Ok, quick overview: Gundam has several different timelines, grouped broadly into
UC (Universal Century) and AU (Alternate Universe). The main UC series are the
original MSG, Zeta Gundam, ZZ Gundam, Char's Counterattack, and V Gundam. UC
sidestories include 0080: War in a Pocket, 08th MS Team, 0083: Stardust
Memories, and F91 Gundam. There's also a couple of manga additions, most notably
Crossbone Gundam. The AU series are Gundam X, Gundam Wing, G Gundam, Turn A
Gundam, and Gundam SEED/Destiny.
Starting with the original is never a bad idea; however, rather than the series,
go for the compilation movies, which replace the series in canon IIRC. After MSG
comes Zeta, which many people consider to be the best Gundam series of them all.
A boxset was recently released for Zeta as well, if you buy legit stuff. The
problem with the UC timeline is that it's huge, and requires a considerable
investment of both time and money. ZZ and up haven't been licensed or released
in the US (with the exception of Char's Counterattack, a movie). F91 was planned
for a full series, but was cut short to a movie. By the time V Gundam rolled
around, the UC series weren't connected at all (as opposed to MSG, Z, ZZ, and
CCA, all of which have directly connected), so much so that V felt like an AU
anyway.
The AUs are nice in that they are all independent, with the exception of Gundam
SEED and SEED Destiny. SEED starts off pretty weakly, feeling a bit like a
retelling of the original Gundam, but ends rather well. Destiny is the opposite,
starting out incredibly well but falling flat on its face in the last 10 or so
episodes. Gundam Wing is a nice place to start. G Gundam is rather different
from the other series in that it is a super robot show, rather than a real robot
one. Expect cheesy dialogue, shouting attacks, and hot blood. In short, G Gundam
has more in common with GaoGaiGar than it does with Zeta Gundam. I'm personally
watching Gundam X at the moment, and am loving it.
Turn A is a different beast altogether. This was Tomino's attempt to link the
various Gundam universes, and it spawned the 'Turn A Bang' theory, which places
UC and AU series in a direct timeline. Some people don't accept the theory,
though. Furthermore, Turn A has by far the strangest designs, and is much more
character driven than the other Gundams.
So, I'd say start with the MSG compilation movies, then go for some OYW
sidestories, namely 08th MS Team and 0080, both of which are great series. Then
Zeta if you want to continue UC, or Gundam Wing or G Gundam.
raxis got it right. Really, nothing compares to top tier super robots. 100%
Shin Getter, full power Mazinkaiser, Genesic GaoGaiGar, Ideon, Gunbuster...they
all have ridiculous destructive power. Ideon in particular can destroy the
universe and recreate it.
Another one from srw@3 is the Dis Astranagun. It's Ideon's pair - where Ideon
has infinite positive energy to create the universe, Dis Astranagun has infinite
negative energy to erase the universe.
Quote by destatisince the
universe is not infinite,
And how do you know?
Because nothing is infinite. It's a
physical impossibility. You can't seriously believe that the universe has been
around forever. Furthermore, through an overwhelming amount of study of the
universe and its expansion (Doppler shifts, hyperinflation theories), it is
clear that this behavior could not have been continuing back to
infinity.
Nobody remembers when the universe was created; however, since the universe is
not infinite, it must have begun at some point, and therefore the moment of its
creation exists.
Quote by rocksYes, I happen to have it. OH,
and this is not a diss to Naruto, I think
he's incredibly awesome (not as much as Kakashi) and we share a common
love of ramen in a cup. I just thought maybe he has OCD.
But
your reasons for thinking that he has OCD are so...shallow. So he says
'dattebayo' at the end of his sentences. Not even all of them. How is that
obsessive compulsive at all? It's a way of speaking, not a compulsion.
Does anyone know a good method for making moonlight reflecting off of water?
I'm trying to make a moonlit scene in a wall, and can't make it look convincing.
Quote by Zero37The Christian God was never
described as benevolent. Omniscient, yes. Omnipresent, yes. Omnipotent, yes.
Loves you, yes.
Ok, my mistake.
Quote by Zero371) In the past I have heard
the theory that God allows evil to exist to serve as a kind of
foil.
I don't agree with that. If there were no evil, would
people no longer do good? As someone who believes that people are inherently
good, that's something that I can't agree with.
Quote by Zero372) Enter here a cute little
example from Finding Nemo, where the lady fish with a D name and a memory about
as bad as mine currently seems to be who said 'If you never let anything happen
to him, nothing would ever happen to him'. And then another couple of quotes:
'Spare the rod, spoil the child'. 'He who spares the rod hates his son, but he
who loves him is diligent to discipline him'. If you made the claim that we are
God's children, then some of that would make perfect sense. And it IS true that
people's growth of character is far more notable during times of
stress.
In the Bible, God wipes out humanity at least once
(the flood of Noah's Ark fame), and commands his people to commit genocide
several more times (Exodus, when the first-borns are killed; Deuteronomy and
Joshua, when God ordered the Hebrews to invade the "promised land" and
totally exterminate "the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and
the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites" leaving "alive nothing
that breathes"). How have we, as mankind, progressed since then? Do we
not still maim and kill each other? Do we not still hate each other?
Quote by Zero373) Einstein did the theory
behind nuclear weapons with the best possible intentions - he thought it would
entirely eliminate war - and I've never heard anybody seriously blame him for
all the deaths the technology has caused, yet people blame their actions and the
actions extremists commit out of their own free will on God.
Strange...
Maybe that's because Einstein is not an omniscient
all-powerful being, whereas God has perfect knowledge of the future and the
direct consequences of everything that He created?
I am an atheist (actually agnostic, but agnostics and atheists are the same in
the eyes of a theist, so I will use atheist, for it is a more recognizable term.
And I like it better).
Asking for absolute proof of anything, negative or affirmative, simply does not
work. The closest we can come is saying that something is highly probable or
highly improbable. Negative proof is even sillier to ask for. Say that I wish
to prove that reindeer cannot fly. How would I go about doing this? I could
put a bunch of reindeer on top of a roof and start pushing them off. After the
first few hit the ground, can I conclude that reindeer absolutely cannot fly?
Clearly not - all it takes is one reindeer to take off for that statement to be
proven false. But I can conclude that it is highly improbable for reindeer to
fly.
But that's not the point of my post. While I am an agnostic, and do not know if
a higher being does or does not exist, my personal belief is that there is none,
and furthermore, even if there were a higher being, it is not the God described
by Christianity. And yes, I came to this conclusion logically.
The Christian God is usually described as omniscient, omnipresent, and
all-knowing. People like to say that God loves you, and that God is kind and
benevolent. Now, suppose this is all true - how did the world end up in the
state that it is in now? As Richard Dawkins writes, "Irishmen blow each
other up in [God's] name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and
ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up
people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his
name. The achievements of religion in past history -- bloody crusades, torturing
inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries,
legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last
possible moment -- are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of?
I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely
nothing at all." With all of the crap going down in the world now and
throughout history, I cannot bring myself to believe in a benevolent
God.
Imagine a mother who took care of her children, fed them, clothed them, and
provided them with all the parental guidance and affection that they needed.
Most people would say that that mother loves her children. Now imagine a mother
who murdered her children, poisoned their food, or abandoned them. Most people
would say that that mother does not love her children. Yet Christians claim
that God loves all of mankind, even whilst God sends earthquakes, tornadoes,
hurricanes, and all manner of things to kill us.
If God is truly all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist in this world?
As Epicurus says, "God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or
He is able, and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both
willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in
accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is
malicious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor
able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both
willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are
evils? or why does He not remove them?"
Of course the pricing strategy isn't random. Apple's not stupid.
And, by buying, say, the 20 GB Ipod (I personally wouldn't, but hypothetically
speaking), it doesn't give Apple an additional profit. I would buy it through a
third party vendor, at which point Apple has already been paid for the
merchandise. Whether the Ipods get sold or sit on the shelf (...unlikely),
Apple has already made all they money they would off of it.
Actually, the iPod nano has one of the smallest profit margins of the
entire iPod line. I'm guessing you haven't looked around to see how
much 4GB of flash memory actually costs.
[url=<a class="linkification-ext"
href="http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=4gb+flash&btnG=Search+Froogle">http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=4gb+flash&btnG=Search+Froogle</a>]click
here, for instance[/url]
I'm well aware of how expensive
flash memory is. I never said it was expensive in relation to other flash
players. I'm saying, as an absolute standard, it is expensive. That's the main
reason why I'll never even consider getting a flash player. It's way too
expensive for how much music I can store. Why should I pay $200 for 2 GB or
$250 for 4 GB when I can get 20 GB for $270? That's madness.
I'm guessing you didn't understand what my post actually meant.
Quote by BloodPrincessWe are
discussing it you all went off track and Alisha's comment is totally relivant to
the existance of god read it again.
As I read it, Alisha's
comment had less to do with the existance of God and more to do with the
necessity of religion - which is something that I agree with. There are times
when people just need something higher and better to believe in, and there's
nothing wrong with that.
What I do take issue with is the notion that a person needs religion to be moral, or that somehow, all other things being
equal, a religious person is more moral
than a non-religious one. I am not religious. I believe in my own morals, I
believe in basic human goodness, and I believe that the world is basically a
good place. That's enough of a moral basis for me to live on. I have no
problems with a person who believes in Christianity. Heck, most of Jesus's
teachings are great - tolerance, inclusiveness, kindness. It's Jesus's
fanboys/girls that I can't stand.
Pretty much everything you do will raise your level. Posting in the
forums/guestbooks/gallery comments, submitting reviews, or submitting gallery
items. Check the FAQ for more info (under 'Support' on the top bar).
Quote by WindirKenshin would win for
reasons already stated. And for those that keep
saying Inuyasha can take a lot of punishment and keep going, I have a
question. Do you think he could keep going if he his torso were cut in
half as Kenhin's ultimate move would do? Or coudl he perhaps keep going
after Kenshin stabbed him up through the jaw and ripped the blade out
the front of his face? I love when he did that.
When has the
Amakakeru Ryu no Hirameki EVER ripped an opponent apart? It didn't do it
against Hiko, or Aoshi, or Soujiro, or Shishio, or Enishi. The only time it
does is against Iwanbou 3, who's a robot.
Potentially, the ARnH could cut a person
in two - but Kenshin would never do it. First, and most obviously, because it
would violate his killing oath. Secondly, if it were the Battousai, he would
never have been able to learn the ARnH in the first place.
Your point about stabbing through Inuyasha's face has no bearing on this either.
Sure, the Battousai could do it - to a normal human. And, again, there's the
whole no-killing oath thing. Furthermore, Inuyasha is anything but a normal
human. He definitely has supernatural endurance. What you're saying is like
saying that, yes, Superman would die if a blade was jammed up through his jaw
and then pulled out through his face. However, Kenshin could never even dream
of scratching Superman, so it's a moot point.
I haven't seen Inuyasha, so I can't comment on his strength. However, judging
by just the first volume of manga, Kenshin would have a very hard time taking
Inuyasha down. All Inuyasha needs is one hit, and Kenshin's screwed. On the
other hand, Kenshin could hit Inuyasha a thousand times, and Inuyasha would keep
on getting up. That's the way it seemed to me, anyway.
With that said, I will clear up some misconceptions and mistaken statements
about Kenshin.
Quote by beoulvedIt will most definitly
and 4ever be Kenshin Himura, the best
samurai/swordsmen in the world using his ultimate attack the
nine-headed dragon attack.
Kenshin's not even the strongest
swordsman in his series, let alone all of anime-dom. And the Kuzu Ryu Sen isn't
his ultimate attack either.
Quote by bobobobso can kenshins final
move which makes a mini black hole to suck in the
oppanet
No.
Quote by AtmaCashinoNow, about
Kenshin's "batousai mode." This is the Kenshin during the revolution
(the one during "Trust and Betrayal," mostly "Trust").
During this time, Kenshin's attacks are lethal and fast. Mix this with his Hiten
Misturugi from the TV series (particularly the [pardon misspelling] Ryu Shosan
[the fast, multi-attack used against Sanosuke during their first battle) and the
Amakakaru [the ultimate attack]), and this guy could easily beat all his
adversaries from the TV show within a few if he was using a standard katana and
wanted to kill them. This mode makes him faster, more responsive, tougher, more
lethal, and more brutal (could make some demons/youkai seem humane). Heck, in
the OVA's, Kenshin usually fights head-on four or five moderately skilled
swordsman and thrashes them, or fights in a surprise attack and mutilates those
guys.
Kenshin's various states are related as so: Shin
Kenshin with Answer > Shin Kenshin > Battousai Kenshin > Wanderer
Kenshin.
Battousai Kenshin was stronger than Wanderer Kenshin was; the opponents that
Kenshin fought during the Tokyo portion of the series would've been beaten by
Battousai rather handily (except for Saitou, but I count him as the beginning of
Kyoto). That much is true. However, after Kenshin goes back to train with Hiko
and learns the last two attacks of Hiten Mitsurugi Ryuu (Shin Kenshin), he
becomes much stronger than he was when he was the Battousai. The difference
between Shin Kenshin and Battousai Kenshin lies in their philosophy. Battousai
Kenshin is weak mentally, and lacks the will to live, which Shin Kenshin has.
Simply put, Battousai Kenshin would have been unable to learn the Amakakeru Ryu
no Hirameki. When he fights Aoshi, Kenshin clearly states that, had he still
been the Battousai, he would've died. Shin Kenshin is stronger than Battousai
Kenshin in every way. Shin Kenshin with his answer is just overkill.
It'll keep on going for as long as they can think up new crimes for him to solve. If they're still making money, why stop?
Then again, it doesn't compare to Sazae-san and Doraemon...
Ok, quick overview: Gundam has several different timelines, grouped broadly into UC (Universal Century) and AU (Alternate Universe). The main UC series are the original MSG, Zeta Gundam, ZZ Gundam, Char's Counterattack, and V Gundam. UC sidestories include 0080: War in a Pocket, 08th MS Team, 0083: Stardust Memories, and F91 Gundam. There's also a couple of manga additions, most notably Crossbone Gundam. The AU series are Gundam X, Gundam Wing, G Gundam, Turn A Gundam, and Gundam SEED/Destiny.
Starting with the original is never a bad idea; however, rather than the series, go for the compilation movies, which replace the series in canon IIRC. After MSG comes Zeta, which many people consider to be the best Gundam series of them all. A boxset was recently released for Zeta as well, if you buy legit stuff. The problem with the UC timeline is that it's huge, and requires a considerable investment of both time and money. ZZ and up haven't been licensed or released in the US (with the exception of Char's Counterattack, a movie). F91 was planned for a full series, but was cut short to a movie. By the time V Gundam rolled around, the UC series weren't connected at all (as opposed to MSG, Z, ZZ, and CCA, all of which have directly connected), so much so that V felt like an AU anyway.
The AUs are nice in that they are all independent, with the exception of Gundam SEED and SEED Destiny. SEED starts off pretty weakly, feeling a bit like a retelling of the original Gundam, but ends rather well. Destiny is the opposite, starting out incredibly well but falling flat on its face in the last 10 or so episodes. Gundam Wing is a nice place to start. G Gundam is rather different from the other series in that it is a super robot show, rather than a real robot one. Expect cheesy dialogue, shouting attacks, and hot blood. In short, G Gundam has more in common with GaoGaiGar than it does with Zeta Gundam. I'm personally watching Gundam X at the moment, and am loving it.
Turn A is a different beast altogether. This was Tomino's attempt to link the various Gundam universes, and it spawned the 'Turn A Bang' theory, which places UC and AU series in a direct timeline. Some people don't accept the theory, though. Furthermore, Turn A has by far the strangest designs, and is much more character driven than the other Gundams.
So, I'd say start with the MSG compilation movies, then go for some OYW sidestories, namely 08th MS Team and 0080, both of which are great series. Then Zeta if you want to continue UC, or Gundam Wing or G Gundam.
raxis got it right. Really, nothing compares to top tier super robots. 100% Shin Getter, full power Mazinkaiser, Genesic GaoGaiGar, Ideon, Gunbuster...they all have ridiculous destructive power. Ideon in particular can destroy the universe and recreate it.
Another one from srw@3 is the Dis Astranagun. It's Ideon's pair - where Ideon has infinite positive energy to create the universe, Dis Astranagun has infinite negative energy to erase the universe.
Because nothing is infinite. It's a physical impossibility. You can't seriously believe that the universe has been around forever. Furthermore, through an overwhelming amount of study of the universe and its expansion (Doppler shifts, hyperinflation theories), it is clear that this behavior could not have been continuing back to infinity.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discovery_030211.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1158419.stm
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/10/
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040731/fob5.asp
Nobody remembers when the universe was created; however, since the universe is not infinite, it must have begun at some point, and therefore the moment of its creation exists.
Things that aren't remembered still exist.
That's the kind of stuff that you can't make up.
XD
But your reasons for thinking that he has OCD are so...shallow. So he says 'dattebayo' at the end of his sentences. Not even all of them. How is that obsessive compulsive at all? It's a way of speaking, not a compulsion.
Do you even know what obsessive compulsive disorder is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive_compulsive_disorder
Naruto is most definitely not obsessive compulsive.
Sure, why not? It's always nice to have more friends.
The Hardest Part - Coldplay.
Does anyone know a good method for making moonlight reflecting off of water? I'm trying to make a moonlit scene in a wall, and can't make it look convincing.
Swallowed in the Sea - Coldplay
I'm really digging their new album.
I wonder if any girls have read this thread...
I haven't yet, but now I'm tempted to.
Ok, my mistake.
I don't agree with that. If there were no evil, would people no longer do good? As someone who believes that people are inherently good, that's something that I can't agree with.
In the Bible, God wipes out humanity at least once (the flood of Noah's Ark fame), and commands his people to commit genocide several more times (Exodus, when the first-borns are killed; Deuteronomy and Joshua, when God ordered the Hebrews to invade the "promised land" and totally exterminate "the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites" leaving "alive nothing that breathes"). How have we, as mankind, progressed since then? Do we not still maim and kill each other? Do we not still hate each other?
Maybe that's because Einstein is not an omniscient all-powerful being, whereas God has perfect knowledge of the future and the direct consequences of everything that He created?
Was it made with a Japanese audience in mind? If not, then it's not an anime (note: I honestly don't know; I've never even heard of this show before).
I am an atheist (actually agnostic, but agnostics and atheists are the same in the eyes of a theist, so I will use atheist, for it is a more recognizable term. And I like it better).
Asking for absolute proof of anything, negative or affirmative, simply does not work. The closest we can come is saying that something is highly probable or highly improbable. Negative proof is even sillier to ask for. Say that I wish to prove that reindeer cannot fly. How would I go about doing this? I could put a bunch of reindeer on top of a roof and start pushing them off. After the first few hit the ground, can I conclude that reindeer absolutely cannot fly? Clearly not - all it takes is one reindeer to take off for that statement to be proven false. But I can conclude that it is highly improbable for reindeer to fly.
But that's not the point of my post. While I am an agnostic, and do not know if a higher being does or does not exist, my personal belief is that there is none, and furthermore, even if there were a higher being, it is not the God described by Christianity. And yes, I came to this conclusion logically.
The Christian God is usually described as omniscient, omnipresent, and all-knowing. People like to say that God loves you, and that God is kind and benevolent. Now, suppose this is all true - how did the world end up in the state that it is in now? As Richard Dawkins writes, "Irishmen blow each other up in [God's] name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history -- bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment -- are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely nothing at all." With all of the crap going down in the world now and throughout history, I cannot bring myself to believe in a benevolent God.
Imagine a mother who took care of her children, fed them, clothed them, and provided them with all the parental guidance and affection that they needed. Most people would say that that mother loves her children. Now imagine a mother who murdered her children, poisoned their food, or abandoned them. Most people would say that that mother does not love her children. Yet Christians claim that God loves all of mankind, even whilst God sends earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and all manner of things to kill us.
If God is truly all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist in this world? As Epicurus says, "God either wishes to take away evil, and is unable, or He is able, and unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is malicious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?"
Of course the pricing strategy isn't random. Apple's not stupid.
And, by buying, say, the 20 GB Ipod (I personally wouldn't, but hypothetically speaking), it doesn't give Apple an additional profit. I would buy it through a third party vendor, at which point Apple has already been paid for the merchandise. Whether the Ipods get sold or sit on the shelf (...unlikely), Apple has already made all they money they would off of it.
I'm well aware of how expensive flash memory is. I never said it was expensive in relation to other flash players. I'm saying, as an absolute standard, it is expensive. That's the main reason why I'll never even consider getting a flash player. It's way too expensive for how much music I can store. Why should I pay $200 for 2 GB or $250 for 4 GB when I can get 20 GB for $270? That's madness.
I'm guessing you didn't understand what my post actually meant.
Too. Freaking. Expensive.
As I read it, Alisha's comment had less to do with the existance of God and more to do with the necessity of religion - which is something that I agree with. There are times when people just need something higher and better to believe in, and there's nothing wrong with that.
What I do take issue with is the notion that a person needs religion to be moral, or that somehow, all other things being equal, a religious person is more moral than a non-religious one. I am not religious. I believe in my own morals, I believe in basic human goodness, and I believe that the world is basically a good place. That's enough of a moral basis for me to live on. I have no problems with a person who believes in Christianity. Heck, most of Jesus's teachings are great - tolerance, inclusiveness, kindness. It's Jesus's fanboys/girls that I can't stand.
Pretty much everything you do will raise your level. Posting in the forums/guestbooks/gallery comments, submitting reviews, or submitting gallery items. Check the FAQ for more info (under 'Support' on the top bar).
When has the Amakakeru Ryu no Hirameki EVER ripped an opponent apart? It didn't do it against Hiko, or Aoshi, or Soujiro, or Shishio, or Enishi. The only time it does is against Iwanbou 3, who's a robot.
Potentially, the ARnH could cut a person in two - but Kenshin would never do it. First, and most obviously, because it would violate his killing oath. Secondly, if it were the Battousai, he would never have been able to learn the ARnH in the first place.
Your point about stabbing through Inuyasha's face has no bearing on this either. Sure, the Battousai could do it - to a normal human. And, again, there's the whole no-killing oath thing. Furthermore, Inuyasha is anything but a normal human. He definitely has supernatural endurance. What you're saying is like saying that, yes, Superman would die if a blade was jammed up through his jaw and then pulled out through his face. However, Kenshin could never even dream of scratching Superman, so it's a moot point.
I haven't seen Inuyasha, so I can't comment on his strength. However, judging by just the first volume of manga, Kenshin would have a very hard time taking Inuyasha down. All Inuyasha needs is one hit, and Kenshin's screwed. On the other hand, Kenshin could hit Inuyasha a thousand times, and Inuyasha would keep on getting up. That's the way it seemed to me, anyway.
With that said, I will clear up some misconceptions and mistaken statements about Kenshin.
Kenshin's not even the strongest swordsman in his series, let alone all of anime-dom. And the Kuzu Ryu Sen isn't his ultimate attack either.
No.
Kenshin's various states are related as so: Shin Kenshin with Answer > Shin Kenshin > Battousai Kenshin > Wanderer Kenshin.
Battousai Kenshin was stronger than Wanderer Kenshin was; the opponents that Kenshin fought during the Tokyo portion of the series would've been beaten by Battousai rather handily (except for Saitou, but I count him as the beginning of Kyoto). That much is true. However, after Kenshin goes back to train with Hiko and learns the last two attacks of Hiten Mitsurugi Ryuu (Shin Kenshin), he becomes much stronger than he was when he was the Battousai. The difference between Shin Kenshin and Battousai Kenshin lies in their philosophy. Battousai Kenshin is weak mentally, and lacks the will to live, which Shin Kenshin has. Simply put, Battousai Kenshin would have been unable to learn the Amakakeru Ryu no Hirameki. When he fights Aoshi, Kenshin clearly states that, had he still been the Battousai, he would've died. Shin Kenshin is stronger than Battousai Kenshin in every way. Shin Kenshin with his answer is just overkill.