Black Adam vs Thor

[ColonelGM]

Pre New 52 Black Adam vs Classic Thor!

NO BFR!

[master of read]

why do you feel this is a match?

[Shellhead]

Because Thor is slow compared to this:

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

If you guys don't think it's intentional at this point.. Not sure whatta say

[Pendaran]

This is either going to lead to board spam of Black Adam fights or board spam of Thor fights, but people are noting that Adam is well faster than Thor as far as superspeed reaction time and will blitz the guy out thereby under a "does not conveniently forget his powers for the sake of the plot" guideline.

[AlphaMale]

This is either going to lead to board spam of Black Adam fights or board spam of Thor fights, but people are noting that Adam is well faster than Thor as far as superspeed reaction time and will blitz the guy out thereby under a "does not conveniently forget his powers for the sake of the plot" guideline.

How would quantify Black Adam's reaction speed? Significant portion of light?

I seem to recall some high speed fight with Jay Garrick in JSA.

[Pendaran]

Pretty much, and things like that are part of why, yes.

[MidTierHero]

Thor wins. Godblast would wreck Black Adam.

[Cody]

Thor wins. Godblast would wreck Black Adam.

Thor is blitzed before he could process a single thought. As has been mentioned. Godblast might potentially wreck Adam, yes. But he isn't doing it before getting wrecked.

[Pendaran]

Thor wins. Godblast would wreck Black Adam.

So, I know from the track record of your posts like this on a debate board you've expressed disdain for it's unlikely to get a reply, but why, given particularly what's noted under the FAQ for approaches to the powers of characters and the like, does Black Adam ignore his own superspeed enough to let Thor rifle off the Godblast? Black Adam, he's demonstrably shown a level of full out superspeed reaction time that's beyond Thor's, we don't go with that people forget their powers for the convenience of a plot or fight and will remember to use them, why would he not level a bunch of attacks on Thor before that could happen?

When various posters will ask stuff like that in response to the one line posts like these, they're actually asking you with the idea that you're posting something in a discussion thread as though you've said something that can be replied to and get replies.

Part of why the FAQ is right at the top of the board is so that people can hash out of the structure of the pretend nerd debates here is something they want to deal with or not, and if not, hey, that's cool, it's a big internet with various different types of pretend nerd debates, but it's sort of confusing to instead opt for both not wanting to deal with that structure, generally not reply to people after one offs like that, and mostly post in such a way that comes off as "I don't like how things are done here, but I'm going to keep posting anyway." It's just a bit weird for what you'd get out of that, is all. I mean, you've been posting here before the board reset, it's not like this kind of thing is new.

[Beadle]

Thor wins. Godblast would wreck Black Adam.

To follow on from Pendaran's post, I'm beginning to honestly wonder if you even believe the posts you make, or if you're just trolling the board.

Not only are you not following up on debate with what you've posted, nor posting any objective arguments or anything to constructively address the points made earlier in the thread, but you're consistently going against the board consensus in each thread.

The consensus is that Black Adam blitzes the snot out of Thor. You say Thor wrecks Black Adam.
The consensus is that Electro beats Storm. You say Storm wins.
The consensus is that the One Ring means nothing to Thanos. You say Thanos ends up as Sauron's slave.

When you couple this with Pendaran's observation that you've expressed disdain for board methods, you can see how this stuff just looks like trolling, right?

[Pendaran]

There's nothing, it should be said, innately wrong with going against what emerges as a consensus (though there's something bizarre about looking at a places' rules, structure and so forth for its debates provided as what its underlying social discussion contract is, going "naaaah", but still regularly posting anyway. Then again, I don't get why people hate-read webcomics either.), but there is something weird about what keeps amounting to almost an actual refusal to particularly elaborate on doing so, with very occasional exceptions. It does start to feel mostly like some odd "take that! I'm saying the opposite thing of you people then ignoring you!" stuff. Which.. I guess I just don't get the point?

[Cthulhu_of_R'lyeh]

It's madness, I feed on it.

.. what.

[master of read]

i wasn't gonna say nothing but i'm kinda glad i wasn't the only one seeing this.

[Beadle]

There's nothing, it should be said, innately wrong with going against what emerges as a consensus (though there's something bizarre about looking at a places' rules, structure and so forth for its debates provided as what its underlying social discussion contract is, going "naaaah", but still regularly posting anyway. Then again, I don't get why people hate-read webcomics either.), but there is something weird about what keeps amounting to almost an actual refusal to particularly elaborate on doing so, with very occasional exceptions. It does start to feel mostly like some odd "take that! I'm saying the opposite thing of you people then ignoring you!" stuff. Which.. I guess I just don't get the point?

That's my point, really. Just put better by you.

Like you say, there's nothing wrong with going against the grain, if you believe in it and can back up your point of view.

But when it's happening in basically every thread, and with no concession to how the board works (and even an expressed dislike of how the board works), it starts to look like "Screw you guys - I'mma say da opposite of you, just for shits and giggles."