Comic Battle >> View Thread

Author
JesusFan


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Prime as He was against Mxy/ Monarch Vrs Current Hercules..

Who takes it?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7
The Real Lance Eason






Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
Daveym 

Moderator

Location: Lancashire
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



Please Elaborate on your posts. Don't spend all your posting life No-Texting, it's kind of insulting, Or do you think you're above the rest of us....?

Why/how does Hercules overpower this particular OTT opponent?



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
Daveym 

Moderator

Location: Lancashire
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



I'd say based on that stipulation and his known showings Hercules could only win against the magic resistant Prime if he got creative with his power, let's bear in mind a Guardian of the Universe was only able to remove him from the Universe despite sacrificing his life, it should be additionally noted even Monarchs attempt appears to have merely thrown him through the quantum field door into the timestream for the Time Trapper to eventually find.
So maybe Hercules can remove him like that but in terms of physical power I'd still be siding with Superboy probobly, the way he was put across I'm honestly not sure who'd be able to beat him physically... the physics he operated by were actually greatly superior in ways to those of the pre-crisis Superboy in my reading. Ignoring Zauriel or Mordru's attacks for example is a pretty insane thought. He seems to exist outside the universes natural system of Cause & Effect... that's kind of the point behind him, an alien being from an erased and replaced multiverse.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
HMB3




No (wait for it)... text.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows XP
Daveym 

Moderator

Location: Lancashire
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



when they make almost a carreer doing it it does bother me and i have said so before, that's the point. Look down the board and you see who the repeat offenders are. I don't know about anyone else but I find it very annoying. Especially contrasted to those who put a bit of real effort into their posting on a regular basis.

Roger.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
HMB3




...who the repeat offenders are. And it can be annoying from time to time... in that we are in agreement. But tantamount to insulting and considering oneself better than others? I think not. And if one truly feels that way by a no-text post from another, they have some real self-esteem issues in my opinion. Regardless though, you have responded to many "nt" posts from others (many of whom fit in the "repeat offenders" column) with far less rancor. In fact, one only needs to look at the front page to see I speak true. But I must admit, I feel a certain appreciation for the sheer irony of a poster accusing one of insulting and holding themselves above fellow posters when that very poster has made a career of being pretentious and belittling (looking at you Daveym). To me, your response reeks of personal prejudice against this particular poster, for the sole reason (if I had to guess) that he is an outspoken member of an "ultra-proprietorial" contingent of fans who seem to ruffle your feathers, sometimes without provocation. Or is it his seemingly pro-Marvel bias that has you disgusted? I mean really, if he had answered "Superboy Prime (nt)," would we even be having this conversation? I'm guessing not, since such an answer mirrors your own and therefore needs no further explanation. What does that say about someone's character when they would rather attack a poster in lieu of attacking the merits of their post? Would it have been just as easy to ask why he thought uber-Hercules had the chops to take on SBP and leave it at that? Hell, you have become so resentful to pro-Marvel fans as of late that you have even taken personal shots at Public Enemy, someone I thought you held in relatively high esteem. Oh well, perhaps I'm being overly critical of you, but it is my very real and honest opinion of the situation.

You may not think so, but I think you could benefit by taking a page from my book. If you don't like someone, just say it. Don't masquerade it by some half-ass attempt at baiting the poster. Hell, there are numerous online personas I dislike (yours included. Hell... yours especially), but I can safely say that I have afforded you (and most others) a healthy measure of respect, at least as of late. Admittedly, much of my respect for your online persona stems largely from your well thought-out posts. I read a lot of your posts; they are a guilty pleasure of mine because of the amount of effort you seem to put forth when posting. I may not agree with all of them (although probably more than you think), but I do agree that you put a lot of honest and real thought into them. But you know what, I don't expect every poster to be like you, or lesser versions of you for that matter, and neither should you. Let's be honest here, the board couldn't take too many Daveyms and be a friendly place to visit. It's a good thing it'll never happen, since not all of us are as well-versed in comics as you (I'm not, and I read a lot of books, including Independents), or have enough time to donate to this board to offer more than just passing thoughts or opinions, or even care enough about comics to read beyond just a few titles. And since there is no board rule declaring that one can not post if he or she has not read x number of books (at least not one I have seen) why should you or any other lambaste a fellow poster because he has not lived up to your posting expectations? If one posts a response that you deem needs further explanation, just call him or her out on their opinion, and be done with it. I do it to you, and we both know how I feel about your online persona, so why is it so g'damn difficult for you most of the time, especially when posted by someone you so obviously despise?


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows XP
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
Poltargyst


Member Since: Sat Nov 29, 2008
Posts: 4,743




Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows Vista
The Real Lance Eason




If I have the time and/or inclination, I usually give a more in-depth explanation. If not, I may bypass the thread completely or I may answer briefly or even with no text.
In this particular case, I didn't even remember putting no text, I was surprised to see it. I thought I had put something minimal in the body of the post about Herc being a high-end Skyfather currently and not seeing Prime on that level (which isn't a complete explanation of my opinion - but it's better than "no text"). But I guess I didn't.

At any rate, I can understand a preference for better delineated opinions, and I certainly don't intend the short or no-text answers to be insulting, of all things. Sorry if that's the way it's come across, it absolutely was not intended that way. That said, I don't feel I should refrain, nor do I intend to refrain, from weighing in on any and all posts that catch my eye, regardless of how much time or effort I choose to put into the answer, with it being an open forum and all.

To be honest, like with most internet-related activity, I tend to check in on the Battle Board when I'm a trifle bored. I used to post more frequently and with longer, more in-depth answers but I'm not AS interested in the goings on at this board as I used to be. I'm not disinterested enough to tune out, but for the moment I'm more likely to post infrequently and with brief answers than to engage in longer debates. That may not be the way all of us wish to interact, and I respect that, but I also think it's my prerogative. I've seen other posters come on and announce their intentions to leave off Battle-boarding, but I'm not exactly at that point. I don't think it's an all-in or all-out kind of thing.




Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
The Real Lance Eason

Long-winded, possibly unnecessary reply within



Well, since HMB3 brought it up down the thread a ways, I might as well address this. If a personal dislike of me is a factor here, there's not much I can do about it, nor can I be bothered to worry about it too much, but I hope that's not the case (and I'm not assuming that this IS the case;you haven't outright said that, and I don't feel it's right to put words in your mouth, but I'd rather address it to be on the safe side).
I do want to assure you that if this is the case, I don't have any such dislike for you nor have I tried to egg you on in any way to foster dislike for me on your part.
That said, I can see a few things which might be interpreted in certain ways which might irk you, which I will try to address here. First and most obvious would be embracing the whole Church of Hulk thing. As you have been credited with coining the term, and allegedly in a derogatory manner (I don't really recall the history of the term, so I'm going on hearsay), I could easily see such a wholehearted embracing of the term could seem like a deliberate attempt to wind you up.
I can't speak for anyone else involved, but on my part, that's not the case. Oh, sure, I like the idea of going with the "over-the-top" fanboy persona instead of trying to fight it or deny it.
And I like the notion of Hulk fanboys sticking together to some extent. Why not? But I don't intend my participation as a personal jab at you, or to use the British slang, an attempt to take the piss. Although I do see it, not as a piss-take, but a little tongue-in-cheek.
I can see how, if over-the-top and seemingly unreasonable Hulk fans were already annoying you, a deliberate, organized, shameless group of over-the-top Hulk fans using your own moniker might be even MORE annoying, whether it was deliberate or not. And I can understand if you do find it irritating, but I'd like to reiterate that, on my part at least, it's not meant that way. For one thing, in certain posts pertaining to the Church of Hulk either here or on the Hulk Board, you have been named as the enemy or what-have-you. Though I suspect an element of tongue-in-cheek there as well and I don't have any issue with any of the posters involved, I have either refrained from responding to those posts or from addressing that specific aspect of them. I don't have any personal animosity towards you, plus that sort of thing isn't my style, so I stay away from it.
In individual posts or replies, I'm sure I have made an irritable comment here and there - I do tend to post in all manner of moods, so it's likely popped out. And not to be completely pollyanna about it, I know I have taken some of your posts or replies in a negative way, and I may have responded accordingly. If so, that was definitely a byproduct of the moment, not anything overarching. As far as responding to things with the "no text" reply, I do plead guilty of doing that sometimes. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I don't mean any insult and especially don't think I'm above other posters by doing so.
Actually, as Poltargyst points out, sometimes I have an opinion but don't have a full ration of evidence at hand to try and convince others, but think (rightly or wrongly) that the original poster might like a reply either way. I thought that was a pretty honest thing for Poltargyst to put out there, and I would echo that sentiment.
Anyway, this might all be much ado about nothing, but I thought better to put it out there just in case. I know from some of your posts (including the Ghandi quote in one of your sigs) that bending over backwards to let you know no offense is meant might not necessarily be the type of thing that engenders your respect, but nothing we discuss on the Battle Board is anything I really have strong convictions about. They are the adventures of fictional characters being discussed in a second-hand forum by people who just enjoy reading their make-believe adventures and talking about them on the internet with people they have, for the most part, never even met. So, if I'm going to get worked up about something, it had better be something I really care about with people I interact with in real life. To sum up, I have no hard feelings against you. I hope you don't towards me, either, nor do I assume that you do, but if you do I respect your right to be annoyed by anyone you damn well please. But I haven't deliberately attempted to provoke you and I don't plan to in the future. Happy New Year!


Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
Superboy-Prime


Member Since: Sun Nov 30, 2008
Posts: 1,521


Love yah brotha!!! \:\-\)




Comic legend, Roy Thomas and I write the best blog based on comics, toys and cartoons on the net. Check it out at Hero-Envy.blogspot.com
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13 on Windows 7
Daveym 

Moderator

Location: Lancashire
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



It is NOT a personal dislike of you no, But my point stands - do you have any idea how annoying it is to have someone who posts... nothing.

I can do that too, so can anybody, but i'd be ashamed to do it on any sort of regular basis. It is basically the death of any sort of discussion and furthermore quite rude to do as you do.... \(coffee\)
To post No-Text one-word replies takes zero effort, to make a post laying out a considered response to a question takes plenty.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 4.0; on Windows XP
The Real Lance Eason




Didn't mean to belabor the secondary point, just wanted to make sure it didn't seem like I was deliberately trying to get your goat in any way.

As far as the no-text replies go, I can certainly understand why you might find them irritating. I honestly don't find it irritating when others do it, nor do I know how many others feel the same way, but I can see it from your point of view.

I'd stop short of thinking that it was rude, insulting or meant to insinuate I'm above anybody else. I know rudeness doesn't always require intent (thoughtlessness can do just fine), but at the very least, it's not intended to be rude. If you see it as rude, I respect that though I personally disagree.

Any way, I reserve the right to post when and what I want in general (in accordance with board rules and general courtesy, of course), but I will try to give reasons for my opinions when I have the time, and at the very least, since I know it's something that irritates you in particular, I will try to refrain from replying in that manner to any posts of yours.

Take care!


Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
The Real Lance Eason





    Quote:
    Love yah brotha!!! \:\-\)


You, too, bro! Anything said within the post, of course, not meant to undermine the solidarity of the Church, LOL! Just wanted to make sure Daveym knew, whether it was necessary or not, that it wasn't anything personal.

It's kind of funny, maybe I am that "glass half full" kind of person - just because I disagree with somebody online, I find it hard to foster any personal dislikes of people I haven't even met (well, you know, ordinary people like us that post on message boards about make-believe characters- there's a lot of people throughout history that I never met but I'm pretty sure I dislike, your Pol Pots, etc., but that's, you know, extreme).

But on the other hand, I find it relatively easy to foster real friendships with folks from the boards, like yourself and quite a few others (I won't list names 'cause I'd surely leave somebody out) where we seem to hit it off.

I guess what I'm saying is, if we see eye to eye on the boards, there's a chance we'll end up as friends, but just because we disagree doesn't mean we're goping to be enemies. Life's too short for that. I'm getting the impression it wasn't necessary, but I wanted to make sure that was understood.
That's all. \:\)




Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
The Real Lance Eason




I've read appearances with the current version of Herc. I've read appearances of Superboy Prime. I have NOT read every appearance by either one, so there could very well be key information I'm missing, but as with anything I'll base my opinion on what I have and revise that opinion later, if new information requires it.
From what I've seen, this Skyfather version of Herc is an über-Skyfather, at least in par with the high-level Skyfathers we've seen in the past such as Odin, if not a step up from that. I didn't read the bit where they explained how he got that way or why he is so high-end but that's the impression I got. And he is apparently the one to go one-on-one with the Chaos King, who seems to be now well above Skyfather level.
Superboy Prime, in the instances I saw, was an approximation of what a Pre-Crisis Kryptonian would be like in the Post-Crisis DCU given an extreme amount of time to master his powers.
He was able to take on several top tiers simultaneously, and had a surprising resistance to über attacks that you might expect to take him out, but still able to be affected significantly in some cases by regular top tiers or even somewhat below. I recall seeing him affected by Superman, Superboy, and Impulse.
If I had to categorize him, I'd say he is a high-level Teambuster, possibly above Thanos but below the likes of Odin. Skyfather Herc seems to be operating at Odin levels or higher.
I agree Prime is an Over-the-Top character, but so is this version of Herc. If I had to guess, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be a fight, I'd say Herc takes it.


Posted with Apple Safari 4.0.4 on MacOS X
Nucleon









Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software