User talk:NatG83 - Revision history

imported>NatG83 at 04:47, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T04:47:49Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 04:47, 24 October 2009
(No difference)

imported>NatG83 at 04:47, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T04:47:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:47, 24 October 2009
Line 24:		Line 24:
	Sylar acquired Clair Bennet's [[Rapid Cell Regeneration]] in [[The Second Coming]]. Since that time, Sylar has been able to regenerate from almost all attacks. According to clair and Sylar, the only way they were able to die is if the "spot" in the back of their heads was impaled. Sylar acquired [[shape shifting]] from [[James Martin]]. With Shape shifting, Sylar was able to move the spot. We must guess, however, that the spot still exists.		Sylar acquired Clair Bennet's [[Rapid Cell Regeneration]] in [[The Second Coming]]. Since that time, Sylar has been able to regenerate from almost all attacks. According to clair and Sylar, the only way they were able to die is if the "spot" in the back of their heads was impaled. Sylar acquired [[shape shifting]] from [[James Martin]]. With Shape shifting, Sylar was able to move the spot. We must guess, however, that the spot still exists.

		⚫	My discussion topic is what power exists that can potentially kill Sylar if/when his consciousness reacquires his body? [[Stephen Canfield]]'s ability would have been able to send Sylar through a vortex, eliminating him from the world. Howerver, Stephen Canfield is presumed dead.
⚫	In Angela's one vision, Claire died from having her head removed. This might be a possible way to kill Claire or Sylar.

		⚫	In Angela's one vision, Claire died from having her head removed. This might be a possible way to kill Claire or Sylar.
⚫	My discussion topic is what power exists that can potentially kill Sylar if/when his consciousness reacquires his body? [[Stephen Canfield]]'s ability would have been able to send Sylar through a vortex, eliminating him from the world. Stephen Canfield is presumed dead.

	Hiro/Peter could ultimately teleport and time travel Sylar into the future, then leave him there. If they change this future, Sylar would meet the same fate as [[Caitlin]].		Hiro/Peter could ultimately teleport and time travel Sylar into the future, then leave him there. If they change this future, Sylar would meet the same fate as [[Caitlin]].

imported>NatG83 at 04:36, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T04:36:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, 24 October 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	== How Can Sylar Be Killed? ==		== How Can Sylar Be Killed? ==
	Sylar acquired Clair Bennet's [[Rapid Cell ~~Regenaration~~]] in [[The Second Coming]]. Since that time, Sylar has been able to regenerate from almost all attacks. According to clair and Sylar, the only way they were able to die is if the "spot" in the back of their heads was impaled. Sylar acquired [[shape shifting]] from [[James Martin]]. With Shape shifting, Sylar was able to move the spot. We must guess, however, that the spot still exists.		Sylar acquired Clair Bennet's [[Rapid Cell Regeneration]] in [[The Second Coming]]. Since that time, Sylar has been able to regenerate from almost all attacks. According to clair and Sylar, the only way they were able to die is if the "spot" in the back of their heads was impaled. Sylar acquired [[shape shifting]] from [[James Martin]]. With Shape shifting, Sylar was able to move the spot. We must guess, however, that the spot still exists.

	In Angela's one vision, Claire died from having her head removed. This might be a possible way to kill Claire or Sylar.		In Angela's one vision, Claire died from having her head removed. This might be a possible way to kill Claire or Sylar.

imported>NatG83 at 04:36, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T04:36:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, 24 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!		Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!

			== How Can Sylar Be Killed? ==
	[[Niki Sanders]]
			Sylar acquired Clair Bennet's [[Rapid Cell Regenaration]] in [[The Second Coming]]. Since that time, Sylar has been able to regenerate from almost all attacks. According to clair and Sylar, the only way they were able to die is if the "spot" in the back of their heads was impaled. Sylar acquired [[shape shifting]] from [[James Martin]]. With Shape shifting, Sylar was able to move the spot. We must guess, however, that the spot still exists.

			In Angela's one vision, Claire died from having her head removed. This might be a possible way to kill Claire or Sylar.

			My discussion topic is what power exists that can potentially kill Sylar if/when his consciousness reacquires his body? [[Stephen Canfield]]'s ability would have been able to send Sylar through a vortex, eliminating him from the world. Stephen Canfield is presumed dead.

			Hiro/Peter could ultimately teleport and time travel Sylar into the future, then leave him there. If they change this future, Sylar would meet the same fate as [[Caitlin]].

			Finally, could an [[Jeremy Greer]] use his ability to counter Rapid Cell Regeneration to extent that he could kill Sylar? It's a stretch, but could be possible.

imported>NatG83 at 03:16, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T03:16:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 24 October 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	[[Niki Sanders]]		[[Niki Sanders]]

	== Theories ==

	*The pluses and minuses used in theory arguments are to be used in relation to the main theory, not to the argument they credit or discretit. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:* I don't think that's accurate. I there is a rules section that states otherwise, please link to it. I was discrediting another user's arguments since they don't state any evidence.

	::* That user would be me, and I am putting forth evidence, you're just not understanding it. The directions are at the bottom of the page when you're editing a theory page, below the save page button, right column, third topic. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::*You were putting forth speculation, not evidence. I understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. Also, we are debating "Healing Touch" in the "Noah Bennet" Theory board. The initial theory just sighting the Linderman example as evidence.

	::::*The one thing I'm trying to make clear is that the argument of the possibility of Linderman being able kill is flawed. I'm refuting the Linderman argument by pointing out the likelihood of Linderman and Jeremy not having the same ability. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::*And I am demonstrating that it hasn't been state that Linderman couldn't kill. You're argument is based on speculation, just as mine is. As it stands, they are both listed with the same ability. Logically, this leads us to the conclusion that both individuals are capable of the same thing. Also, the Theory Rules don't confirm your earlier statement about the pluses and minuses. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Reread them, it states not to refer to the "original post"

	::::::*Not really, like I pointed out, Jeremy being documented and having his ability classified as healing touch before all of its effects were studied breaks its credibility, the in-universe structure does it. everytime we can't determine beyond reasonable doubt, both with in-universe evidence and our own argumentations that two people have the same ability, we split them, otherwise the waffle lady from the Carnival would be listed as having Luke's ability, for example. They're very similar abilities, but because we can't say for sure they're the same, we don't. The topic says "Use {{plus}}, {{minus}}, and {{note}} in the Notes column to denote evidence for, evidence against, and general information respectively." There' also a link to a help file in the blue template at right of this page. What we need is a third party. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:00, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::::* COuld you actually site something referring to Jeremy, just like you did for the "Plus/Minus Issue?" I don't believe you can

	::::::::*We have [[:Image:Jeremy.jpg\|this]], it's a screenshot of his entry in Noah's file. According to it, he was 13 when he was reported, so he was bagged and tagged. As you can see from his entry, nothing suggests his ability had harmful effects, everything they say he did involved healing. They erased his memory and returned him home, without even knowing he had an ability, the Company determined he should rediscover it during the following years. They named his ability, based on what they saw, which clearly isn't everything it does. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*Hate to say this to you, but that more likely supports my view point. Clearly, Linderman and Ishi Nakamura don't have similar files to review. But it says the kid's power is Healing touch. Ever hear the saying, "The lord giveth, and he taketh away," or some variation?
	::::::::::*And how does them not having files equals them being able to kill with their abilities? The lack of something denying their ability to kill isn't the same as there being something confirming it. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:54, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Because there's a page that states the three of them have the same ability, and nothing that states that they do not. I can't make it any simpler. And for the last time, stop deleting theory responses.
	::::::::::::*I'm only restoring an edit from a third party you're deleting now. And the page can be easily changed, on going discussions can lead to the ability being split. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*You keep deleting my post. Restore the edit with my post, and that'd be cool. On Going discussions might change it, the key word being "might." The fact is, it is a theory with no evidence against it. Linderman and Jeremy's powers are currently listed as the same.
	::::::::::::::*What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying "they're not the same", I'm saying "despite being listed as the same ability, there's evidence suggesting they might not be". Saying they're the same can be wrong or not, saying they ''might'' not be the same works both ways. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 19:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I understand what you are trying to say. But my point is that you have no ciatation/Evidence supporting your claim. That's all I'm saying. Our debate should have died with one post.
	::::::::::::::*Are you not the one that wrote "Sighting the WIKI as evidence is against the terms of the Wiki."? All this edit is doing is changing a argument to not use the wiki as a source ("both Jeremy Greer and Linderman are listed as healing touch"), removing another argument that does that ("That contradicts what has been said about the power and the users. It has been listed as the same power...") along with the responses to it, and fixing the alignment of the notes. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I'm siting what the image from the show clearly states: Healing touch. And I haven't deleted anything, Intuitive Empath has, though. Take it up with him.
	::::::::::::::::*And Linderman was never listed by a canon source as having healing touch. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	::::::*[[Help:Theories]] does not use the phrase "original post" at all. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::*Actually, it does, Josh.
	::::::::*Firefox's and Google Chrome's find features both beg to differ. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*I think Intuitive Empath and I already resolved that he was right about the pluses/Minus. So, why do you dwell on it?

	:::::::*"If you have information that either supports or refutes a '''theory''', add it to the appropriate column in that theory's entry." Supports or refutes the theory, what's in the first column in the theory page, if the argument is discrets a previous argument, and that previous argument is meant to discredit the theory, then the argument helps credit the theory, meaning it's a plus. Also in the page: "The third column provides any additional information, such as canon information which refutes the theory or makes it less likely to be true, but also including non-canon source information which supports or refutes the '''theory'''. This includes any reasoning or conjecture based on canon or non-canon information. Use {{plus}}, {{minus}} and {{note}} for proper notation of relevance to the '''theory'''." Again, in relation to the theory, not the previous argument. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:29, 22 October 2009

	:::::::::*You're right about that. My bad. Oh, and stop deleting items from the theory. That is cleaerly stated as being against the WIKI rules.
	::::::::::*It says "Do not remove information from the theory articles ''merely because you personally disagree with it or do not believe a theory is plausible''." You also might be thinking of talk pages. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Read the bottom of the Theory page, Josh
	::::::::::::*The "Adding a new page" section? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*See above
	::::::::::::::*Still not finding anything relevant. Could you quote it? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	*Deleted old posts. Please post something insightful. Thanks.
	**You can't delete discussion; you can archive it, but don't archive discussions that are still going on. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	::*Funny, the conversation was over. You seem to still want to continue.
	:::*It was? You were still giving me directions that didn't lead me anywhere useful. And stop deleting conversations, over or not, before I tell an administrator. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>Catalyst: you have to keep all this

2009-10-24T03:16:33Z

you have to keep all this

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, 24 October 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	[[Niki Sanders]]		[[Niki Sanders]]

			== Theories ==

			*The pluses and minuses used in theory arguments are to be used in relation to the main theory, not to the argument they credit or discretit. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:* I don't think that's accurate. I there is a rules section that states otherwise, please link to it. I was discrediting another user's arguments since they don't state any evidence.

			::* That user would be me, and I am putting forth evidence, you're just not understanding it. The directions are at the bottom of the page when you're editing a theory page, below the save page button, right column, third topic. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::*You were putting forth speculation, not evidence. I understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. Also, we are debating "Healing Touch" in the "Noah Bennet" Theory board. The initial theory just sighting the Linderman example as evidence.

			::::*The one thing I'm trying to make clear is that the argument of the possibility of Linderman being able kill is flawed. I'm refuting the Linderman argument by pointing out the likelihood of Linderman and Jeremy not having the same ability. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::::*And I am demonstrating that it hasn't been state that Linderman couldn't kill. You're argument is based on speculation, just as mine is. As it stands, they are both listed with the same ability. Logically, this leads us to the conclusion that both individuals are capable of the same thing. Also, the Theory Rules don't confirm your earlier statement about the pluses and minuses. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Reread them, it states not to refer to the "original post"

			::::::*Not really, like I pointed out, Jeremy being documented and having his ability classified as healing touch before all of its effects were studied breaks its credibility, the in-universe structure does it. everytime we can't determine beyond reasonable doubt, both with in-universe evidence and our own argumentations that two people have the same ability, we split them, otherwise the waffle lady from the Carnival would be listed as having Luke's ability, for example. They're very similar abilities, but because we can't say for sure they're the same, we don't. The topic says "Use {{plus}}, {{minus}}, and {{note}} in the Notes column to denote evidence for, evidence against, and general information respectively." There' also a link to a help file in the blue template at right of this page. What we need is a third party. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:00, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::::::* COuld you actually site something referring to Jeremy, just like you did for the "Plus/Minus Issue?" I don't believe you can

			::::::::*We have [[:Image:Jeremy.jpg\|this]], it's a screenshot of his entry in Noah's file. According to it, he was 13 when he was reported, so he was bagged and tagged. As you can see from his entry, nothing suggests his ability had harmful effects, everything they say he did involved healing. They erased his memory and returned him home, without even knowing he had an ability, the Company determined he should rediscover it during the following years. They named his ability, based on what they saw, which clearly isn't everything it does. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::*Hate to say this to you, but that more likely supports my view point. Clearly, Linderman and Ishi Nakamura don't have similar files to review. But it says the kid's power is Healing touch. Ever hear the saying, "The lord giveth, and he taketh away," or some variation?
			::::::::::*And how does them not having files equals them being able to kill with their abilities? The lack of something denying their ability to kill isn't the same as there being something confirming it. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:54, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::*Because there's a page that states the three of them have the same ability, and nothing that states that they do not. I can't make it any simpler. And for the last time, stop deleting theory responses.
			::::::::::::*I'm only restoring an edit from a third party you're deleting now. And the page can be easily changed, on going discussions can lead to the ability being split. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::*You keep deleting my post. Restore the edit with my post, and that'd be cool. On Going discussions might change it, the key word being "might." The fact is, it is a theory with no evidence against it. Linderman and Jeremy's powers are currently listed as the same.
			::::::::::::::*What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying "they're not the same", I'm saying "despite being listed as the same ability, there's evidence suggesting they might not be". Saying they're the same can be wrong or not, saying they ''might'' not be the same works both ways. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 19:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::::*I understand what you are trying to say. But my point is that you have no ciatation/Evidence supporting your claim. That's all I'm saying. Our debate should have died with one post.
			::::::::::::::*Are you not the one that wrote "Sighting the WIKI as evidence is against the terms of the Wiki."? All this edit is doing is changing a argument to not use the wiki as a source ("both Jeremy Greer and Linderman are listed as healing touch"), removing another argument that does that ("That contradicts what has been said about the power and the users. It has been listed as the same power...") along with the responses to it, and fixing the alignment of the notes. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::::*I'm siting what the image from the show clearly states: Healing touch. And I haven't deleted anything, Intuitive Empath has, though. Take it up with him.
			::::::::::::::::*And Linderman was never listed by a canon source as having healing touch. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			::::::*[[Help:Theories]] does not use the phrase "original post" at all. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::*Actually, it does, Josh.
			::::::::*Firefox's and Google Chrome's find features both beg to differ. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::*I think Intuitive Empath and I already resolved that he was right about the pluses/Minus. So, why do you dwell on it?

			:::::::*"If you have information that either supports or refutes a '''theory''', add it to the appropriate column in that theory's entry." Supports or refutes the theory, what's in the first column in the theory page, if the argument is discrets a previous argument, and that previous argument is meant to discredit the theory, then the argument helps credit the theory, meaning it's a plus. Also in the page: "The third column provides any additional information, such as canon information which refutes the theory or makes it less likely to be true, but also including non-canon source information which supports or refutes the '''theory'''. This includes any reasoning or conjecture based on canon or non-canon information. Use {{plus}}, {{minus}} and {{note}} for proper notation of relevance to the '''theory'''." Again, in relation to the theory, not the previous argument. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:29, 22 October 2009

			:::::::::*You're right about that. My bad. Oh, and stop deleting items from the theory. That is cleaerly stated as being against the WIKI rules.
			::::::::::*It says "Do not remove information from the theory articles ''merely because you personally disagree with it or do not believe a theory is plausible''." You also might be thinking of talk pages. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::*Read the bottom of the Theory page, Josh
			::::::::::::*The "Adding a new page" section? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::*See above
			::::::::::::::*Still not finding anything relevant. Could you quote it? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			*Deleted old posts. Please post something insightful. Thanks.
			**You can't delete discussion; you can archive it, but don't archive discussions that are still going on. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			::*Funny, the conversation was over. You seem to still want to continue.
			:::*It was? You were still giving me directions that didn't lead me anywhere useful. And stop deleting conversations, over or not, before I tell an administrator. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>NatG83 at 03:15, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T03:15:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:15, 24 October 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!		Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!

			[[Niki Sanders]]

imported>NatG83 at 03:13, 24 October 2009

2009-10-24T03:13:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:13, 24 October 2009
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!		Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!
	----

	== Theories ==

	*The pluses and minuses used in theory arguments are to be used in relation to the main theory, not to the argument they credit or discretit. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:* I don't think that's accurate. I there is a rules section that states otherwise, please link to it. I was discrediting another user's arguments since they don't state any evidence.

	::* That user would be me, and I am putting forth evidence, you're just not understanding it. The directions are at the bottom of the page when you're editing a theory page, below the save page button, right column, third topic. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::*You were putting forth speculation, not evidence. I understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. Also, we are debating "Healing Touch" in the "Noah Bennet" Theory board. The initial theory just sighting the Linderman example as evidence.

	::::*The one thing I'm trying to make clear is that the argument of the possibility of Linderman being able kill is flawed. I'm refuting the Linderman argument by pointing out the likelihood of Linderman and Jeremy not having the same ability. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::*And I am demonstrating that it hasn't been state that Linderman couldn't kill. You're argument is based on speculation, just as mine is. As it stands, they are both listed with the same ability. Logically, this leads us to the conclusion that both individuals are capable of the same thing. Also, the Theory Rules don't confirm your earlier statement about the pluses and minuses. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Reread them, it states not to refer to the "original post"

	::::::*Not really, like I pointed out, Jeremy being documented and having his ability classified as healing touch before all of its effects were studied breaks its credibility, the in-universe structure does it. everytime we can't determine beyond reasonable doubt, both with in-universe evidence and our own argumentations that two people have the same ability, we split them, otherwise the waffle lady from the Carnival would be listed as having Luke's ability, for example. They're very similar abilities, but because we can't say for sure they're the same, we don't. The topic says "Use {{plus}}, {{minus}}, and {{note}} in the Notes column to denote evidence for, evidence against, and general information respectively." There' also a link to a help file in the blue template at right of this page. What we need is a third party. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:00, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::::* COuld you actually site something referring to Jeremy, just like you did for the "Plus/Minus Issue?" I don't believe you can

	::::::::*We have [[:Image:Jeremy.jpg\|this]], it's a screenshot of his entry in Noah's file. According to it, he was 13 when he was reported, so he was bagged and tagged. As you can see from his entry, nothing suggests his ability had harmful effects, everything they say he did involved healing. They erased his memory and returned him home, without even knowing he had an ability, the Company determined he should rediscover it during the following years. They named his ability, based on what they saw, which clearly isn't everything it does. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*Hate to say this to you, but that more likely supports my view point. Clearly, Linderman and Ishi Nakamura don't have similar files to review. But it says the kid's power is Healing touch. Ever hear the saying, "The lord giveth, and he taketh away," or some variation?
	::::::::::*And how does them not having files equals them being able to kill with their abilities? The lack of something denying their ability to kill isn't the same as there being something confirming it. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:54, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Because there's a page that states the three of them have the same ability, and nothing that states that they do not. I can't make it any simpler. And for the last time, stop deleting theory responses.
	::::::::::::*I'm only restoring an edit from a third party you're deleting now. And the page can be easily changed, on going discussions can lead to the ability being split. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*You keep deleting my post. Restore the edit with my post, and that'd be cool. On Going discussions might change it, the key word being "might." The fact is, it is a theory with no evidence against it. Linderman and Jeremy's powers are currently listed as the same.
	::::::::::::::*What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying "they're not the same", I'm saying "despite being listed as the same ability, there's evidence suggesting they might not be". Saying they're the same can be wrong or not, saying they ''might'' not be the same works both ways. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 19:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I understand what you are trying to say. But my point is that you have no ciatation/Evidence supporting your claim. That's all I'm saying. Our debate should have died with one post.
	::::::::::::::*Are you not the one that wrote "Sighting the WIKI as evidence is against the terms of the Wiki."? All this edit is doing is changing a argument to not use the wiki as a source ("both Jeremy Greer and Linderman are listed as healing touch"), removing another argument that does that ("That contradicts what has been said about the power and the users. It has been listed as the same power...") along with the responses to it, and fixing the alignment of the notes. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I'm siting what the image from the show clearly states: Healing touch. And I haven't deleted anything, Intuitive Empath has, though. Take it up with him.
	::::::::::::::::*And Linderman was never listed by a canon source as having healing touch. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	::::::*[[Help:Theories]] does not use the phrase "original post" at all. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::*Actually, it does, Josh.
	::::::::*Firefox's and Google Chrome's find features both beg to differ. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*I think Intuitive Empath and I already resolved that he was right about the pluses/Minus. So, why do you dwell on it?

	:::::::*"If you have information that either supports or refutes a '''theory''', add it to the appropriate column in that theory's entry." Supports or refutes the theory, what's in the first column in the theory page, if the argument is discrets a previous argument, and that previous argument is meant to discredit the theory, then the argument helps credit the theory, meaning it's a plus. Also in the page: "The third column provides any additional information, such as canon information which refutes the theory or makes it less likely to be true, but also including non-canon source information which supports or refutes the '''theory'''. This includes any reasoning or conjecture based on canon or non-canon information. Use {{plus}}, {{minus}} and {{note}} for proper notation of relevance to the '''theory'''." Again, in relation to the theory, not the previous argument. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:29, 22 October 2009

	:::::::::*You're right about that. My bad. Oh, and stop deleting items from the theory. That is cleaerly stated as being against the WIKI rules.
	::::::::::*It says "Do not remove information from the theory articles ''merely because you personally disagree with it or do not believe a theory is plausible''." You also might be thinking of talk pages. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Read the bottom of the Theory page, Josh
	::::::::::::*The "Adding a new page" section? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*See above
	::::::::::::::*Still not finding anything relevant. Could you quote it? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	*Deleted old posts. Please post something insightful. Thanks.
	**You can't delete discussion; you can archive it, but don't archive discussions that are still going on. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	::*Funny, the conversation was over. You seem to still want to continue.
	:::*It was? You were still giving me directions that didn't lead me anywhere useful. And stop deleting conversations, over or not, before I tell an administrator. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>Radicell: Undo revision 380731 by NatG83 (Talk): and you're removing it again

2009-10-24T02:30:26Z

Undo revision 380731 by NatG83 (Talk): and you're removing it again

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, 24 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!		Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!
	----		----

			== Theories ==

			*The pluses and minuses used in theory arguments are to be used in relation to the main theory, not to the argument they credit or discretit. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:* I don't think that's accurate. I there is a rules section that states otherwise, please link to it. I was discrediting another user's arguments since they don't state any evidence.

			::* That user would be me, and I am putting forth evidence, you're just not understanding it. The directions are at the bottom of the page when you're editing a theory page, below the save page button, right column, third topic. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::*You were putting forth speculation, not evidence. I understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. Also, we are debating "Healing Touch" in the "Noah Bennet" Theory board. The initial theory just sighting the Linderman example as evidence.

			::::*The one thing I'm trying to make clear is that the argument of the possibility of Linderman being able kill is flawed. I'm refuting the Linderman argument by pointing out the likelihood of Linderman and Jeremy not having the same ability. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::::*And I am demonstrating that it hasn't been state that Linderman couldn't kill. You're argument is based on speculation, just as mine is. As it stands, they are both listed with the same ability. Logically, this leads us to the conclusion that both individuals are capable of the same thing. Also, the Theory Rules don't confirm your earlier statement about the pluses and minuses. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Reread them, it states not to refer to the "original post"

			::::::*Not really, like I pointed out, Jeremy being documented and having his ability classified as healing touch before all of its effects were studied breaks its credibility, the in-universe structure does it. everytime we can't determine beyond reasonable doubt, both with in-universe evidence and our own argumentations that two people have the same ability, we split them, otherwise the waffle lady from the Carnival would be listed as having Luke's ability, for example. They're very similar abilities, but because we can't say for sure they're the same, we don't. The topic says "Use {{plus}}, {{minus}}, and {{note}} in the Notes column to denote evidence for, evidence against, and general information respectively." There' also a link to a help file in the blue template at right of this page. What we need is a third party. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:00, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			:::::::* COuld you actually site something referring to Jeremy, just like you did for the "Plus/Minus Issue?" I don't believe you can

			::::::::*We have [[:Image:Jeremy.jpg\|this]], it's a screenshot of his entry in Noah's file. According to it, he was 13 when he was reported, so he was bagged and tagged. As you can see from his entry, nothing suggests his ability had harmful effects, everything they say he did involved healing. They erased his memory and returned him home, without even knowing he had an ability, the Company determined he should rediscover it during the following years. They named his ability, based on what they saw, which clearly isn't everything it does. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::*Hate to say this to you, but that more likely supports my view point. Clearly, Linderman and Ishi Nakamura don't have similar files to review. But it says the kid's power is Healing touch. Ever hear the saying, "The lord giveth, and he taketh away," or some variation?
			::::::::::*And how does them not having files equals them being able to kill with their abilities? The lack of something denying their ability to kill isn't the same as there being something confirming it. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:54, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::*Because there's a page that states the three of them have the same ability, and nothing that states that they do not. I can't make it any simpler. And for the last time, stop deleting theory responses.
			::::::::::::*I'm only restoring an edit from a third party you're deleting now. And the page can be easily changed, on going discussions can lead to the ability being split. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::*You keep deleting my post. Restore the edit with my post, and that'd be cool. On Going discussions might change it, the key word being "might." The fact is, it is a theory with no evidence against it. Linderman and Jeremy's powers are currently listed as the same.
			::::::::::::::*What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying "they're not the same", I'm saying "despite being listed as the same ability, there's evidence suggesting they might not be". Saying they're the same can be wrong or not, saying they ''might'' not be the same works both ways. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 19:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::::*I understand what you are trying to say. But my point is that you have no ciatation/Evidence supporting your claim. That's all I'm saying. Our debate should have died with one post.
			::::::::::::::*Are you not the one that wrote "Sighting the WIKI as evidence is against the terms of the Wiki."? All this edit is doing is changing a argument to not use the wiki as a source ("both Jeremy Greer and Linderman are listed as healing touch"), removing another argument that does that ("That contradicts what has been said about the power and the users. It has been listed as the same power...") along with the responses to it, and fixing the alignment of the notes. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::::*I'm siting what the image from the show clearly states: Healing touch. And I haven't deleted anything, Intuitive Empath has, though. Take it up with him.
			::::::::::::::::*And Linderman was never listed by a canon source as having healing touch. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			::::::*[[Help:Theories]] does not use the phrase "original post" at all. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::*Actually, it does, Josh.
			::::::::*Firefox's and Google Chrome's find features both beg to differ. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::*I think Intuitive Empath and I already resolved that he was right about the pluses/Minus. So, why do you dwell on it?

			:::::::*"If you have information that either supports or refutes a '''theory''', add it to the appropriate column in that theory's entry." Supports or refutes the theory, what's in the first column in the theory page, if the argument is discrets a previous argument, and that previous argument is meant to discredit the theory, then the argument helps credit the theory, meaning it's a plus. Also in the page: "The third column provides any additional information, such as canon information which refutes the theory or makes it less likely to be true, but also including non-canon source information which supports or refutes the '''theory'''. This includes any reasoning or conjecture based on canon or non-canon information. Use {{plus}}, {{minus}} and {{note}} for proper notation of relevance to the '''theory'''." Again, in relation to the theory, not the previous argument. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:29, 22 October 2009

			:::::::::*You're right about that. My bad. Oh, and stop deleting items from the theory. That is cleaerly stated as being against the WIKI rules.
			::::::::::*It says "Do not remove information from the theory articles ''merely because you personally disagree with it or do not believe a theory is plausible''." You also might be thinking of talk pages. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::*Read the bottom of the Theory page, Josh
			::::::::::::*The "Adding a new page" section? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
			:::::::::::::*See above
			::::::::::::::*Still not finding anything relevant. Could you quote it? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			*Deleted old posts. Please post something insightful. Thanks.
			**You can't delete discussion; you can archive it, but don't archive discussions that are still going on. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

			::*Funny, the conversation was over. You seem to still want to continue.
			:::*It was? You were still giving me directions that didn't lead me anywhere useful. And stop deleting conversations, over or not, before I tell an administrator. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (EDT)

imported>NatG83 at 14:23, 23 October 2009

2009-10-23T14:23:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:23, 23 October 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!		Once again, welcome to Heroes Wiki!
	----		----

	== Theories ==

	*The pluses and minuses used in theory arguments are to be used in relation to the main theory, not to the argument they credit or discretit. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:03, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:* I don't think that's accurate. I there is a rules section that states otherwise, please link to it. I was discrediting another user's arguments since they don't state any evidence.

	::* That user would be me, and I am putting forth evidence, you're just not understanding it. The directions are at the bottom of the page when you're editing a theory page, below the save page button, right column, third topic. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:39, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::*You were putting forth speculation, not evidence. I understand what you are saying, but you don't understand what I am saying. Also, we are debating "Healing Touch" in the "Noah Bennet" Theory board. The initial theory just sighting the Linderman example as evidence.

	::::*The one thing I'm trying to make clear is that the argument of the possibility of Linderman being able kill is flawed. I'm refuting the Linderman argument by pointing out the likelihood of Linderman and Jeremy not having the same ability. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 17:50, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::*And I am demonstrating that it hasn't been state that Linderman couldn't kill. You're argument is based on speculation, just as mine is. As it stands, they are both listed with the same ability. Logically, this leads us to the conclusion that both individuals are capable of the same thing. Also, the Theory Rules don't confirm your earlier statement about the pluses and minuses. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Reread them, it states not to refer to the "original post"

	::::::*Not really, like I pointed out, Jeremy being documented and having his ability classified as healing touch before all of its effects were studied breaks its credibility, the in-universe structure does it. everytime we can't determine beyond reasonable doubt, both with in-universe evidence and our own argumentations that two people have the same ability, we split them, otherwise the waffle lady from the Carnival would be listed as having Luke's ability, for example. They're very similar abilities, but because we can't say for sure they're the same, we don't. The topic says "Use {{plus}}, {{minus}}, and {{note}} in the Notes column to denote evidence for, evidence against, and general information respectively." There' also a link to a help file in the blue template at right of this page. What we need is a third party. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:00, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	:::::::* COuld you actually site something referring to Jeremy, just like you did for the "Plus/Minus Issue?" I don't believe you can

	::::::::*We have [[:Image:Jeremy.jpg\|this]], it's a screenshot of his entry in Noah's file. According to it, he was 13 when he was reported, so he was bagged and tagged. As you can see from his entry, nothing suggests his ability had harmful effects, everything they say he did involved healing. They erased his memory and returned him home, without even knowing he had an ability, the Company determined he should rediscover it during the following years. They named his ability, based on what they saw, which clearly isn't everything it does. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:42, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*Hate to say this to you, but that more likely supports my view point. Clearly, Linderman and Ishi Nakamura don't have similar files to review. But it says the kid's power is Healing touch. Ever hear the saying, "The lord giveth, and he taketh away," or some variation?
	::::::::::*And how does them not having files equals them being able to kill with their abilities? The lack of something denying their ability to kill isn't the same as there being something confirming it. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:54, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Because there's a page that states the three of them have the same ability, and nothing that states that they do not. I can't make it any simpler. And for the last time, stop deleting theory responses.
	::::::::::::*I'm only restoring an edit from a third party you're deleting now. And the page can be easily changed, on going discussions can lead to the ability being split. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*You keep deleting my post. Restore the edit with my post, and that'd be cool. On Going discussions might change it, the key word being "might." The fact is, it is a theory with no evidence against it. Linderman and Jeremy's powers are currently listed as the same.
	::::::::::::::*What you're not understanding is that I'm not saying "they're not the same", I'm saying "despite being listed as the same ability, there's evidence suggesting they might not be". Saying they're the same can be wrong or not, saying they ''might'' not be the same works both ways. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 19:07, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I understand what you are trying to say. But my point is that you have no ciatation/Evidence supporting your claim. That's all I'm saying. Our debate should have died with one post.
	::::::::::::::*Are you not the one that wrote "Sighting the WIKI as evidence is against the terms of the Wiki."? All this edit is doing is changing a argument to not use the wiki as a source ("both Jeremy Greer and Linderman are listed as healing touch"), removing another argument that does that ("That contradicts what has been said about the power and the users. It has been listed as the same power...") along with the responses to it, and fixing the alignment of the notes. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::::*I'm siting what the image from the show clearly states: Healing touch. And I haven't deleted anything, Intuitive Empath has, though. Take it up with him.
	::::::::::::::::*And Linderman was never listed by a canon source as having healing touch. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	::::::*[[Help:Theories]] does not use the phrase "original post" at all. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::*Actually, it does, Josh.
	::::::::*Firefox's and Google Chrome's find features both beg to differ. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::*I think Intuitive Empath and I already resolved that he was right about the pluses/Minus. So, why do you dwell on it?

	:::::::*"If you have information that either supports or refutes a '''theory''', add it to the appropriate column in that theory's entry." Supports or refutes the theory, what's in the first column in the theory page, if the argument is discrets a previous argument, and that previous argument is meant to discredit the theory, then the argument helps credit the theory, meaning it's a plus. Also in the page: "The third column provides any additional information, such as canon information which refutes the theory or makes it less likely to be true, but also including non-canon source information which supports or refutes the '''theory'''. This includes any reasoning or conjecture based on canon or non-canon information. Use {{plus}}, {{minus}} and {{note}} for proper notation of relevance to the '''theory'''." Again, in relation to the theory, not the previous argument. [[User:Intuitive Empath\|Intuitive Empath]] - [[User talk:Intuitive Empath\|Talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Intuitive Empath\|Contributions]] 18:29, 22 October 2009

	:::::::::*You're right about that. My bad. Oh, and stop deleting items from the theory. That is cleaerly stated as being against the WIKI rules.
	::::::::::*It says "Do not remove information from the theory articles ''merely because you personally disagree with it or do not believe a theory is plausible''." You also might be thinking of talk pages. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:01, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::*Read the bottom of the Theory page, Josh
	::::::::::::*The "Adding a new page" section? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (EDT)
	:::::::::::::*See above
	::::::::::::::*Still not finding anything relevant. Could you quote it? - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	*Deleted old posts. Please post something insightful. Thanks.
	**You can't delete discussion; you can archive it, but don't archive discussions that are still going on. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

	::*Funny, the conversation was over. You seem to still want to continue.
	:::*It was? You were still giving me directions that didn't lead me anywhere useful. And stop deleting conversations, over or not, before I tell an administrator. - [[User:Josh\|Josh]] ([[User talk:Josh\|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Josh\|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (EDT)