The Thor Message Board >> View Post
·
Post By
Mighty_Thor

In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: I don't have to. I have the Masterworks and a somewhat comprehensive Thor collection...JIM #100 is nothing I haven't seen before.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 01:57:21 pm EST (Viewed 12 times)
Reply Subj: Have you clicked on the link I provided?
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 12:59:19 pm EST (Viewed 241 times)

Previous Post


We could have avoid all this retyping and finally leave the past behind... but no, we can't do that now can we?


    Quote:
    To say that Thor has always been bulletproof is not a lie. Name one instance...just one...in a Thor comic where bullets actually harmed him.  Not one issue.  And yet he has withstood much worse. [/quote]

Your mistake here is thinking only bullets shown harming Thor can undermine your stance. You are wrong. It's true JIM #100 doesn't show Thor bleeding after taking a bullet. However, it does show us Thor fleeing from cop's bullets BECAUSE, as the text explicitly say, he wasn't safe from them.

Any reasonable person would definitely not think it's a given Thor was always, from inception, bullet proof after reading that. There was also the reference KB made to support his view regarding this topic. Heck even the ONE clear example of Thor taking actual bullets still left welts on him. So much for him having always been bulletproof as oppose to bullet resistant.


    Quote:
    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?

Well, 2 things explain why I'm so aggressive about that topic and I WILL continue to be unless I have someone who actually stop playing on words and provides me with actual facts proving me wrong:

1) I don't like lies.

2) I already invested a lot of lines on that topic in the past so I kinda resent it when people decide to ignore what I took time to come up with.

I don't disagree with your stance BECAUSE I want to. I  disagree with it BECAUSE it has no leg to stand on considering what we know.


    Quote:
    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 concrete...like 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.

 
As proven by JIM #100 what you say here is utmost BS. I'm sorry but what you pretend doesn't exist, does exist and on top of it was not written by KB but by Thor's creator. Are you back in your place now?

Of course, it's a lot easier to say I want to bring Thor down!! I'm a troll! isn't that obvious? Screw the scans supporting me or KB. Only you, who is a true Thor fan, can speak the truth. Me? I'm a hater. 


    Quote:
    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.

Of course WW can't be relevant. Do you imagine what that would mean? Sadly for you she is relevant because it does demonstrate quite nicely that in comics, the power of an attack isn't all that matter. She can take more than bullets, but she still has trouble eating them. Yes, Thor has taken a lot worse, but except for ONE instance, and even so a not very impressive one all things considered, all previous dealings with bullets were resolved with avoidance by Thor. Some avoidance were outright stated to be because the attacks were threatening. None before, save ONE, directly had Thor proving otherwise. That is reality. That I'm a troll or a hater doesn't change that fact. But you would know all about it had you read the previous thread.
 

    Quote:
    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.
     

I sure can, I do disagree,  and don't forget that  what you just said also applies to you. Saying stuff isn't a proof you are correct. However, showing a scan of JIM#100 with Thor fleeing bullet BECAUSE  he wasn't safe from them is a lot better than just me saying so.

As for me being pathetic, well I suppose that makes two of us. I don't see you conceding anything despite having been shown wrong so spare me your I'm more mature act. Like I said, I have already invested a lot of time on that topic so I'm not ready to let it all go now just because someone feel he doesn't have to read a word I've said now or before. I let go of plenty of other thread all the time but some are harder to let go. You may disagree, but if you want to do so with the argumentation supporting you, you will have to work a lot harder than that. People don't have to agree with me, they have to support their arguments with evidences that can stand-up to mine. What you gave me so far is not solid at all. You play with words hoping to avoid some scans being valid. It's not working.



Well, your mistake is relying on one scan which neither support your argument nor undermine mine.
1) JIM #100 didn't show Thor being allergic to bullets.
2) JIM #100 didn't show being harmed by bullets.
3) Thor's statements..."luckily, i can deflect their shells with my enchanted mallet before they can strike me" and "I can fly to another part of the city where I will be safe from their bullets"....both never explicitly state that he is weakened by bullets. 
You do not like play on words?  neither do I.  Your only support regarding your position is that "well, Stan lee wrote these phrases you see...Thor flee from bullets...he's most likely not bullet proof.  Bah. That's just silly.  In a court of law, that is not even an evidence.  It's NOTHING.  Those statements by Thor can be interpreted several different ways, but given that it is Stan Lee, it's just for dramatic effect.  Would it have worked had Thor stated..."yeah coppers, your bullets are a joke, I am impervious to them, but I will fly anyway just to ponder why you are treating me like a criminal. me the son of odin, all-around good guy? Me, who is bulletproof!"  Get it?  Reading comics is alost art to you if you have to have everything spelled out for you.
 
And about my point "just saying so"...nope.  Read Thor's bulletproof goodness in several different posts somewhere (I am sure you have the time to search for them, since you are here preaching your dogma every single day).......It's just not me saying so....DeFalco, Roy Thomas and the writer who wrote the Bombadeers story, all show Thor taking on machine guns, grenade launchers and a gattling gun from an aircraft....so there are evidence showing Thor taking on bullets by three different writers before JMS....while there is not a single scan showing him being harmed by a bullet....I would take 3 evidence showing Thor being bulletproof, rather than one scan showing nothing other than Thor fleeing (more to ponder why he is being treated like a criminal).  Those are not "play on words"...there are actual scans....go and look for them...hop to it man.
 
And about the "pathetic part"...we are not alike.  The pathetic part is not the fact that we both do not concede...it's your need to make it your business to correct people who do not agree with you....that's pathetic.  If you follow this particular topic, I merely stated that the original poster meant "bullet resistant" and gave a short summary of how it came about.....then here you are with guns a blazing. Meh.  I have a lot more thing going for rather than being a message board freak.
 
And about Wonder Woman...her durability is not relevant to Thor's because they are different characters from different comic companies.  That is a fairly simple thing to grasp, i think.  No need to play on words....meh.   Besides, John Byrne succinctly explained her durability (as I am sure you have read that particular issue, since it's a landmark issue or something, it's been a while).  Whereas Thor, nope...no such explanation....unless you count those trading cards bios, where Thor's durability has always been listed as 6 (highest is 7)...that's gotta be greater than mere bulletproof.
 
You can disagree, sure....but I take comfort in the fact that in my extensive Thor collection, there is not one comic showing him being harmed by a bullet....while you can make your one panel "non-evidence" scan into your avatar for all i care.
 
I reject your premisem, your argument and your conclusion.  And i assume you do the same.  There really is nothing to be gained by re-typing everything.   And I do not have a need to change your mind.  Go and troll your way to all the topics, if you must.


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