The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: You can reply to this topic...doesn't make you correct.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:02:23 pm EST (Viewed 11 times)
Reply Subj: You know I had to reply to this...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:56:31 am EST (Viewed 244 times)

Previous Post

    ...even if Thor has always been "bulletproof" since inception (you know, withstanding lasers and far more powerful attacks), and during the late 80s and early 90s where there were specific instances that bullets actually hit him and was never injured...and of course during JMS's run. And now, he is officially bulletproof, even if he has always been (except for that one Black Panther issue, which the writer already retracted anyway).

To say he was "bulletproof" since inception is a lie pure and simple. To say he now is, however, is true. 

Also, for the hundredth time, using laser, Hulk punches or god knows what else but bullets, to support Thor always being bulletproof is a fallacy in it's purest form. This was discussed to death several times before and every time someone, often me, had to remind the person making the statement you made above that the nature of the attack was the key not it's power. A lot like WW who too had issues with bullets despite her standing up to stuff a LOT more powerful than mere bullets. It also goes WAY before KB as he himself already explained it several times. Before the chain mail Thor debut, Defalco's story was the exception not the norm. An exception that all fans were happy to see, but an exception none the less.

Again, I will refer you to the last thread on the topic. Here

To say that Thor has always been bulletproof is not a lie. Name one instance...just a Thor comic where bullets actually harmed him.  Not one issue.  And yet he has withstood much worse.
So, YOU had to remind any one bringing up the argument of more powerful attacks...etc...The reason this topic has had this much traction is because YOU kept on being devil's advocate.  You can disagree, sure, but if you are the only (or often the one) who keeps on bringing it up, then what does that make you?
Here is the inherent flaw with the "nature of the attack as the key and not the power" argument...the thing is, Thor has no weakness against bullets.  Name one instance...just one...where that was mentioned in a Thor comic.  None.  Only Kurt Busiek (and Tom Brevoort, to support his pal) tried to make that stuff up.  Prior to them, there were no mention whatsoever about Thor being allergic to bullets.  Now, you keep on bringing this flawed logic...hmmmm...I wonder why.  Could it be, anything to bring Thor down?  Or just a difference of opinion?  Any opinion is welcome, but it should be supported by something say...printed in comics...not just some supposition of Kurt Busiek and Tom Brevoort (the latter having been wrong about a lot of things lately)....Just name one instance where it's written that Thor is allergic to bullets...or he was harmed by a bullet in a Thor comic...come on, put me in my place, i dare you.
About Wonder Woman...her predicament is not actually relevant to Thor.  The thing is, I read a John Byrne comic explaining WW's durability, where he basically stated that pointed objects like a javelin or a bullet can pierce her skin, but she can take blunt attacks (like a punch) because she is tough.  She has often been injured by lasers and fire.  She was instantly burned by a mere second burst from a Martian heat vision, and was instantly KOed.  Thor on the other hand have taken Superman's heat vision full blast and walked through it, not even using his hammer to shield himself....i say that proves Thor is far more durable than Wonder Woman, or Captain Marvel (who has always been written going into shock everytime Supes would tag him with heat vision, even a low-level one...come on, you know this).  Besides, whatever WW is, or is not, has zero relevancy concerning Thor, since, one- different characters,  two- different comic companies, three- different back story.  If Thor is somehow a lump of clay made flesh by Asgardian magic and imbued by the Asgardian gods with portions of their power, even then Wonder Woman's durability would still be irrelevant concerning Thor's.
You can disagree all you want, and you can reply everyday, that doesn't make you correct.  You do realize that just because you posted the last reply doesn't mean you are the winner here, right?  This is a message board with various opinions...sometimes, it's better to live and let live.  But by your own admission, you keeo on pointing how Thor was not bulletproof...well, that is kind of pathetic, really, and bordering on obssession.  People need not agree with you, you know.

Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 8 4.0; on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software