Talk:Arthur Petrelli - Revision history

imported>PJDEP: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-06-18T21:52:36Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 18 June 2010
(No difference)

imported>PJDEP: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-06-18T21:52:36Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 18 June 2010
Line 61:		Line 61:
	**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.		**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.
	***In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.--[[User:Inblackestnight\|Inblackestnight]] 17:47, 18 June 2010		***In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.--[[User:Inblackestnight\|Inblackestnight]] 17:47, 18 June 2010
			****Inblackestnight, you must sign any comment you add to a talk page. This is the seventh time you've been asked. Any questions can be left on my talk page.--{{User:PJDEP/signature1}} 17:52, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

imported>PJDEP at 21:48, 18 June 2010

2010-06-18T21:48:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 18 June 2010
Line 60:		Line 60:
	* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)		* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
	**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.		**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.
	***In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.		***In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.--[[User:Inblackestnight\|Inblackestnight]] 17:47, 18 June 2010

imported>Inblackestnight at 21:47, 18 June 2010

2010-06-18T21:47:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 18 June 2010
Line 60:		Line 60:
	* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)		* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
	**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.		**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.
			***In response to Richard's post, I believe the "sponge" analogy was only meant for Peter's ability in how he aquires others' through his EM. Sylar is of course much different in how he gains new powers and in his case he actually changes his own DNA to obtain the ability while Peter just mimics, if I understand it correctly. Peter's EM should be listed for Arthur's stolen abilities because that is precisely what he took.

imported>PJDEP at 04:55, 21 April 2010

2010-04-21T04:55:46Z

Show changes

imported>EvilMaldini: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-04-06T13:01:07Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 6 April 2010
Line 252:		Line 252:
	*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
	* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)		* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
	**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.		**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry#The nature of Empathic mimicry...\|Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.

imported>EvilMaldini: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-04-06T12:58:58Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:58, 6 April 2010
Line 252:		Line 252:
	*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
	* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)		* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)
			**EDIT: Linked to the [[Talk:Empathic mimicry]] page.

imported>EvilMaldini: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-04-06T12:41:13Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:41, 6 April 2010
Line 251:		Line 251:
	******** Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		******** Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
	*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
			* If you're right mc then we would need to remove every 'ability' from Arthur's page that he gained through Peter alone, like say Telekinesis, and then remove Arthur's name from the TK page, as he never actually had that ability itself, as it was just an aspect of Peter's one power that he took when he did. That's a lot of changing, and it's based upon the nature of EM, but how do we know that nature? What if EM was simply used only in the initial mimic, and after that Peter used the abilities he gained in the same way the original holder did?--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 08:41, 6 April 2010 (EDT)

imported>Ricard Desi: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-04-06T02:14:08Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:14, 6 April 2010
Line 250:		Line 250:
	*******Ok, so the thing is, Arthur ''has'' shown use of empathic mimicry. Now, we know that EM is still only one ability, which allows the user's DNA to change to allow loads of different aspects. Arthur couldn't take "electric manipulation" because peter didn't have that, his EM only allowed him to mimic it. So any "ability" that Arthur has, isn't an ability, just an aspect of the EM he stole from Peter. This also means he displayed its use. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 21:10, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		*******Ok, so the thing is, Arthur ''has'' shown use of empathic mimicry. Now, we know that EM is still only one ability, which allows the user's DNA to change to allow loads of different aspects. Arthur couldn't take "electric manipulation" because peter didn't have that, his EM only allowed him to mimic it. So any "ability" that Arthur has, isn't an ability, just an aspect of the EM he stole from Peter. This also means he displayed its use. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 21:10, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
	******** Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		******** Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
			*********Actually, we do have one tangentially related piece of evidence that could help this along. When Sylar was cured of the Shanti virus, he regained his IA (and TK, but that's always been a special case). He does NOT regain the rest of his powers. Why? Because Sylar lost his "sponge", and his abilities "fell out". He got IA back, but it was an "empty" IA. If we use the same logic here, Arthur could not have stolen anything from Peter EXCEPT for his "full" EM (which includes all the powers Peter replicated). Which is why all of Peter's abilities are gone. We can say without any speculation that Arthur did absorb EM. Thoughts? --'''[[User:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Ricard</font>]]''' '''[[User talk:Ricard Desi\|<font color=#609000>Desi</font>]]''' 22:14, 5 April 2010 (EDT)

imported>Ryangibsonstewart: /* Empathic mimicry (2) */

2010-04-06T01:37:59Z

Empathic mimicry (2)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 6 April 2010
Line 249:		Line 249:
	****** I'm saying he absorbed EM as much as he absorbed all the other powers from Peter that he never was seen using, like Flight and Induced Radioactivity- but just as we don't list those on his info pane, as we never saw him use them, nor should we list EM, even with the implication Ricard mentioned.--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 11:54, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		****** I'm saying he absorbed EM as much as he absorbed all the other powers from Peter that he never was seen using, like Flight and Induced Radioactivity- but just as we don't list those on his info pane, as we never saw him use them, nor should we list EM, even with the implication Ricard mentioned.--[[User:EvilMaldini\|Evil Maldini]] 11:54, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
	*******Ok, so the thing is, Arthur ''has'' shown use of empathic mimicry. Now, we know that EM is still only one ability, which allows the user's DNA to change to allow loads of different aspects. Arthur couldn't take "electric manipulation" because peter didn't have that, his EM only allowed him to mimic it. So any "ability" that Arthur has, isn't an ability, just an aspect of the EM he stole from Peter. This also means he displayed its use. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 21:10, 5 April 2010 (EDT)		*******Ok, so the thing is, Arthur ''has'' shown use of empathic mimicry. Now, we know that EM is still only one ability, which allows the user's DNA to change to allow loads of different aspects. Arthur couldn't take "electric manipulation" because peter didn't have that, his EM only allowed him to mimic it. So any "ability" that Arthur has, isn't an ability, just an aspect of the EM he stole from Peter. This also means he displayed its use. --[[User:Mc hammark\|mc_hammark]] 21:10, 5 April 2010 (EDT)
			******** Given the fact that Arthur has an ability that allows him to take the abilities of others, and the fact that demonstrating empathic mimicry is a pretty murky thing, just about any "evidence" for or against Arthur having demonstrated EM is really pretty theoretical. Since we really have no hard evidence one way or the other, we should probably leave EM off the list of abilities that we know he has. -- {{User:Ryangibsonstewart/sig}} 21:37, 5 April 2010 (EDT)