> > > >
> > > Oh... I thought he was asking which was the greatest feat, to which i answered and stated why I thought that way. I must have misinterpereted the question he asked... can you tell me what it was again, and what my answer should be? I'll change it to "Hercules!" if you insist.. >:-|
> >
> > When did you became J Jr, Dav?
> >
> > You are so anal these days, i can barely tell you two apart.
> >
> Well see, you called me out because a poster asked my view and you didn't like my answer. Not that disagreement is ever an issue but rather than explore why i gave the response i did you just attacked my thinking on it, which i take offense to as it's none of your buisiness and i had fully explained why i gave the response i did..

I called you out in what?

I said, if you consider what Sue did more ground in rational logic, in what basis would her feat be more impressive than the other. Thats it.

Instead you answer with a rant.

>
>
> > > >
> > > > For that reason alone, theother feat is more "comic book impressive".
> > > >
> > > Oh, right... so I should make no distinction whatsoever between the two?
> >
> > Of course you should.
> >
> > But going by your logic if what Sue did was "rational" then it means that the other feat who isent based on such will be by default more impressive to look at.
> >
> > Because that means more laws of physics and common sense wer broken.
> >
> And that is my issue - How did he do it if the island is formed on bedrock, what route did he use, how could he tow the island back to it's exact placement and about a dozen other implications...
> As a feat it makes no sense and is more whimsy than based on any physics, real or Cod.

I really got a sense that you wer attacking the validy of the feat and that wasent really the question.

Does feat has to make sense in order to look impressive? This isent a Science mag. Everything you need to know about it, its there. To direction he took later matters little. "How did he do it?"

Well, he was strong enough.

>
> > > Should i make no common-sense distinction between Superman holding up a submarine and holding a Stellar white Dwarf Star in his hand either or is this just applicable to an obscure daft 1970s Hercules showing? |)
> >
> > Of course you should. Both in common sense and awe. As such, the "datf" obscure 70`s feat for me is more comic book impressive, simply because (among other reasons) we have to suspend our disbelif more, the same way Superman holding the Dward Star would be in comparation with the other who is more grounded in rational logic.
> >
> To me the Sue Richards feat is something i can conceive of as happening within the fiction and what we know of the character.

Totally agree. But here comes..


>The Hercules one though doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, it's presentation is just whimsical and not even thought about by the writer, it reminds me too much of the Hulk Vs. Plates feat - neither have any plausibility about them and they're just there because the writer thinks they're cool ideas he's had but can't actually think of any way to put it across as being remotely plausible... probobly because for the characters concerned they aren't.

There you go. This isent a Science mag. The point of the feat its exactly to be that. Absurd. Unbelivable. Not based in common sense. The Chain should had broken, the island should had sunk, blah blah. The whole talk by the narration on how many wont belive it even happened speaks for itself.

Thus we have an absurd feat and a crazy feat that is more grounded given what we know of Sue.

So the answer for wich is bigger in scope, its clear to me. Even tho both look similiar and are good feats respectivaly for strength and willpower.

>
> It's as simple as that with me.

ok.

> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "LOL ...LMAO...*wink*... Guffaw... *sigh*..." <sup>(etc etc...)
>
> ...Oh, Did i say lol BTW? *rhe*</sup>