Upload
Login or register

mullacllahdoow

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:7/21/2011
Last Login:12/02/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 26 total,  38 ,  12
Comment Thumbs: 3612 total,  3739 ,  127
Content Level Progress: 42.37% (25/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 94% (94/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:3857
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:577
FJ Points:3116

latest user's comments

#50 - Yes, so my short answer is no... Hulk can lift the "weigh…  [+] (6 replies) 05/06/2015 on mjolnir mearly jests +1
User avatar
#52 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
green and red hulk have both lifted mjolnir with and without thor touchin it buddy
User avatar
#53 - mullacllahdoow (05/06/2015) [-]
Ok, I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, just explaining what I've been led to believe.
User avatar
#56 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
in the marvel universe virtually nothing cant be done
User avatar
#54 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
not sayin ur wrong buddy but circumstances affect
User avatar
#57 - mullacllahdoow (05/06/2015) [-]
Yes I see, based on your source Red hulk in space, so no gravity to empower the enchantment and, despite the graphic of hulk holding the hammer unassisted it reads "Hulk was able to both deflect Mjolnir and whack Thor in the face with it. Granted, Thor was still holding onto Mjolnir throughout the brief skirmish, but we'll give Hulk the accomplishment all the same." which is how I thought it had only ever worked in The Hulks case.
User avatar
#61 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
ok so according to Neil deGrasse Tyson mjolnir wheather or not thor is wielding mjolnir which is made of neutron star matter, which means it weighs as much as a herd of 300 billion elephants which is pretty damn heavy when ya think about it, this theory tho has apparently been proven wrong but like i said it is a comic series soo its not exactly scientifically relevant
#42 - short answer, no Hulk can't move Mjolnir.  [+] (10 replies) 05/06/2015 on mjolnir mearly jests +1
User avatar
#47 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
hulk has lifted mjolnir whilst thor was holding it as he was jumping into space bud
User avatar
#50 - mullacllahdoow (05/06/2015) [-]
Yes, so my short answer is no... Hulk can lift the "weight" of Mjolnir. But that was when Thor was holding it, it takes someone worthy to rule Asgard to weild Mjolnir so it isn't too heavy to lift in the conventional sense. There is some other power keeping it secured to the ground until Thor lifts it.

Disclaimer: I'm not 100% sure if anything in the comics disputes this, but this is how I understand it to be.
User avatar
#52 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
green and red hulk have both lifted mjolnir with and without thor touchin it buddy
User avatar
#53 - mullacllahdoow (05/06/2015) [-]
Ok, I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, just explaining what I've been led to believe.
User avatar
#56 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
in the marvel universe virtually nothing cant be done
User avatar
#54 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
not sayin ur wrong buddy but circumstances affect
User avatar
#57 - mullacllahdoow (05/06/2015) [-]
Yes I see, based on your source Red hulk in space, so no gravity to empower the enchantment and, despite the graphic of hulk holding the hammer unassisted it reads "Hulk was able to both deflect Mjolnir and whack Thor in the face with it. Granted, Thor was still holding onto Mjolnir throughout the brief skirmish, but we'll give Hulk the accomplishment all the same." which is how I thought it had only ever worked in The Hulks case.
User avatar
#61 - jabbathesmut (05/06/2015) [-]
ok so according to Neil deGrasse Tyson mjolnir wheather or not thor is wielding mjolnir which is made of neutron star matter, which means it weighs as much as a herd of 300 billion elephants which is pretty damn heavy when ya think about it, this theory tho has apparently been proven wrong but like i said it is a comic series soo its not exactly scientifically relevant
User avatar
#45 - zaxzwim (05/06/2015) [-]
that was in the first movie! he started digging in the ground from pushing himself down trying to lift it up
#19 - but selecting the renewable energies answer is going to match …  [+] (1 reply) 04/28/2015 on See where you stand 0
User avatar
#21 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
yeah i don't know whether there is a non-thorium green party in the UK or not. It's really insignificant but i don't like the idea of something as official having a mistake. The question that has to be answered to check whether my objection is worth it or not is how many (both parties and voters) would answer differently if there would be "Do you support the use of our Uranium based nuclear energy" as a question instead and how many would pick a different party based on that. I guess you are right and its probably an insignificantly short fraction
#17 - I agree, but I think for the purpose of the questionnaire. (pa…  [+] (3 replies) 04/28/2015 on See where you stand 0
User avatar
#18 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
Yeah i understand that but i still think that it should be labeled correctly. There are alot of people who disagree with nuclear as whole and even though i disagree with them i think they should have their own answer other than the straightforward "no". After all "no" can also mean fossil fuels and people might want their "only renewables (+geothermal)" section.
User avatar
#19 - mullacllahdoow (04/28/2015) [-]
but selecting the renewable energies answer is going to match you up to the correct party, despite thorium being mislabelled as non-nuclear.
User avatar
#21 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
yeah i don't know whether there is a non-thorium green party in the UK or not. It's really insignificant but i don't like the idea of something as official having a mistake. The question that has to be answered to check whether my objection is worth it or not is how many (both parties and voters) would answer differently if there would be "Do you support the use of our Uranium based nuclear energy" as a question instead and how many would pick a different party based on that. I guess you are right and its probably an insignificantly short fraction
#15 - You're correct but a thorium reactor produces much less radioa…  [+] (5 replies) 04/28/2015 on See where you stand 0
User avatar
#16 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
Yeah i know but i don't like the wrong labeling. Thorium might be better than uranium in but it is also hyped in a wrong way. It's good that its advertised as safer against meltdowns and so on but the attempt of deception (though maybe not intentional) can be used against it. While it sounds good to me one has to be cautious when aproaching the subject since there is alot of false information about it in the internet aswell. For example the "Thorium Car". An extra answer or changeing the question could change the mistake there.
User avatar
#17 - mullacllahdoow (04/28/2015) [-]
I agree, but I think for the purpose of the questionnaire. (party who wants to pursue nuclear vs. party who wants to pursue cleaner alternatives) it is fine. particularly because if this is a really important issue to you you're already going to know what Thorium is, and if it isn't then the specifics of which "better energy" we should be pursuing aren't likely to be the major factor in your voting decision.
User avatar
#18 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
Yeah i understand that but i still think that it should be labeled correctly. There are alot of people who disagree with nuclear as whole and even though i disagree with them i think they should have their own answer other than the straightforward "no". After all "no" can also mean fossil fuels and people might want their "only renewables (+geothermal)" section.
User avatar
#19 - mullacllahdoow (04/28/2015) [-]
but selecting the renewable energies answer is going to match you up to the correct party, despite thorium being mislabelled as non-nuclear.
User avatar
#21 - paddypancake (04/28/2015) [-]
yeah i don't know whether there is a non-thorium green party in the UK or not. It's really insignificant but i don't like the idea of something as official having a mistake. The question that has to be answered to check whether my objection is worth it or not is how many (both parties and voters) would answer differently if there would be "Do you support the use of our Uranium based nuclear energy" as a question instead and how many would pick a different party based on that. I guess you are right and its probably an insignificantly short fraction
#12 - the plate goes over his knuckles and I think he is triggering …  [+] (1 reply) 04/27/2015 on Want it... 0
User avatar
#55 - zorathane (04/27/2015) [-]
It uses compressed air to launch it In and Out.