The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
In Reply To

Subj: I had a long response for you but had it destroyed by the server when I posted...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 04:03:52 pm EST (Viewed 204 times)
Reply 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)

Previous Post

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 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'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, 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.

So, I'll make one a lot shorter and not answering you point by point. I'll go to the essential.

Your stance here in this thread, as well as the previous one not so long ago, is that there is nothing in Thor's past supporting him not being fully bulletproof BECAUSE no bullet was ever shown injuring him.

My answer to that was:

1) JIM#100  showing you it isn't so.

2) That you do not need to see Thor injured by a bullet to conclude your stance is compromised.Thor saying he isn't safe from the bullets does the job very well.

Your answer to that was:
1) It's only words that can mean anything we want.
2) It's all drama.. without anything dramatic at all.
3) Thor isn't WW.
4)You have only one example while I have 3.

My answer to that:

1) What the hell do you think it means? Try something creative. This is desperation on overdrive here. Luckily for you you have tons of people who are hoping you find something actually swallow-able to say to shut me down. But go on, humor me.

2)Where is the drama if you say the drama has no reason to exist anyway? Doesn't make tons of sense to speak of the danger of something if it's not dangerous one bit. There are limit to poor writing. It's insulting for the reader and also for the writer to say something like that. 

3)Thor isn't WW. We agree. I used WW not because she is Thor, but BECAUSE you, as well as several others before you, tried the "Thor has to be bulletproof since he can resist much more powerful attacks" line of argumentation.WW shows us that a character doesn't HAVE to be bulletproof BECAUSE she can resist more powerful attacks. Do I like it? Nope, not one bit. I always said so for WW. The problem is, it's still valid. Bottom line the "he can resist more so he has to..." argument is not a proof by itself.

4) You say I only have one example while you have several. The problem is, that's not quite true because I have more than that if only because KB also used a different argument than JIM#100, but you also used examples of missiles and grenades to "support" your stance that there were more than ONE instance of Thor being bulletproof. Like I already explained to you, missiles and grenades aren't bullets. If you want to counter me on my stance regarding the nature of the attack, you will have to use examples using the same nature of attack: bullets not missiles or god know what else. 

Also, since YOU say there was nothing in Thor's past supporting him being anything less than bulletproof, YOU have the burden of dismissing ANY proof to the contrary. Even ONE showing illustrating you wrong destroy your presumptions. The opposite isn't true because I only disagree with the claim there is nothing in Thor's past that can hint to another story. As you saw, there is.

As a final note I'll spare you my first reply about you not being pathetic ... unlike me that is...I'll simply point out that if I'm replying on the Thor board every day the time stamps sure fail to show it. Also, just to repeat myself once more, I do not let go easily of topic in which I have a history  in them. A topic like this one. If for you it's pathetic, then fine, I can live with that. However, if you do not like what I say, and since you aren't as pathetic as I am, you can always walk away like the adult you pretend to be. As far as I'm concerned, the only way I will walk away from THAT topic is if you beat me in the debate or if the mod close the thread. Otherwise, don't hold your breath. That being said, I guarantee you that IF you present me arguments that destroys mine I will gladly concede and change my tune . It's just that so far all you could do is try to play with word and pretend it's all false drama... if the situation was reverse, and your argumentation was mine, the whole board would be laughing at me HARD.