If Batman and Superman fought each other,who do you think would win and why ?

[Gary]

If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
of Superman you most admire in live action film – TV (Tom Welling,
Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.

[peachy ashie passion]

Gary wrote:
> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
> of Superman you most admire in live action film – TV (Tom Welling,
> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.


I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
same message 5 times in two different names.


:)

[Anim8rFSK]

In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Gary wrote:
> > If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> > who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> > think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
> > admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
> > of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
> > Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
>
>
> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
> same message 5 times in two different names.
>
>
> :)

hee hee

but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.

No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
he wins.

He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.

Batman meanwhile tosses a batarang at them. Clunk.

Also, Tom Welling has never played Superman, and nobody in their right
mind could admire Brandon Routh.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[peachy ashie passion]

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary wrote:
>>> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
>>> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
>>> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
>>> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
>>> of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
>>> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
>>
>> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
>> same message 5 times in two different names.
>>
>>
>> :)
>
> hee hee
>
> but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.
>
> No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> he wins.
>
> He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
> Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>

Yup. Absolutely right. Disappointing though.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article <QSImk.478$***@trnddc04>,
peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
> > peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Gary wrote:
> >>> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> >>> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> >>> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
> >>> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
> >>> of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
> >>> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
> >>
> >> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
> >> same message 5 times in two different names.
> >>
> >>
> >> :)
> >
> > hee hee
> >
> > but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.
> >
> > No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > he wins.
> >
> > He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
> > Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> > light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> > side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
> >
>
> Yup. Absolutely right. Disappointing though.

She's rootin' for the bat.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[peachy ashie passion]

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <QSImk.478$***@trnddc04>,
> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
>>> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
>>>>> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
>>>>> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
>>>>> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
>>>>> of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
>>>>> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
>>>> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
>>>> same message 5 times in two different names.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :)
>>> hee hee
>>>
>>> but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.
>>>
>>> No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
>>> he wins.
>>>
>>> He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
>>> Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
>>> light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
>>> side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>>>
>> Yup. Absolutely right. Disappointing though.
>
> She's rootin' for the bat.
>

Well, he IS all dark and mysterious... but really I'm "rootin'" for
a good fight.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article <LkMmk.366$***@trnddc07>,
peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <QSImk.478$***@trnddc04>,
> > peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> >>> In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
> >>> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Gary wrote:
> >>>>> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> >>>>> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> >>>>> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
> >>>>> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
> >>>>> of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
> >>>>> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
> >>>> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
> >>>> same message 5 times in two different names.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> :)
> >>> hee hee
> >>>
> >>> but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.
> >>>
> >>> No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> >>> he wins.
> >>>
> >>> He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
> >>> Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> >>> light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> >>> side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
> >>>
> >> Yup. Absolutely right. Disappointing though.
> >
> > She's rootin' for the bat.
> >
>
> Well, he IS all dark and mysterious... but really I'm "rootin'" for
> a good fight.

Typical redhead!

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[peachy ashie passion]

Anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <LkMmk.366$***@trnddc07>,
> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <QSImk.478$***@trnddc04>,
>>> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>>>> In article <hgEmk.415$***@trnddc03>,
>>>>> peachy ashie passion <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>>> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
>>>>>>> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
>>>>>>> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
>>>>>>> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
>>>>>>> of Superman you most admire in live action film ­ TV (Tom Welling,
>>>>>>> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.
>>>>>> I think they'd both join together and kick your ass for posting the
>>>>>> same message 5 times in two different names.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> hee hee
>>>>>
>>>>> but to YOU Peach, I'll give a serious answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
>>>>> he wins.
>>>>>
>>>>> He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
>>>>> Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
>>>>> light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
>>>>> side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>>>>>
>>>> Yup. Absolutely right. Disappointing though.
>>> She's rootin' for the bat.
>>>
>> Well, he IS all dark and mysterious... but really I'm "rootin'" for
>> a good fight.
>
> Typical redhead!
>

That's why I'm a redhead!

[IsaacKuo]

On Aug 7, 10:49 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

> No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> he wins.

Superman and Batman fought in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman won.

> He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.  
> Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> light.  They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.

In TDKR, Superman was out to capture Batman alive, not kill him
as well as the rest of the biosphere.

Incidentally, they wouldn't continue all the way through the Earth.
At half the speed of light, it's questionable whether they'd even
reach
the surface of the Earth. At best, even if you ignore the atmosphere
they'll still only penetrate a kilometer into the ground or so
(whatever
the diameter of Wayne Manor is). The resulting explosions, whether
at the surface of the Earth or the upper atmosphere, will be
biosphere killing, regardless.

> Batman meanwhile tosses a batarang at them.  Clunk.

In The Dark Knight returns, Batman shot missiles and energy
weapons at Superman, and also wore some sort of extremely
thick powered armor suit--obviously designed for exactly one
purpose (fighting Superman). And he had the help of Green Arrow
who shot a kryptonite arrow into Superman in the middle of the
fight. And Superman was still a bit weakened from having
been nearly killed by a Soviet nuke.

Isaac Kuo

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<82f0c763-ddad-429d-a8be-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 7, 10:49 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > he wins.
>
> Superman and Batman fought in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman won.
>
> > He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.  
> > Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> > light.  They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> > side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>
> In TDKR, Superman was out to capture Batman alive, not kill him
> as well as the rest of the biosphere.
>
> Incidentally, they wouldn't continue all the way through the Earth.
> At half the speed of light, it's questionable whether they'd even
> reach
> the surface of the Earth. At best, even if you ignore the atmosphere
> they'll still only penetrate a kilometer into the ground or so
> (whatever
> the diameter of Wayne Manor is). The resulting explosions, whether
> at the surface of the Earth or the upper atmosphere, will be
> biosphere killing, regardless.
>
> > Batman meanwhile tosses a batarang at them.  Clunk.
>
> In The Dark Knight returns, Batman shot missiles and energy
> weapons at Superman, and also wore some sort of extremely
> thick powered armor suit--obviously designed for exactly one
> purpose (fighting Superman). And he had the help of Green Arrow
> who shot a kryptonite arrow into Superman in the middle of the
> fight. And Superman was still a bit weakened from having
> been nearly killed by a Soviet nuke.
>
> Isaac Kuo

Note I said:

"No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
he wins."

I stand by that.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[IsaacKuo]

On Aug 8, 2:35 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <82f0c763-ddad-429d-a8be-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>  IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 10:49 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

> > > No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > > he wins.

> > > He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.  
> > > Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> > > light.  They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> > > side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.

> Note I said:

> "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> he wins."

> I stand by that.

Your argument is that all Superman needs to do is destroy most of
Earth's biosphere in order to defeat Batman, therefore he wins.

Your argument is about as good as the following:

No matter what crap excuses the White House comes up with
for Bin Laden still living, if Bush wants to win, he wins.

He just sits in the Oval Office and orders nukes launched at
Bin Laden until he hits him. Big nukes, the kind that level
small countries. He just continues until most of the biosphere
is destroyed.

Admittedly, the entire nuclear arsenal at President Bush's
disposal doesn't match up to the sheer biosphere destroying
power of even one Wayne Manor class relativistic impactor.
Nevertheless, the same basic principle applies. Neither
Superman nor President Bush are crazed armageddon-ocidal
megalomaniacs.

And while President Bush and most of the free world wouldn't
mind assassinating Bin Laden, Superman most definitely
would not slaughter Batman.

Isaac Kuo

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<533a8b13-a8a6-4b16-ae2a-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 8, 2:35 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <82f0c763-ddad-429d-a8be-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >  IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 7, 10:49 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > > > he wins.
>
> > > > He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.  
> > > > Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
> > > > light.  They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
> > > > side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>
> > Note I said:
>
> > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > he wins."
>
> > I stand by that.
>
> Your argument is that all Superman needs to do is destroy most of
> Earth's biosphere in order to defeat Batman, therefore he wins.

My argument is that if Superman wants to win, he wins.

So he sits on the moon and reduces Wayne Manor to lava with his heat
vision.

So he gives Bruce brain cancer from the other side of the solar system.

Batman might win an ambush, or an assassination. But a fight? Superman
wins, if he wants to. Period.
>
> Your argument is about as good as the following:
>
> No matter what crap excuses the White House comes up with
> for Bin Laden still living, if Bush wants to win, he wins.

oh. You're a moron. Didn't realize that. Never mind.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[IsaacKuo]

On Aug 8, 6:26 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <533a8b13-a8a6-4b16-ae2a-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

> > Your argument is that all Superman needs to do is destroy most of
> > Earth's biosphere in order to defeat Batman, therefore he wins.

> My argument is that if Superman wants to win, he wins.

Your argument was that all Superman needed to do was destroy
most of Earth's biosphere to do it. Which is rather retarded.

> So he sits on the moon and reduces Wayne Manor to lava with his heat
> vision.

> So he gives Bruce brain cancer from the other side of the solar system.

So now you now change your argument so Superman murders
only Batman and maybe a few others in the process. Which
still doesn't address my point that Superman would not murder
Batman. He would take in Batman alive, just like he does many
times with Lex Luthor (another normal human who uses his
own genius and scientific gadgetry to make up for his lack of
superpowers).

You seem so completely unable to address this point that you
cowardly snip it out without any response.

> Batman might win an ambush, or an assassination. But a fight? Superman
> wins, if he wants to. Period.

So far, the only scenarios you've listed for Superman defeating
Batman aren't fights--they're cowardly acts of murderous
terrorism or assassinations.

The only actual "fight" described in this thread is my
description of Frank Miller's fight between Batman and
Superman in The Dark Knight Returns. Unlike your
bizarro scenarios, Superman and Batman in TDKR
were completely in character. Superman will not kill
Batman, even if he's ordered to apprehend him. Batman
would see the possibility of Superman coming after him
a mile away and have taken preparations for it using
his technological genius.

And there's all sorts of precedent for Superman falling
into the carefully prepared traps of smart opponents.
If not, then Lex Luthor wouldn't be much of an arch
enemy.

Isaac Kuo

[David Johnston]

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:40:24 -0700 (PDT), IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>So far, the only scenarios you've listed for Superman defeating
>Batman aren't fights--they're cowardly acts of murderous
>terrorism or assassinations.

Well yeah but Superman is so much less powerful than Batman that
extreme measures have to be taken.

[Ken from Chicago]

"Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-***@news.west.cox.net...
> In article
> <82f0c763-ddad-429d-a8be-***@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> IsaacKuo <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 7, 10:49 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
>> > he wins.
>>
>> Superman and Batman fought in The Dark Knight Returns. Batman won.
>>
>> > He just sits on the moon and throws rocks at Batman until he hits him.
>> > Big rocks, the size of Wayne Manor, travelling at half the speed of
>> > light. They continue all the way through the Earth and go out the other
>> > side, pulling most of the biosphere in their wake.
>>
>> In TDKR, Superman was out to capture Batman alive, not kill him
>> as well as the rest of the biosphere.
>>
>> Incidentally, they wouldn't continue all the way through the Earth.
>> At half the speed of light, it's questionable whether they'd even
>> reach
>> the surface of the Earth. At best, even if you ignore the atmosphere
>> they'll still only penetrate a kilometer into the ground or so
>> (whatever
>> the diameter of Wayne Manor is). The resulting explosions, whether
>> at the surface of the Earth or the upper atmosphere, will be
>> biosphere killing, regardless.
>>
>> > Batman meanwhile tosses a batarang at them. Clunk.
>>
>> In The Dark Knight returns, Batman shot missiles and energy
>> weapons at Superman, and also wore some sort of extremely
>> thick powered armor suit--obviously designed for exactly one
>> purpose (fighting Superman). And he had the help of Green Arrow
>> who shot a kryptonite arrow into Superman in the middle of the
>> fight. And Superman was still a bit weakened from having
>> been nearly killed by a Soviet nuke.
>>
>> Isaac Kuo
>
> Note I said:
>
> "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> he wins."
>
> I stand by that.

You do realize Superman is a fictional character?

He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.

-- Ken from Chicago

[redhawk]

On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
[...]
>
> > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > he wins."
>
> > I stand by that.
>
> You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago


How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
redhawk <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b ***@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> [...]
> >
> > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > > he wins."
> >
> > > I stand by that.
> >
> > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
> >
> > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
> How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
> story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.

What Hawk said.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[Ken from Chicago]

"redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
[...]
>
> > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > he wins."
>
> > I stand by that.
>
> You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
~
~
~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.

No, then it's a question of context and preparation.

A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.

He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.

Otherwise, yeah, it's a Supes win in nanoseconds.

-- Ken from Chicago

[Anim8rFSK]

In article <***@comcast.com>,
"Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> [...]
> >
> > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > > he wins."
> >
> > > I stand by that.
> >
> > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
> >
> > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
> >
> > -- Ken from Chicago
> ~
> ~
> ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
> ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.

Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
"probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
> Otherwise, yeah, it's a Supes win in nanoseconds.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[iarwain]

Batman's a better character. But despite the fact that comic book
writers have made him out to be this ruthless resourceful intelligent
fighter who would outsmart a Kryptonian, Superman wouldn't even have
to get near him to destroy him. Batman wouldn't realistically have a
chance.

[Anybody]

In article
<4f1e2bd0-a4e8-4ca4-8766-***@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Gary <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
> admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
> of Superman you most admire in live action film – TV (Tom Welling,
> Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.

The answer is obvious ... the winner would be the Invisible Man who is
hiding in th corner until one of the combatants loses, and then he
steps in a shot the winner with invisible Kryptonite bullets. ;-)

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
> > > > he wins."
>
> > > > I stand by that.
>
> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> > ~
> > ~
> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>
> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
>
This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
(and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.

And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...

[David Johnston]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT), ***@mypacks.net
wrote:

>On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to win,
>> > > > he wins."
>>
>> > > > I stand by that.
>>
>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>>
>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>>
>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
>> > ~
>> > ~
>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>>
>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>>
>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>>
>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>>
>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>>
>>
>This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
>talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
>he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
>Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
>detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
>scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time,

I can't recall all that many times when Superman was really hard
pressed by Lex.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:24:23 -0700 (PDT), ***@mypacks.net
> wrote:
>
> >On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> >> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> >> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> > [...]
> >>
> >> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
> >> > > > win,
> >> > > > he wins."
> >>
> >> > > > I stand by that.
> >>
> >> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
> >>
> >> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
> >>
> >> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> >> > ~
> >> > ~
> >> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> >> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> >> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> >> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> >> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
> >> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
> >>
> >> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
> >>
> >> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
> >>
> >> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> >> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
> >>
> >> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
> >> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> >> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> >> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
> >>
> >>
> >This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> >talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> >he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> >Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> >detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> >scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time,
>
> I can't recall all that many times when Superman was really hard
> pressed by Lex.

And couldn't have won if he'd wanted to.

I fact the post Crisis Superman is almost criminally negligent in NOT
dealing with Luthor.

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 11, 2:27 pm, David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:

>
> I can't recall all that many times when Superman was really hard
> pressed by Lex.

I'm sure you could if you tried.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
***@mypacks.net wrote:

> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <***@comcast.com>,
> > "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> > > [...]
> >
> > > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
> > > > > win,
> > > > > he wins."
> >
> > > > > I stand by that.
> >
> > > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
> >
> > > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
> >
> > > > -- Ken from Chicago
> > > ~
> > > ~
> > > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> > > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> > > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> > > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> > > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
> > > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
> >
> > > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
> >
> > > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
> >
> > > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> > > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
> >
> > Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
> > ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> > "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> > will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
> >
> >
> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But

All very good points. The problem is, if you give Batman enough time to
prepare without giving Supes equal time, you go from 'fight' to 'ambush'
again.

> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...

Yep

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 11, 4:14 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

>
> All very good points. The problem is, if you give Batman enough time to
> prepare without giving Supes equal time, you go from 'fight' to 'ambush'
> again.
>

Yeah, but isn't that par for the course with Superman? I mean, when
does he ever really prepare for something? He barrels into trouble
confident that his natural gifts will get him through. He's not really
a "planner." And besides, if someone told him "Hey, Batman's gunning
for you" how exactly would he prepare for that? What kind of plan
could he possibly come up with that Batman wouldn't already have
accounted for? He'd just wait for Batman to make his move and expect
to be able to survive. That's how he rolls.

I guess if the scenario is Superman is being mind-controlled to kill
Batman, then Bats might be the most off-guard for an attack from him.
But anything else Bats would have something in place (whether it would
work or not would be another story).

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<f65a3660-4903-4377-b317-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
***@mypacks.net wrote:

> On Aug 11, 4:14 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > All very good points. The problem is, if you give Batman enough time to
> > prepare without giving Supes equal time, you go from 'fight' to 'ambush'
> > again.
> >
>
> Yeah, but isn't that par for the course with Superman? I mean, when
> does he ever really prepare for something? He barrels into trouble
> confident that his natural gifts will get him through. He's not really
> a "planner." And besides, if someone told him "Hey, Batman's gunning
> for you" how exactly would he prepare for that? What kind of plan
> could he possibly come up with that Batman wouldn't already have
> accounted for? He'd just wait for Batman to make his move and expect
> to be able to survive. That's how he rolls.

I don't disagree at all; a friend of mine once asked "Have you ever seen
Superman do anything he couldn't have done more easily some other way?"
>
> I guess if the scenario is Superman is being mind-controlled to kill
> Batman, then Bats might be the most off-guard for an attack from him.
> But anything else Bats would have something in place (whether it would
> work or not would be another story).

--
Multiple root canals; hopped up on multiple pain drugs.

It's an explanation, not an excuse!

[Eminence]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:08:34 -0700, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net>
wrote:

>In article
><f65a3660-4903-4377-b317-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> ***@mypacks.net wrote:
>
>> On Aug 11, 4:14 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > All very good points. The problem is, if you give Batman enough time to
>> > prepare without giving Supes equal time, you go from 'fight' to 'ambush'
>> > again.
>> >
>>
>> Yeah, but isn't that par for the course with Superman? I mean, when
>> does he ever really prepare for something? He barrels into trouble
>> confident that his natural gifts will get him through. He's not really
>> a "planner." And besides, if someone told him "Hey, Batman's gunning
>> for you" how exactly would he prepare for that? What kind of plan
>> could he possibly come up with that Batman wouldn't already have
>> accounted for? He'd just wait for Batman to make his move and expect
>> to be able to survive. That's how he rolls.
>
>I don't disagree at all; a friend of mine once asked "Have you ever seen
>Superman do anything he couldn't have done more easily some other way?"

That's an aspect of the character that I've never really liked; it's a
dangerous, almost smug sense of over-confidence that ought to get him
knocked on his ass more often than not, but he never seems to learn
anything from it. "Hey, that guy just knocked a building down, guess
I'll just step into his best punch and--hey! I FELT that!" (Match
these actions up with the voice of the SuperFriends Superman and you,
too, will get the urge to stockpile a warehouse full of kryptonite.)

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 12, 9:06 am, Eminence <***@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:08:34 -0700, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article
> ><f65a3660-4903-4377-b317-***@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > ***@mypacks.net wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 11, 4:14 pm, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> > All very good points. The problem is, if you give Batman enough time to
> >> > prepare without giving Supes equal time, you go from 'fight' to 'ambush'
> >> > again.
>
> >> Yeah, but isn't that par for the course with Superman? I mean, when
> >> does he ever really prepare for something? He barrels into trouble
> >> confident that his natural gifts will get him through. He's not really
> >> a "planner." And besides, if someone told him "Hey, Batman's gunning
> >> for you" how exactly would he prepare for that? What kind of plan
> >> could he possibly come up with that Batman wouldn't already have
> >> accounted for? He'd just wait for Batman to make his move and expect
> >> to be able to survive. That's how he rolls.
>
> >I don't disagree at all; a friend of mine once asked "Have you ever seen
> >Superman do anything he couldn't have done more easily some other way?"
>
> That's an aspect of the character that I've never really liked; it's a
> dangerous, almost smug sense of over-confidence that ought to get him
> knocked on his ass more often than not, but he never seems to learn
> anything from it. "Hey, that guy just knocked a building down, guess
> I'll just step into his best punch and--hey! I FELT that!" (Match
> these actions up with the voice of the SuperFriends Superman and you,
> too, will get the urge to stockpile a warehouse full of kryptonite.)
>

HA! I think John Byrne had a macro for that "I FELT that!" line on his
computer.

[Benjamin Pavsner]

<***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > [...]
>>
>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
>> > > > win,
>> > > > he wins."
>>
>> > > > I stand by that.
>>
>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>>
>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>>
>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
>> > ~
>> > ~
>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>>
>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>>
>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>>
>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>>
>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>>
>>
> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>
>
>
The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were any
of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or Wonder
Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic in
nature

[T-minus108]

On Aug 11, 8:30 pm, "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>
> news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> >> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> >>  "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
> >> > > > win,
> >> > > > he wins."
>
> >> > > > I stand by that.
>
> >> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> >> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> >> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> >> > ~
> >> > ~
> >> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> >> > ~Batman in a fight?  He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> >> > ~thousand different approaches.  If there is concern about collateral
> >> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> >> > ~beat the guano out of him there.  Any other result is contrived for a
> >> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> >> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> >> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> >> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> >> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>
> >> Again, that's a trap, not a fight.  If the question is "Can Batman
> >> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> >> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> >> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
> > This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> > talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> > he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> > Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> > detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> > scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> > wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> > is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> > before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> > (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> > And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> > Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> > Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> > pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> > the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>
> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were any
> of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and  Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or Wonder
> Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic in
> nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

What about the Hulk? Remember when he faught Supes in the Amalgam
universe? Granted, Hulk lost, but he still seems the 'strongest'
competition.

[redhawk]

On Aug 11, 6:56 pm, T-minus108 <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 8:30 pm, "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> > >> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> > >>  "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >> > [...]
>
> > >> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
> > >> > > > win,
> > >> > > > he wins."
>
> > >> > > > I stand by that.
>
> > >> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> > >> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> > >> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> > >> > ~
> > >> > ~
> > >> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> > >> > ~Batman in a fight?  He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> > >> > ~thousand different approaches.  If there is concern about collateral
> > >> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> > >> > ~beat the guano out of him there.  Any other result is contrived for a
> > >> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> > >> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> > >> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> > >> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> > >> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>
> > >> Again, that's a trap, not a fight.  If the question is "Can Batman
> > >> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> > >> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> > >> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
> > > This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> > > talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> > > he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> > > Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> > > detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> > > scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> > > wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> > > is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> > > before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> > > (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> > > And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> > > Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> > > Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> > > pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> > > the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>
> > The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were any
> > of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and  Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or Wonder
> > Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic in
> > nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What about the Hulk? Remember when he faught Supes in the Amalgam
> universe? Granted, Hulk lost, but he still seems the 'strongest'
> competition.
>
>


Pre-Crisis Superman accidentally destroyed a solar system, by
sneezing.

http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pctr7.jpg

Also overpowered the gravity of a black hole, then squeezed the black
hole shut. Moved planets by gently blowing on them. Flew at several
times the speed of light. Hulk is just not in the same league, World
War Hulk at maximum rage might last a few seconds.

[Eminence]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:38:59 -0700 (PDT), redhawk
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Pre-Crisis Superman accidentally destroyed a solar system, by
>sneezing.
>
>http://img57.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pctr7.jpg
>
>Also overpowered the gravity of a black hole, then squeezed the black
>hole shut. Moved planets by gently blowing on them. Flew at several
>times the speed of light. Hulk is just not in the same league, World
>War Hulk at maximum rage might last a few seconds.

And even with his Silver Age super brain, he probably never considered
that his sneeze was the source of the plague that wiped out life in
that solar system (because of relativistic time travel effects).

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned

[Bradster]

"Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:oO4ok.8243$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> > [...]
>>>
>>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants
>>> > > > to win,
>>> > > > he wins."
>>>
>>> > > > I stand by that.
>>>
>>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>>>
>>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>>>
>>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
>>> > ~
>>> > ~
>>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
>>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
>>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
>>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
>>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for a
>>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>>>
>>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>>>
>>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>>>
>>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
>>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>>>
>>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
>>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
>>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
>>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>>>
>>>
>> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
>> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
>> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
>> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
>> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
>> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
>> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
>> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
>> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
>> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>>
>> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
>> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
>> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
>> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
>> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>>
>>
>>
> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were
> any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or
> Wonder Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic
> in nature
What we really want to know is who has more stamina.

[Benjamin Pavsner]

"Bradster" <***@ATHotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
news:e3cok.73832$***@pd7urf1no...
>
>
> "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:oO4ok.8243$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>> news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> > [...]
>>>>
>>>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants
>>>> > > > to win,
>>>> > > > he wins."
>>>>
>>>> > > > I stand by that.
>>>>
>>>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>>>>
>>>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>>>>
>>>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
>>>> > ~
>>>> > ~
>>>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
>>>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
>>>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
>>>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
>>>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for
>>>> > a
>>>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>>>>
>>>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>>>>
>>>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>>>>
>>>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
>>>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>>>>
>>>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
>>>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
>>>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
>>>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
>>> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
>>> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
>>> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
>>> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
>>> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
>>> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
>>> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
>>> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
>>> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>>>
>>> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
>>> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
>>> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
>>> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
>>> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were
>> any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or
>> Wonder Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is
>> magic in nature
> What we really want to know is who has more stamina.
OK, even if Superman didn't have the strength, he has super speed. A normal
punch going at superspeed would likely rip Batman's head clear off.

[BC]

"Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Vopok.9529$***@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Bradster" <***@ATHotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:e3cok.73832$***@pd7urf1no...
>>
>>
>> "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:oO4ok.8243$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
>>>>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> > [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants
>>>>> > > > to win,
>>>>> > > > he wins."
>>>>>
>>>>> > > > I stand by that.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>>>>>
>>>>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
>>>>> > ~
>>>>> > ~
>>>>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
>>>>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
>>>>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about
>>>>> > collateral
>>>>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
>>>>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for
>>>>> > a
>>>>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>>>>>
>>>>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>>>>>
>>>>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>>>>>
>>>>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
>>>>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
>>>>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
>>>>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
>>>>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
>>>> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
>>>> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
>>>> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
>>>> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
>>>> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
>>>> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
>>>> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
>>>> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
>>>> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>>>>
>>>> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
>>>> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
>>>> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
>>>> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
>>>> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were
>>> any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or
>>> Wonder Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is
>>> magic in nature
>> What we really want to know is who has more stamina.
> OK, even if Superman didn't have the strength, he has super speed. A
> normal punch going at superspeed would likely rip Batman's head clear off.

Batman should first show Supe the sex tape he made with Lois -- since Lois
sleeps with all the heroes -- and then Supe would either off himself or seek
refuge at the fortress and hide in shame.

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 12, 7:58 pm, "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Bradster" <***@ATHotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e3cok.73832$***@pd7urf1no...
>
>
>
> > "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >news:oO4ok.8243$***@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> >> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> >>news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> >>>> "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >>>> > [...]
>
> >>>> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants
> >>>> > > > to win,
> >>>> > > > he wins."
>
> >>>> > > > I stand by that.
>
> >>>> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> >>>> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> >>>> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> >>>> > ~
> >>>> > ~
> >>>> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> >>>> > ~Batman in a fight? He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> >>>> > ~thousand different approaches. If there is concern about collateral
> >>>> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> >>>> > ~beat the guano out of him there. Any other result is contrived for
> >>>> > a
> >>>> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> >>>> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> >>>> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> >>>> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> >>>> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>
> >>>> Again, that's a trap, not a fight. If the question is "Can Batman
> >>>> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> >>>> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> >>>> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
> >>> This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> >>> talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> >>> he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> >>> Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> >>> detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> >>> scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> >>> wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> >>> is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> >>> before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> >>> (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> >>> And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> >>> Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> >>> Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> >>> pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> >>> the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>
> >> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were
> >> any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or
> >> Wonder Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is
> >> magic in nature
> > What we really want to know is who has more stamina.
>
> OK, even if Superman didn't have the strength, he has super speed. A normal
> punch going at superspeed would likely rip Batman's head clear off.

I'm pretty sure Batman understands Relativity. My guess is that
anything that Batman devises to counter Superman would nullify ALL his
powers, not just one.

Look, if they didn't know each other and Batman came upon Superman in
a dark alley, Batman's a dead man, no one disputes that. And if Batman
wanted to ambush Superman, he could do it easily, especially since
Superman trusts him.

So the question should really be how would a fight play out given a
certain set of circumstances. Say, one of them goes rogue and the
other has to stop him. How would Superman go about trying to find and
disarm Batman, knowing that the guy thinks 10 steps ahead and is
totally paranoid and knows all his weaknesses, including his secret
ID? How would Batman set a trap for Superman and at the same time
protect himself and his loved ones from a frontal assault by an near-
unstoppable force of nature?

[Eminence]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT), ***@mypacks.net
wrote:

>Look, if they didn't know each other and Batman came upon Superman in
>a dark alley, Batman's a dead man, no one disputes that. And if Batman
>wanted to ambush Superman, he could do it easily, especially since
>Superman trusts him.
>
>So the question should really be how would a fight play out given a
>certain set of circumstances. Say, one of them goes rogue and the
>other has to stop him. How would Superman go about trying to find and
>disarm Batman, knowing that the guy thinks 10 steps ahead and is
>totally paranoid and knows all his weaknesses, including his secret
>ID? How would Batman set a trap for Superman and at the same time
>protect himself and his loved ones from a frontal assault by an near-
>unstoppable force of nature?

That's pretty much it; otherwise, it's just a fanboy exercise in "What
if a generic Kryptonian and a regular human with Batman's skills,
gadgets, and resources got into a fight?" ... which is what many of
these "versus" threads are *really* about, anyway.

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned

[Martin Phipps]

On Aug 14, 8:54 pm, Eminence <***@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT), ***@mypacks.net
> wrote:
>
> >Look, if they didn't know each other and Batman came upon Superman in
> >a dark alley, Batman's a dead man, no one disputes that. And if Batman
> >wanted to ambush Superman, he could do it easily, especially since
> >Superman trusts him.
>
> >So the question should really be how would a fight play out given a
> >certain set of circumstances. Say, one of them goes rogue and the
> >other has to stop him.  How would Superman go about trying to find and
> >disarm Batman, knowing that the guy thinks 10 steps ahead and is
> >totally paranoid and knows all his weaknesses, including his secret
> >ID? How would Batman set a trap for Superman and at the same time
> >protect himself and his loved ones from a frontal assault by an near-
> >unstoppable force of nature?
>
> That's pretty much it; otherwise, it's just a fanboy exercise in "What
> if a generic Kryptonian and a regular human with Batman's skills,
> gadgets, and resources got into a fight?" ... which is what many of
> these "versus" threads are *really* about, anyway.

Peter David explained it best, I think. A JLA vs Avengers thread on
rec.arts.comics.misc came down to "How does the JLA take out the
Vision?" He said (paraphrased) "If the editor tells the writer that
the JLA is going to win then the writer has to devise a way for them
to do it. That's all there is to it."

Martin

[n***@mypacks.net]

On Aug 14, 9:58 am, Martin Phipps <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 14, 8:54 pm, Eminence <***@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:15:27 -0700 (PDT), ***@mypacks.net
> > wrote:
>
> > >Look, if they didn't know each other and Batman came upon Superman in
> > >a dark alley, Batman's a dead man, no one disputes that. And if Batman
> > >wanted to ambush Superman, he could do it easily, especially since
> > >Superman trusts him.
>
> > >So the question should really be how would a fight play out given a
> > >certain set of circumstances. Say, one of them goes rogue and the
> > >other has to stop him. How would Superman go about trying to find and
> > >disarm Batman, knowing that the guy thinks 10 steps ahead and is
> > >totally paranoid and knows all his weaknesses, including his secret
> > >ID? How would Batman set a trap for Superman and at the same time
> > >protect himself and his loved ones from a frontal assault by an near-
> > >unstoppable force of nature?
>
> > That's pretty much it; otherwise, it's just a fanboy exercise in "What
> > if a generic Kryptonian and a regular human with Batman's skills,
> > gadgets, and resources got into a fight?" ... which is what many of
> > these "versus" threads are *really* about, anyway.
>
> Peter David explained it best, I think. A JLA vs Avengers thread on
> rec.arts.comics.misc came down to "How does the JLA take out the
> Vision?" He said (paraphrased) "If the editor tells the writer that
> the JLA is going to win then the writer has to devise a way for them
> to do it. That's all there is to it."
>
> Martin

Right, but the writer still has to come up with a plausible way to do
it. A lot of people disagreed with the result of the Superman vs. Thor
battle in JLA/Avengers I think mainly because it didn't detail HOW
Superman beat Thor other than that Busiek had just decided that
Superman was stronger. Contrast that with the amazing Superman vs.
Captain Marvel fight at the end of Kingdom Come where Waid shows us
how Supes could plausibly beat Cap, at least in that instance. Anyone
can beat anyone if a writer wants it to happen. Deus ex machina and
all that.

It reminds me of the difference between Batman in his own animated
series compared with the way he was protrayed in JLU - when he had to
hold his own with gods and aliens in JLU, he was an untouchable genius
10 steps ahead of everyone. When he was fighting criminals in Gotham
in B:TAS, he'd get knocked out by an old lady if it served the plot.

[batface]

On Aug 11, 8:30 pm, "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>
> news:761539ce-43d1-4d4e-868f-***@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 10:51 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
> >> In article <***@comcast.com>,
> >>  "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > "redhawk" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:ecbf34f1-4a63-415f-866e-***@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On Aug 9, 8:04 pm, "Ken from Chicago" <***@comcast.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > "Anim8rFSK" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> >> > [...]
>
> >> > > > "No matter what crap the writers come up with, if Superman wants to
> >> > > > win,
> >> > > > he wins."
>
> >> > > > I stand by that.
>
> >> > > You do realize Superman is a fictional character?
>
> >> > > He wants whatever motivation the writers give him.
>
> >> > > -- Ken from Chicago
> >> > ~
> >> > ~
> >> > ~How about if the writers want Superman to try his best to defeat
> >> > ~Batman in a fight?  He does so in about five seconds, by any of a
> >> > ~thousand different approaches.  If there is concern about collateral
> >> > ~damage, then just superspeed and grab Batman, fly him to Mars, and
> >> > ~beat the guano out of him there.  Any other result is contrived for a
> >> > ~story where Batman's "victory" had been predetermined.
>
> >> > No, then it's a question of context and preparation.
>
> >> > A PREPARED Batman is virtually unbeatable.
>
> >> > He has the smarts, wealth and contacts to defeat most Earth-based
> >> > heroes--given sufficient time to prepare and set the proper trap.
>
> >> Again, that's a trap, not a fight.  If the question is "Can Batman
> >> ambush or assissinate an unsuspecting Superman" then the answer is
> >> "probably yes" -- if the question, which was originally posed, is "who
> >> will win in a fight" then then answer is "Superman, if he wants to"
>
> > This is of course true, but you have to define "fight". If we're
> > talking about a boxing match, then of course Superman would win, as
> > he'd win against just about anybody else. It's not saying much. But
> > Batman isn't a boxing superhero - he's a cunning scientist and
> > detective. I mean, Superman's most famous foe is a rich human
> > scientist who gives him a run for his money all the time, so why
> > wouldn't Batman have as much of a chance in an "unfair" fight? Which
> > is not to say he'd HAVE to trap or ambush him, but, as was mentioned
> > before, if he could *prepare* for it and bring anything to the fight
> > (and ignore Queensberry rules), he'd have a shot.
>
> > And you have to think that Batman is always prepared to take down
> > Supes at any given time. I loved the last panel of that recent Batman/
> > Superman arc where they're trying to rid the world of Kryptonite and
> > pretty much succeed, and then we see Bats has a whole storehouse of
> > the stuff in the Batcave. Gotta be prepared...
>
> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were any
> of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and  Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or Wonder
> Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic in
> nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I would add the Martian Manhunter and maybe Black Adam and Icon to
that list. I feel that if Batman has enough time to prepare, he would
beat Superman, otherwise it's a Superman rout.

[Mike B]

batface wrote:
> "Benjamin Pavsner" wrote:
>> The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist
>> fight were any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of
>> their versions) or Wonder Women since all are sufficiently strong
>> and whose strength is magic in nature

> I would add the Martian Manhunter and maybe Black Adam and Icon to
> that list. I feel that if Batman has enough time to prepare, he
> would beat Superman, otherwise it's a Superman rout.

The standard wisdom used to be, when this question came up regarding
say the original Supergirl, that just as a normal man can take an
ordinary teenager, Superman would out power Kara by that much. I think
that would apply to Jr. and Mary, (Freddy's grown-up ID is another
question). Thus large Kryptonian thugs from the Phantom Zone would
have that advantage on Kal-El, as well.

That anyone's powers derived from magic has never been a factor
previously when it came to sheer strength affecting Kal, as far as I
know. MM and the White Martians were originally described as almost as
powerful as Kryptonians, as I recall.

What we need is to able to Google all Superman dialog in DC books
for the phrase "I actually felt that!"

[Anybody]

In article
<51218f83-e056-4b8e-9ac0-***@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>,
batface <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 11, 8:30 pm, "Benjamin Pavsner" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist fight were any
> > of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and  Cap Jr. in any of their versions) or Wonder
> > Women since all are sufficiently strong and whose strength is magic in
> > nature- Hide quoted text -
>
> I would add the Martian Manhunter and maybe Black Adam and Icon to
> that list.
<snip>

Or anyone with a chunk of Kryptonite. :-)

[Mike B]

Anybody wrote:
> batface <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Benjamin Pavsner <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>The only people I think could take Superman in a simple fist
>>>fight were any of the Marvels( Cap, Mary and Cap Jr. in any of
>>>their versions) or Wonder Women since all are sufficiently
>>>strong and whose strength is magic in nature

>> I would add the Martian Manhunter and maybe
>> Black Adam and Icon to that list.

> Or anyone with a chunk of Kryptonite. :-)

True, look at Muhammad Ali knocking out Superman
with Kryptonite-charged boxing gloves!

[Johnnie In The Billows]

Green Lantern would win, cuz he can do anything.

[Anim8rFSK]

In article
<8c219498-1f40-4805-ab98-***@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Johnnie In The Billows <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Green Lantern would win, cuz he can do anything.

Lester's Superman would rip the yellow S off his cap and throw it at GL;
it would turn huge and to cellophane and wrap up GL, um, harmlessly.

--
Third root canal - averted.

Hip Hip Hurrah!

[Jack Bohn]

Anim8rFSK wrote:

>In article
><8c219498-1f40-4805-ab98-***@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Johnnie In The Billows <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Green Lantern would win, cuz he can do anything.
>
>Lester's Superman would rip the yellow S off his cap and throw it at GL;
>it would turn huge and to cellophane and wrap up GL, um, harmlessly.

I hated the way Lester added silly things, like that cap.

--
-Jack

[Remysun]

On Sep 23, 11:07 am, Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

> Lester's Superman would rip the yellow S off his cap and throw it at GL;
> it would turn huge and to cellophane and wrap up GL, um, harmlessly.

But there's yellow in it.

[Rob Jensen]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:21:26 -0700 (PDT), Gary <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
>who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
>think so. It can be between whatever version of Batman you most
>admire in live action film, animation or comics and whatever version
>of Superman you most admire in live action film – TV (Tom Welling,
>Brandon Routh, the late great Chris Reeve) animation or comics.

O. M. F. G.

-- Rob
--
LORELAI: I am so done with plans. I am never, ever making one again.
It never works. I spend the day obsessing over why it didn't work
and what I could've done differently. I'm analyzing all my shortcomings
when all I really need to be doing is vowing to never, ever make a plan
ever again, which I'm doing now, having once again been the innocent
victim of my own stupid plans. God, I need some coffee.

[Rob Dye]

On Aug 7, 9:21 am, Gary <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> think so.  

The winner would be whoever has said that comics are stupid, for
whatever reason they said it.

The fans would be the losers.

[BC]

"Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dfff6ad-9304-40cd-8855-***@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 9:21 am, Gary <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If it had to happen and Batman and Superman were to fight each other,
> who do you (seriously or humorously) reckon would win, saying why you
> think so.

The winner would be whoever has said that comics are stupid, for
whatever reason they said it.

The fans would be the losers.

*I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the forums
for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and misspellings
than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general the
people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the comic
forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?

[Rob Dye]

On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:


>
> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the forums
> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and misspellings
> than others.  Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
> spelling mistakes.  There are some of course, and typos, but in general the
> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
> forums.  Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the comic
> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?

I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.

[BC]

"Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:


>
> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
> forums
> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and misspellings
> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general the
> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the comic
> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?

I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.

I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I have
communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like me --
pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character. And those
people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you would think that
by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a dictionary to at
least present the illusion of literacy.

[peachy ashie passion]

BC wrote:
> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
>> forums
>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and misspellings
>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general the
>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the comic
>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
>
> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
>
> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I have
> communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like me --
> pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character. And those
> people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you would think that
> by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a dictionary to at
> least present the illusion of literacy.
>
>

Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.

Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
impulse control.

At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.

[BC]

"peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SiDok.987$***@trnddc04...
> BC wrote:
>> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
>>> forums
>>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and
>>> misspellings
>>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
>>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
>>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general
>>> the
>>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
>>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the
>>> comic
>>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
>>
>> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
>> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
>>
>> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I have
>> communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like
>> me -- pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character.
>> And those people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you would
>> think that by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a
>> dictionary to at least present the illusion of literacy.
>
> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>
> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should put
> that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
> impulse control.
>
> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.

I've seen kids 12 years old in spelling contests -- their spelling brains
are developed. What constitutes being an adult? Being responsible? I know
irresponsible 50 year olds. When will they become adults? And I'm not
suggesting ALL 16 year olds -- just those that we were speaking of on the
comic forum and for me specifically on the Smallville forum. And frankly, I
don't know of anyone that is 16 that I've read, therefore the reason for my
original post -- that the posters seem to be more illiterate only because it
is a Smallville forum or comic hero forum. So maybe it isn't about the age
at all. I see plenty of adults around here (where I live), that if they
were on the Smallville forum, would fit that bill too. It just seems like
the posters on other forums are more literate in general as a group. And
that is a percentage -- I like reading the posts from quite a few people
here --many of them are very humorous -- including the people I argue with.

My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or graphic
novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same for books on
tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is said, help support
the thin dialog in the bubbles.

Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
graphically challenged, here. ;-)

[~consul]

and thus BC inscribed ...
> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should put
>> that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>> impulse control.
>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or graphic
> novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same for books on
> tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is said, help support
> the thin dialog in the bubbles.
> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
> graphically challenged, here. ;-)

I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what being literate means to me, for any age level.

(and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[BC]

"~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
news:g7v8os$4vo$***@gist.usc.edu...
> and thus BC inscribed ...
>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>>> impulse control.
>>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
>> for books on tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
>> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>
> I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those
> massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got
> the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do
> they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what
> being literate means to me, for any age level.
>
> (and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
> --
> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at
> the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
> --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

spelling goofs or typos don't bother me as much as using the wrong word or
speaking like this: "Sumtimes my tabaccy chaw pertnear sticks in my gizzard
an I cain't swaller."

[~consul]

and thus BC inscribed ...
> "~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
>> and thus BC inscribed ...
>>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
>>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>>>> impulse control.
>>>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>>>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
>>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
>>> for books on tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
>>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
>>> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>> I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those
>> massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got
>> the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do
>> they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what
>> being literate means to me, for any age level.
>> (and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
> spelling goofs or typos don't bother me as much as using the wrong word or
> speaking like this: "Sumtimes my tabaccy chaw pertnear sticks in my gizzard
> an I cain't swaller."

Dang Nabbit!
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[BC]

"~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
news:g7vioa$6n1$***@gist.usc.edu...
> and thus BC inscribed ...
>> "~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
>>> and thus BC inscribed ...
>>>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>>>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being
>>>>> literate -
>>>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
>>>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack
>>>>> of
>>>>> impulse control.
>>>>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>>>>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>>>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
>>>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
>>>> for books on tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
>>>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>>>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
>>>> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>>> I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those
>>> massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got
>>> the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do
>>> they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what
>>> being literate means to me, for any age level.
>>> (and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
>> spelling goofs or typos don't bother me as much as using the wrong word
>> or
>> speaking like this: "Sumtimes my tabaccy chaw pertnear sticks in my
>> gizzard
>> an I cain't swaller."
>
> Dang Nabbit!

Shucks! Swallered my chaw. Rekon I better get to the little house and sit
for a spell n'read what's left o' the Sears Roebuck. That chaw'll work its
way out faster than a mole goin thru the turnip patch. I writ a complaint
to the Sears Roebuck company bout their ink comin off on my butt. I ain't a
heared nuthin back from'em tho. Rekon they got the same problem. My wife,
Touretta, says that I should switch to the Monkey Ward catalog, but it ain't
squeezably soft like the Sears. Now we knowed about indoor plumbin and all
them new fangled corntraptions like runnin water, but why would anyone want
to do that in the house? Land sakes! Them chickens and them pigs live like
thaat! No-siree-bob, I'll do my bidness in the little house way out back,
thank you.

> --
> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at
> the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
> --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Eminence]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:15:37 -0400, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:

>
>"~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
>news:g7v8os$4vo$***@gist.usc.edu...
>> and thus BC inscribed ...
>>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
>>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>>>> impulse control.
>>>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>>>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
>>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
>>> for books on tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
>>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
>>> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>>
>> I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those
>> massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got
>> the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do
>> they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what
>> being literate means to me, for any age level.
>>
>> (and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
>> --
>> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at
>> the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
>> --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
>
>spelling goofs or typos don't bother me as much as using the wrong word or
>speaking like this: "Sumtimes my tabaccy chaw pertnear sticks in my gizzard
>an I cain't swaller."

There's poor spelling/grammar that arises from English as a second (or
third) language; and then there's the kind that comes from teh kidz
who r 2 kewl 4 ur skool; and then there's just plain ol' illiteracy.

My new favorite from this last group is "should of", because dammit,
hooked on phonics didn't teach me nothin' 'bout knowin' teh difference
'tween *of* and *'ve*.

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned

[Martin Phipps]

On Aug 14, 9:04 pm, Eminence <***@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:15:37 -0400, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
>
> >"~consul" <***@dolphins-coveINVALID.com> wrote in message
> >news:g7v8os$4vo$***@gist.usc.edu...
> >> and thus BC inscribed ...
> >>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>     Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
> >>>>   Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
> >>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
> >>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
> >>>> impulse control.
> >>>>   At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
> >>>> developing.  They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
> >>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
> >>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
> >>> for books on tape.  Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
> >>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
> >>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
> >>> graphically challenged, here.  ;-)
>
> >> I don't know any super spellers personally, but I always wonder at those
> >> massive memorizers, at what else they've absorbed. Like sure they've got
> >> the spelling of the words of Shakespeare or the Greek tragedies, but do
> >> they understand it or can explain it? I think that is a big part of what
> >> being literate means to me, for any age level.
>
> >> (and hey, maybe they can, I'm just throwing it out there)
> >> --
> >> "... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at
> >> the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
> >>  --till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
>
> >spelling goofs or typos don't bother me as much as using the wrong word or
> >speaking like this:  "Sumtimes my tabaccy chaw pertnear sticks in my gizzard
> >an I cain't swaller."
>
> There's poor spelling/grammar that arises from English as a second (or
> third) language; and then there's the kind that comes from teh kidz
> who r 2 kewl 4 ur skool; and then there's just plain ol' illiteracy.
>
> My new favorite from this last group is "should of", because dammit,
> hooked on phonics didn't teach me nothin' 'bout knowin' teh difference
> 'tween *of* and *'ve*.

I get annoyed when I see things like this.

"Do you know what your doing?"
"I'm doing the same thing their doing."

Hononyms aside, literate people should be able to look at these
sentences and see that they don't make sense.

Martin

[peachy ashie passion]

BC wrote:
> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SiDok.987$***@trnddc04...
>> BC wrote:
>>> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
>>>> forums
>>>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and
>>>> misspellings
>>>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
>>>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar and
>>>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general
>>>> the
>>>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
>>>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the
>>>> comic
>>>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
>>> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
>>> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
>>>
>>> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I have
>>> communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like
>>> me -- pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character.
>>> And those people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you would
>>> think that by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a
>>> dictionary to at least present the illusion of literacy.
>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>
>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should put
>> that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>> impulse control.
>>
>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>
> I've seen kids 12 years old in spelling contests -- their spelling brains
> are developed.

And as I said, most of the 16 year olds CAN, they just don't.

> What constitutes being an adult? Being responsible? I know
> irresponsible 50 year olds. When will they become adults? And I'm not
> suggesting ALL 16 year olds -- just those that we were speaking of on the
> comic forum and for me specifically on the Smallville forum. And frankly, I
> don't know of anyone that is 16 that I've read, therefore the reason for my
> original post -- that the posters seem to be more illiterate only because it
> is a Smallville forum or comic hero forum. So maybe it isn't about the age
> at all. I see plenty of adults around here (where I live), that if they
> were on the Smallville forum, would fit that bill too. It just seems like
> the posters on other forums are more literate in general as a group. And
> that is a percentage -- I like reading the posts from quite a few people
> here --many of them are very humorous -- including the people I argue with.
>
> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or graphic
> novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same for books on
> tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is said, help support
> the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>
> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>

Collage illiterate?

I think I must be as well, because I don't know what that means.

[BC]

"peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lSIok.750$***@trnddc03...
> BC wrote:
>> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:SiDok.987$***@trnddc04...
>>> BC wrote:
>>>> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
>>>>> forums
>>>>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and
>>>>> misspellings
>>>>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
>>>>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar
>>>>> and
>>>>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general
>>>>> the
>>>>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
>>>>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the
>>>>> comic
>>>>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
>>>> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
>>>> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I
>>>> have communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers
>>>> like me -- pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the
>>>> character. And those people are literate -- guess you are right.
>>>> However, you would think that by the age of 16 or so that they would
>>>> know how to use a dictionary to at least present the illusion of
>>>> literacy.
>>> Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
>>>
>>> Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
>>> what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
>>> put that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
>>> impulse control.
>>>
>>> At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
>>> developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>>
>> I've seen kids 12 years old in spelling contests -- their spelling brains
>> are developed.
>
> And as I said, most of the 16 year olds CAN, they just don't.
>
>> What constitutes being an adult? Being responsible? I know
>> irresponsible 50 year olds. When will they become adults? And I'm not
>> suggesting ALL 16 year olds -- just those that we were speaking of on the
>> comic forum and for me specifically on the Smallville forum. And
>> frankly, I don't know of anyone that is 16 that I've read, therefore the
>> reason for my original post -- that the posters seem to be more
>> illiterate only because it is a Smallville forum or comic hero forum. So
>> maybe it isn't about the age at all. I see plenty of adults around here
>> (where I live), that if they were on the Smallville forum, would fit that
>> bill too. It just seems like the posters on other forums are more
>> literate in general as a group. And that is a percentage -- I like
>> reading the posts from quite a few people here --many of them are very
>> humorous -- including the people I argue with.
>>
>> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or
>> graphic novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same
>> for books on tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is
>> said, help support the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>>
>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
>> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>
> Collage illiterate?
>
> I think I must be as well, because I don't know what that means.

Collage and not college. I was tossing a barb (inside joke) at Pooh or
"Christopher M." to see if he was still alive (and he is). His response
usually brings forth Advance Scout, Yabahoobs and Preacher. It is a slow
part of the year on this group. So I will do anything to provoke a
response.
>

[~consul]

and thus peachy ashie passion inscribed ...
> BC wrote:
>> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate"
>> or graphically challenged, here. ;-)
> Collage illiterate?
> I think I must be as well, because I don't know what that means.

Collage, many pictures and words on a page as opposed to something neat and ordered like just text or just pictures.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[Michael Wood]

"BC" <***@att.net> wrote in message
news:%5Eok.7788$***@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:SiDok.987$***@trnddc04...
> > BC wrote:
> >> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>
news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
> >>> forums
> >>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and
> >>> misspellings
> >>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
> >>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar
and
> >>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general
> >>> the
> >>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
> >>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the
> >>> comic
> >>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
> >>
> >> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
> >> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
> >>
> >> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I
have
> >> communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like
> >> me -- pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character.
> >> And those people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you
would
> >> think that by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a
> >> dictionary to at least present the illusion of literacy.
> >
> > Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
> >
> > Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
> > what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
put
> > that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
> > impulse control.
> >
> > At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
> > developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
>
> I've seen kids 12 years old in spelling contests -- their spelling brains
> are developed. What constitutes being an adult? Being responsible? I
know
> irresponsible 50 year olds. When will they become adults? And I'm not
> suggesting ALL 16 year olds -- just those that we were speaking of on the
> comic forum and for me specifically on the Smallville forum. And frankly,
I
> don't know of anyone that is 16 that I've read, therefore the reason for
my
> original post -- that the posters seem to be more illiterate only because
it
> is a Smallville forum or comic hero forum. So maybe it isn't about the
age
> at all. I see plenty of adults around here (where I live), that if they
> were on the Smallville forum, would fit that bill too. It just seems like
> the posters on other forums are more literate in general as a group. And
> that is a percentage -- I like reading the posts from quite a few people
> here --many of them are very humorous -- including the people I argue
with.
>
> My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or graphic
> novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same for books
on
> tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is said, help support
> the thin dialog in the bubbles.
>
> Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
> graphically challenged, here. ;-)
>
>

Had you considered that it may not be literacy (as research suggests that
comic book readers are more literate children than others) but rather the
measured response?

A forum on lawn maintenance seems to me to attract a group of people who
would take their time in formulating posts, and not wanting to appear
foolish in front of experts. In comic book forums, all consider themselves
experts. And opinion is backed by fiery passion. Not time tospell check.
Also the current younger generation has been raised on the idea that content
not form matters. The spelling, grammar or form of presentation are less
important than what is being said. Of course, most people young or old can't
distinguish the difference, but the belief system is there.

If my spelling or grammar doesn't meet your requirements, that is irrelevant
if you know what I am saying. Huge debates start here precisely when someone
starts pulling out dictionary definitions of words or insist on interpreting
a sentence in a particular way, no matter how ambiguous.

Michael Wood

[Eminence]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:57:53 GMT, "Michael Wood" <no-***@home.com>
wrote:

>Also the current younger generation has been raised on the idea that content
>not form matters. The spelling, grammar or form of presentation are less
>important than what is being said. Of course, most people young or old can't
>distinguish the difference, but the belief system is there.
>
>If my spelling or grammar doesn't meet your requirements, that is irrelevant
>if you know what I am saying. Huge debates start here precisely when someone
>starts pulling out dictionary definitions of words or insist on interpreting
>a sentence in a particular way, no matter how ambiguous.

But if the content is obscured because of the form, then it's
difficult to determine what you are saying. Or rather, what you are
writing.

Eminence
_______________
Usenet: Global Village of the Damned

[Bill Steele]

In article <BRWok.28294$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"Michael Wood" <no-***@home.com> wrote:

> "BC" <***@att.net> wrote in message
> news:%5Eok.7788$***@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > "peachy ashie passion" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:SiDok.987$***@trnddc04...
> > > BC wrote:
> > >> "Rob Dye" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> news:d3889956-950c-4a63-8dd0-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On Aug 13, 10:13 am, "BC" <***@att.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> *I'm curious to know if you have experienced what I have -- that the
> > >>> forums
> > >>> for superheroes or comics have more illiterate ramblings and
> > >>> misspellings
> > >>> than others. Recently I've been browsing the postings on a landscaping
> > >>> forum and I've found that the people who mow lawns make few grammar
> and
> > >>> spelling mistakes. There are some of course, and typos, but in general
> > >>> the
> > >>> people that mow lawns seem more literate than those who post on comic
> > >>> forums. Do you suppose that's the reason many of the posters on the
> > >>> comic
> > >>> forums read comics -- that comics have pictures with the words?
> > >>
> > >> I suspect there are very few younger teenagers posting to the lawncare
> > >> newsgroups...so you have two widely different user bases.
> > >>
> > >> I suppose that's a good reason. Although most of the posters that I
> have
> > >> communicated with on the Smallville group are pissed off geezers like
> > >> me -- pissed off that M&G have or have tried to destroy the character.
> > >> And those people are literate -- guess you are right. However, you
> would
> > >> think that by the age of 16 or so that they would know how to use a
> > >> dictionary to at least present the illusion of literacy.
> > >
> > > Well, you'd only think that if you've utterly forgotten being 16.
> > >
> > > Seriously, most adolescents are perfectly capable of being literate -
> > > what they are demonstrating is their not understanding why they should
> put
> > > that effort into their leisure activity, coupled with their lack of
> > > impulse control.
> > >
> > > At age 16 they are still *years* away from their brains finishing
> > > developing. They aren't adult, nor anywhere close to it.
> >
> > I've seen kids 12 years old in spelling contests -- their spelling brains
> > are developed. What constitutes being an adult? Being responsible? I
> know
> > irresponsible 50 year olds. When will they become adults? And I'm not
> > suggesting ALL 16 year olds -- just those that we were speaking of on the
> > comic forum and for me specifically on the Smallville forum. And frankly,
> I
> > don't know of anyone that is 16 that I've read, therefore the reason for
> my
> > original post -- that the posters seem to be more illiterate only because
> it
> > is a Smallville forum or comic hero forum. So maybe it isn't about the
> age
> > at all. I see plenty of adults around here (where I live), that if they
> > were on the Smallville forum, would fit that bill too. It just seems like
> > the posters on other forums are more literate in general as a group. And
> > that is a percentage -- I like reading the posts from quite a few people
> > here --many of them are very humorous -- including the people I argue
> with.
> >
> > My guess is that many (not all) people that gravitate to comics or graphic
> > novels, do that because of a low performance in reading -- same for books
> on
> > tape. Pictures being worth "a thousand words" as it is said, help support
> > the thin dialog in the bubbles.
> >
> > Some people, while being verbally literate, are collage "illiterate" or
> > graphically challenged, here. ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Had you considered that it may not be literacy (as research suggests that
> comic book readers are more literate children than others) but rather the
> measured response?
>
> A forum on lawn maintenance seems to me to attract a group of people who
> would take their time in formulating posts, and not wanting to appear
> foolish in front of experts. In comic book forums, all consider themselves
> experts. And opinion is backed by fiery passion. Not time tospell check.
> Also the current younger generation has been raised on the idea that content
> not form matters. The spelling, grammar or form of presentation are less
> important than what is being said. Of course, most people young or old can't
> distinguish the difference, but the belief system is there.
>
> If my spelling or grammar doesn't meet your requirements, that is irrelevant
> if you know what I am saying. Huge debates start here precisely when someone
> starts pulling out dictionary definitions of words or insist on interpreting
> a sentence in a particular way, no matter how ambiguous.
>
> Michael Wood

Possible alternate explanation: It results from posting from a phone,
typing with thumbs.