thing about that '66 feat you're touting. It's not in the 70s. I know this is hard for you, since you apparently hate to read so much you refuse to read the actual comics you're citing, but you're going to need to read what I actually write. The 70s era was Spider-man's low period power level wise. I'm not saying showings in that era need to be entirely ignored. I'm saying they need to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as I would say if someone posted a Wolverine showing from the Cornell era or from an issue written by Ennis.

D. Look. I get it. You're embarrassed that I proved my point, but it's rather bad form for you to promise to acquiesce when shown proof, then refuse to do so. Concrete proof is in front of your face that Spider-man was written at a lower level in the 70s than in the 80s. The power creep theory for Wolverine may not work, but it is ridiculously clear to anyone who isn't plugging their ears and throwing a tantrum that, on average, the Spider-man from the 80s onwards is written as more powerful than the Spider-man from the 70s era.

#3 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegandiet:

The point doesn't stand. Your only scan in support of that point has been debunked. And you're being awful uppity for someone who's been busted for talking out of your ass twice in the same thread. Next time, I suggest getting your facts straight first.

A. Listen … you need to tone it down. You can't keep using "cuss" words on CV without editing ... you'll earn yourself a vacation and then were would be the fun in that? I don't usually flag users, I don't think I have ever in the 6 years I've been frequenting CV, but half your posts are full of unedited insults and someone's going to shut us down. I know I'm "under your skin" but that's not an excuse. Think of the kiddies!!!

That said;

The point doesn't stand

B. Yes it does.

Your only scan in support of that point has been debunked.

C. No it hasn't been. You've only shown it wasn't issue 119 or 120 of the Amazing Spider-Man. Wherein Parker was still featured against Hulk, and not Hammerhead. Debunking your blanket comments was the point. Mission accomplished.

And you're being awful uppity for someone who's been busted for talking out of your ass twice in the same thread.

D. I don't mind being shown I was wrong in which issue or in which era at all. Thank you for correcting me! Do you KNOW which issue Spider-Man caught the car in? Or are you hoping it happened after 1983. Lol.

Point stands.

E. I can be as "uppity" as I want Mr. Internet Tuff Guy. Not a damn thing you can do. Same would be true were we in the same room, face to face with your infamous "eye roll" and all. Not a damn thing you could do. I have been mirroring your attitude with me right back at you bud. Taking exception to it just shows how much work you need to do on yourself. Which is why I perpetually say; good luck!

And at no point did I say Spider-man didn't fight anyone of note in the 70s. I said he would end up struggling against people he should have easily defeated, like Tarantula, Hammerhead, hell, even Rocket Racer.

F. Right. And what`s laughable is that you believe we cannot say that about every other era. Like I said; low end and high end in every era bud.

And the fact that he would still fight formidable villains doesn't really do anything to discredit the fact that Spider-man was written as lower in strength, speed, etc. back then.

G. Only he wasn't really. Unless you want to prove it? Show, unequivocally, that Spider-Man was weaker & slower. Through feats. Through official documentation of SOME KIND and I will acquiesce. Barring that, I don't see why I have to. The fact his performance against antagonists proved just as valid back then as now in many situations goes far further to prove you wrong.

A.You insulted me first, and the word a$$ is the only "cuss" word I've posted uncensored, and if a mod takes exception to it, I'll edit it out. And "under my skin" huh? You got a funny definition of that.

B.Why? Because you say so? Because the only shred of evidence you've posted has been debunked.

C. I've already said, that in ASM 119-120, Spider-man does not do anything remotely as impressive as catching a thrown car by the Hulk. He spends most of both issues getting his ass kicked, and not doing remotely as well as he's done in later years.

D. Marvel Team Up Issue #126 published in Feb 1983, well after the beginning Roger Stern's run, who wrote one of the most powerful Spideys ever. I've actually read it, and know what I'm talking about. I'd recommend you do the same before you act like you know what you're talking about.

E. I'm the internet tough guy? You're the one making vague threats. Which are currently prompting some more of my truly astounding eye-rolls.

F.Would you like to see how Spider-man's fights with people like Tarantula went after Stern had taken over?

E. Fine.

Here we go:

First: We have Spider-man struggling to break through chains with the assistance of Nova. Published in 1977, written by Len Wein.

Second: We have Spider-man incapable of breaking through chains on his own. Written by Gerry Conway published in 1975. Fun fact, Spider-man had to wait for cops to get the chains off of him. He had to play unconscious and wait for them to get the chains off, because he couldn't bust out of them on his own.

Post 80s:

Here, Spider-man rips apart all 4 of Doc Ock's titanium arms at once. Now, I'm no expert, but I assume that chains are not quite as durable as titanium. This was written by Bill Mantlo, who wrote a fairly powerful Spidey, in 1983.

Next:

Here, we have Spider-man lifting a Volkswagen and being exhausted afterwards, though some of it is from the impact of the missiles, but the narration clearly treats the fact that Spider-man could lift that car as some truly amazing feat. He is left so wiped out from the effort that he is at Rocket Racer's mercy and, when the battle is interrupted by a new foe that fights Rocket Racer, Spider-man does not show up for several pages, and when he does he complains about the pain he is experiencing from the effort. A 70s era Volkswagen Beetle would weigh almost 1 ton. (Source: http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=39446 )This was written by Marv Wolfman and was published in 1978.

Now:

Here, we have Spider-man lifting a three ton wrecking ball, spinning it over his head, and throwing it with little effort. So those things that Spider-man had to expend a lot of effort to lift above, yeah he just threw the equivalent of roughly three of them with little effort. This was written by Roger Stern and was published in 1982.

So there, as direct of comparisons as I could make. If you really need more evidence that Spider-man was written as stronger after Stern and Mantlo started writing, wel,l I'd just recommend you actually read the comics that you're talking about. Maybe then you can avoid looking silly when someone who actually has read the comics comes along.

#4 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_soldierxii: Oh he did. And at no point in his Conway written fight did he do anything as impressive as catching a thrown car out of the air.

The point doesn't stand. Your only scan in support of that point has been debunked. And you're being awful uppity for someone who's been busted for talking out of your ass twice in the same thread. Next time, I suggest getting your facts straight first.

And at no point did I say Spider-man didn't fight anyone of note in the 70s. I said he would end up struggling against people he should have easily defeated, like Tarantula, Hammerhead, hell, even Rocket Racer.

And the fact that he would still fight formidable villains doesn't really do anything to discredit the fact that Spider-man was written as lower in strength, speed, etc. back then.

#5 Edited by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet:

A. The pointless insult I was referring to was you insulting me again after I had stopped responding to you.

It was not pointless. It was a very pointed reference.

B. Because I don't want to? Nor am I obligated to. I enjoy reading debates more than I enjoy taking part in them.

And critiquing & derailing them it would seem, while adding nothing of value. Good on you.

C. Look man, you can think that Spider-man wasn't written at an all-time low, power level wise, in the 70s all you like. You're just factually wrong about that.

I don't think that ... the evidence is all over the place. In the 70's, just like the 80's, 90's, 2000's (etc.) Spider-Man had low end showings, and high end ones. He fought both powerhouses (like Hulk & Iron Man), and street levelers (which SHOULD be more is bread and butter).

Heck, he was catching cars thrown with force by the Hulk in 1973, then actually surviving the encounter, in an issue written by Conway no less ... y'know, one of the principal writers you claim "wrote Parker at an all time low". So again, it's a blanket comment you feel we need to take your word on as a self proclaimed authority on the subject, without backing said "word" up with anything more than attitude and spite. No thanks.

Writing has definitely evolved and grown more detailed and sophisticated over the years ... as has the artwork meaning feats have a far, far more poignant impact on the reader. But boiled down, pound for pound, Spider-Man was every bit the super powered 10-15 tonner, with superhuman speed and reflexes coupled with a spider-sense that he is today.

Modern Parker is a better fighter, more experienced, better equipped and more effective overall yes, but I don't buy we have to dismiss a 1978 showing against Captain America due to "power creep" and solely due to the era within which the showing takes place. Not when modern showings validate it just fine.

That panel you've been posting as evidence isn't from 1973. And it's not by Conway either. Amazing that you would try and build a whole point around something that is patently false.

#6 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegandiet:

A. Yes. I do in fact still read the posts that are posted in threads I'm interested in. If you hadn't pointlessly attacked me, I wouldn't have even posted anything. It's amazing how you can't just let things go.

A. Fine, let's go there then.

I could have simply explained that I was mistaken in the timeline. Just like you could have simply corrected me without demanding I answer to my "lie". You have to be smart enough to know that line of approach is highly antagonistic. You were biting your thumb, and you know it. Don't act like me biting back was completely unprovoked or "pointlessly" bequeathed.

B. I actually agree with your assessment of who wins in this thread. You're just going about it in a particularly thick-headed way.

B. Well OK "Mr. Man". Once again, instead of sitting in the sidelines criticizing how "thick-heading" I'm blundering my way through things (and you have the audacity to accuse me of a "high horse"), why not start your own debate as to why the team wins against some of the Viners herein and show me how it's done? So much safer pretending you have game though, then playing the game and showing your rookie hand?

C. That isn't at all what I said, but hey if it makes you feel better about being wrong, by all means, pretend it is.

C. And if that cheap answer is how you go about debating your point, then you needn't bother with starting your own debate. I've seen enough to easily dismiss any criticisms you have to proffer from here on out. Yeah. I'm the "thick-headed" one ... or is it the bloke who debates a point with "well, if that makes you feel better about being wrong, by all means".

Well thought out and executed critique there bud. Bravo.

Funny how the book in question, the one that started this whole tangent insofar as Captain America's brief fight with Spidey is concerned, involves a story line written by Wolfman, but revolving around little, weak, powerless Electro and not Hammerhead. Strange. But do continue with pandering your blanket comments as truth herein bud. Once again,good luck!

A. The pointless insult I was referring to was you insulting me again after I had stopped responding to you.

B. Because I don't want to? Nor am I obligated to. I enjoy reading debates more than I enjoy taking part in them.

C. Look man, you can think that Spider-man wasn't written at an all-time low, power level wise, in the 70s all you like. You're just factually wrong about that.

#7 Edited by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet:

Still salty, huh?

A. Hey! Glad you still care enough to read my posts. Looks like I have an admirer. Great news! See, if you had written a long blurb like I did above, one that wasn't even addressed to me to begin with ... I wouldn't have even thought about taking the time to read it. The fact you do mine, definitely means I'm under your skin and you need to come get your pound of flesh. Have at it! Again, good luck!!

And I gotta say, Laflux is right.

B. Bud, it's pretty clear, where I'm concerned, I could be arguing against the world being flat, and you'd still come on here trying to prove how I was wrong. So, of course you do.

If you don't think there's a difference between the way Spider-man was presented in the 70s by Conway, Wolfman, and Wein, who typically had Spider-man struggle with people like Hammerhead, Tarantula, and the Punisher, and the way he his powers were presented from 83 onward by Stern and DeFalco, then you really don't know as much about Spider-man as you're pretending you do.

C. Riiight … Spider-Man has never struggled against street levelers since. After 1983 it was all Silver Surfer and Thor villains for Pete!! The likes of, say, Punisher have never since given him trouble since the Conway days! Nah. Couldn't happen. You sure do know your stuff!!

But you are right on one thing. I am most definitely not a Spider-Man "expert". I do know enough to know you're full of fluff though.

A. Yes. I do, in fact, still read the posts that are posted in threads I'm interested in. Shocking, I know. If you hadn't pointlessly attacked me, I wouldn't have even posted anything. It's amazing how you can't just let things go.

B. I actually agree with your assessment of who wins in this thread. You're just going about it in a particularly thick-headed way.

C. That isn't at all what I said, but hey if it makes you feel better about being wrong, by all means, pretend it is.

#8 Edited by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux:

Funny thing is, your wrong on all three counts.

No I'm not.

By feats Spider-Man has become significantly stronger, faster and more agile than from the 1990's via a combination of power creep and training.

Not really no. Not according to Marvel handbooks, both modern and old, and not according to feats either I'm afraid. Sure, Parker has accumulated more high end feats since, it comes with the thousands of showings he's had since (he also has a ton of low end showings to go with them bud). The creative pool are also far more sophisticated today than they were yesteryear (especially the artwork which tells a far more detailed, and thereby impressive, story). But like I highlighted above, let's not pretend Spider-Man did not have extremely high end (many dare refer to them as PIS) showings throughout these periods.

Spider-Man wasn't landing plane's or having his strength described as massive by the likes of Thor back then.He wasn't effortlessly dismantling an arm with the strength of 100 men, Decapitating the head of Deathshead (a 100 tonner) nor was he, you know, knocking Wolverine senseless in a few hits :p. All of these feats have happened quite recently as well, with enough regularity to the point where I wouldn't consider them PIS, rather than just high end, and thus more applicable to a morals off encounter.

You're right. At around the time he first fought Cap, and I repeat, he was defeating Firelord, humiliating the X-Men and easily containing the entire of the Fantastic Four. He was effortlessly defeating an 80 tonner Titania and not too much further down the road from the early 80's, maybe early 90's (I won't dare posit a date, as I'm not entirely sure, don't feel like looking it up, and don't want to provoke the timeline Nazi above), he was speed blitzing Thor so badly, he had Thor thinking he could end up dropping him.

As for speed, Spider-Man wasn't speed-blitzing people with powers equal to his all in one panel either, though that's more as a result of Shang-Chi's training than anything else. Yes the difference between Peter now in 1990's isn't as much as it was in 1970's but its still a considerable one.

He was keeping up with Speed Demon in the 80's. Speed was always in evidence;

There's a blitz. The Mighty Thor # 448 released in 1992 (changed my mind, looked it up). No WotS there bud. I love how you guys abuse all his high end showings, regardless the time period from whence they came, then write others off that don't support your "hero". I've seen threads filled with these feats, regardless the timeline, to prove your collective points on Spider-Man. But when you hit the flip side of the coin, it becomes oh so problematic.

Also Spider-Man beat Firelord in the 1980's and fought the X-Men during the same period. He also was beating on Absorbing Man and Titania so bad, that Absorbing Man had to endanger innocents to escape (and had just overpowered Titania in a test of strength) during that time. You know, the same couple that had recently put She-Hulk in hospital :P

That's what I said. And that blurb only proves my point, not yours. Late 70's and throughout the 80's he had decent fights against both the Hulk & Iron Man to boot (fared far better than his modern iteration has). Spider-Man's entire history is riddled with these high end feats. So why do I need to believe he's oh so much better today than he was then? I will grant the "WotS" training as an amp. But that's all really.

At least twice.

1. Once, when after being Blindsided by Rhino while fighting the Sinister Six/12 (I can't remember) he goes on to 3 shot Rhino, and this was just after he had defeated Speed Demon.

2. Rhino threatens his family, so Peter buts down a horrendous beating on him which actually makes me feel sorry for him.

Never said Spider-Man hadn't beaten Rhino. The whole comparison was made more in jest than anything else ... but because you bit I will say he never manhandled him as easily as Captain America did. That's fact. But yeah, Captain America is a "non factor". Whatever.

In the words of Captain America;

That's to all who state CA cannot "one shot" Spider-Man.

Oh, and, this showing is about a year old ... so yeah. Hit's him once with his shield and, well, "we're done here".

Still salty, huh?

And I gotta say, Laflux is right. If you don't think there's a difference between the way Spider-man was presented in the 70s by Conway, Wolfman, and Wein, who typically had Spider-man struggle with people like Hammerhead, Tarantula, and the Punisher, and the way he his powers were presented from 83 onward by Stern and DeFalco, then you really don't know as much about Spider-man as you're pretending you do.

#9 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegandiet said:

@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet said:

@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet said:

@super_soldierxii: I love how you have this condescending attitude, yet you turn into a whining child so quickly. Asking someone who is lying about comic book characters why they are doing so sounds reasonable to me.

If doing so makes me a dick, so be it. At least I'm not spouting off misinformation while copping a condescending attitude as if I were king sh!t.

Also, wasn't aware this thread had a one d!ck limit. Since you're leaving, does that mean I get to stick around?

Dumb. Weak technique. Keep practicing! Again, good luck!!

Still spending time on me huh?

You sure this won't take away too much time from your busy schedule of getting on every high horse in sight?

Oh, I see, you misunderstood ... I'll throw you an olive branch; responding is not necessarily always the same as "giving the time of day". Which is to say, you are good for a laugh, but not worthy of a dignified response.

I quite enjoy seeing you try to bloody my nose. Means I'm under your skin. I would not respond if you weren't providing me a modicum of entertainment value. Thanks for that! I'm sure you can do better ... good luck!!

I really wish you could see how hard I'm rolling my eyes at this.

I know right? Imagine how absolutely flattened I would be by your almighty "eye roll". I would have to cede every point and get your holiness' forgiveness for my purported "fib" straight away!

I'll extend another olive branch (cuz I'm just sweet that way); that's sarcasm. You know exactly what you can do, and where you can go, with your "eye roll" Mr. "Vegan" diet.

You need to eat a hamburger. Immediately. (Advice, free of charge). See? Now isn't this fun?

Well, I'd say that makes it pretty clear who's getting under whose skin.

#10 Posted by VeganDiet (1146 posts) - - Show Bio

@vegandiet said:

@super_soldierxii said:

@vegandiet said:

@super_soldierxii: I love how you have this condescending attitude, yet you turn into a whining child so quickly. Asking someone who is lying about comic book characters why they are doing so sounds reasonable to me.

If doing so makes me a dick, so be it. At least I'm not spouting off misinformation while copping a condescending attitude as if I were king sh!t.

Also, wasn't aware this thread had a one d!ck limit. Since you're leaving, does that mean I get to stick around?

Dumb. Weak technique. Keep practicing! Again, good luck!!

Still spending time on me huh?

You sure this won't take away too much time from your busy schedule of getting on every high horse in sight?

Oh, I see, you misunderstood ... I'll throw you an olive branch; responding is not necessarily always the same as "giving the time of day". Which is to say, you are good for a laugh, but not worthy of a dignified response.

I quite enjoy seeing you try to bloody my nose. Means I'm under your skin. I would not respond if you weren't providing me a modicum of entertainment value. Thanks for that! I'm sure you can do better ... good luck!!

I really wish you could see how hard I'm rolling my eyes at this.