vuviper's forum posts

#1 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbuck said:

@vuviper said:

So anyway I say Skaar should beat any hulk other than World Breaker(No holding back), Mindless, Maestro, maybe War Hulk and Nul Hulk.

Agree except with regards to Maestro and Nul.

That's good, from our few interactions it seems we don't normally agree on things

#2 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

People are saying Hulk beat Skaar or Hulk>Skaar, but Skaar already fought the strongest Incarnaction of Hulk (though Hulk later states he was holding back) and was winning before Red She Hulk interfered. Banner had even admited that he thought Skaar could kill Hulk. After Red She Hulk attacked Skaar to save Hulk thunderclaps some sand to save the civillians. After that Skaar doesn't even want to fight him anymore and then Hulk pounds Skaar while he's not fighting back.

So anyway I say Skaar should beat any hulk other than World Breaker(No holding back), Mindless, Maestro, maybe War Hulk and Nul Hulk.

#3 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@DrinkUrPruneJuice77 said:

I though Grundy was immune to TP? ...

Don't know if that'd matter but wasn't Grundy mind controlled by Grodd?

#4 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@Killemall said:

@vuviper said:

I mean can she attack before Sapphire could put a shield up? (Assuming she doesn't have autoshields, which she probably does)

She's never shown to have autoshields, at least those were never there while Hal attacked (Green Lantern V3 23 and Green Lantern Corps V1 213). She has to put up shield which have been broken by green lantern Arisia has done that before.

I said probably because star sapphire's have been granted rings now that resemble GL rings which provide autoshields but I don't know if there is any actaul proof that violet rings do as well

#5 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jezer said:

No, I would have convinced you that when you said "I get to move first", you meant "I get to move second". Therefore, you would have moved second under your own rule and conception of what first means. And I would have actually moved first genuinely winning. That's me manipulating you to lose despite your own rules.

That's not violating the rules, that's exploiting temporal loopholes in them.

My point is that you think it's as cut and easy as I lose. However, I can point out ridiculous loopholes a person can still use to win. And I'm not omniscient. Think of how many they can think of.

I've already pointed out viable ways for him to win: If he knows how to use magic that works instantaneously without his own conscious activation of it. It's the reason why Strange can withstand a speedblitz - magic autoshields. It is completely possible that for you to beat a speedster without time, thought, or preparation - if they go to punch you and end up KOing themself.

Please tell me how it's impossible. The overall arching point is that you need to humble yourself, instead of assuming what you know about the world or even logic is true. Do you realize some physicist think the implications of Quantum Physics probability waves is that a subatomic particle can be two places at once, everywhere and nowhere at the same time, impossible contradictory stuff like that?

Which violates the only rule

No, because I did not move first. violating the only rule. Loopholes are ways around rules, you are simply breaking them.

But you haven't. And neither could an omniscient.

But the omniscient doesn't have magic unless he was given prep time to obtain magic through his omniscience. Like the gun example I used before, knowing how to gain magic or knowing how to use it doesn't spontaneously and instantly grant him magic. Magic may not even exist in this fight. since we weren't given information on if he's a real world human or a comic book human

It's impossible because any action and thought any response even on the cellular level takes time. Time someone like the Flash doesn't have to give him. I don't need to humble myself. I didn't read your baby post in it's entirety but I can guess at where you were going with it. Just because there is the possibility of concepts that are inconceivable to human's doesn't mean they exist. And they're existence isn't even something that would be hard to prove. Quantum mechanics is weird, maybe counter intuitive to some even, but I haven't seen anything that "impossible" yet.

#6 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@GhostRider29 said:

You may only pick people on par with Super-man or less.

What do you mean by this?

#7 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jezer said:

@vuviper said:

@Jezer said:

@vuviper said:

And the point is that we don't know what's possible or not. Therefore, we can't argue against him using those abilities AND we can't argue against him winning, in general.

On that same token, I can't argue for him using those abilities. But I can argue that the possibility of those abilities means you can't dismiss him and argue against him.

Btw- My first post in this thread outlined Super-omniscient. Which is knowing things that are literally impossible. Please take a look at it, probably only two pages back.

Also take a look at my post at the top of this page.

Which is where we disagree I think it's entirely possible to know whether something impossible. Here's a simple example. Imagine a game where the winning condition is that you move before I do. The only rule is I move first. It's similar to my tic tac toe example but much more obvious.

I think I skimmed your "super omniscient" post but I didn't think it applied to this battle

What if I convince you that "first" means second, so you move first(meaning second) under your own rule, and I've already moved and won?

What if I convince you that I was born before you, and therefore I already moved before you and its impossible for you to win your game - so instead you scrap it?

What if I know a way to back through time to when you're about to explain the game, and then I move you before my past self has moved, therefore you move before my past self but not before me, and so I win?

However, I do believe that there may be some things that we know are impossible. This omniscient person beating the speedster without having quick reaction time or prep is not one of those things that we know is impossible. Therefore, my previous post applies.

No you would have convinced me that you won, but you would have lost.

No because the game hadn't started yet, and if it did, you violated the rules

Then you violated the rules (rule)

We do know it's impossible because he is limited by having no time. No time for action, no time for thought, no time for preparation.

#8 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@venomoushatred1001 said:

@vuviper said:

I mean can she attack before Sapphire could put a shield up? (Assuming she doesn't have autoshields, which she probably does)

Why couldn't she? SS reflexes are no faster than a normal humans while MM is superhuman and has a reputation for blitzing her opponents. One clean blitz is all she needs.

That's what I was asking

#9 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@venomoushatred1001 said:

@vuviper said:

@venomoushatred1001 said:

Ms. Marvel speedblitzes.

How fast is she? Has she ever blitzed anyone before?

Light speed.

And shes blitzed people dozens of times.

I mean can she attack before Sapphire could put a shield up? (Assuming she doesn't have autoshields, which she probably does)

#10 Posted by vuviper (5531 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jezer said:

@vuviper said:

And the point is that we don't know what's possible or not. Therefore, we can't argue against him using those abilities AND we can't argue against him winning, in general.

On that same token, I can't argue for him using those abilities. But I can argue that the possibility of those abilities means you can't dismiss him and argue against him.

Btw- My first post in this thread outlined Super-omniscient. Which is knowing things that are literally impossible. Please take a look at it, probably only two pages back.

Also take a look at my post at the top of this page.

Which is where we disagree I think it's entirely possible to know whether something impossible. Here's a simple example. Imagine a game where the winning condition is that you move before I do. The only rule is I move first. It's similar to my tic tac toe example but much more obvious.

I think I skimmed your "super omniscient" post but I didn't think it applied to this battle