|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: I'll be honest...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 08:48:32 pm EST (Viewed 165 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I had a long response for you but had it destroyed by the server when I posted...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:25:23 pm EST (Viewed 154 times)
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.
Quote:Not going to argue with you, but I will say that I always personelly thought it was dumb there was any problem for Thor or WW with bullets. Conceptually it can make since as they are both very similar. Much more similar than many like to think (I find Thor to be much more interesting of a character than WW though), and I think part of it is that they are vulnerable to alot of the classic weapons. Swords, axes and so on. We clearly see their cultures using that sort of thing as tools to harm one another and they can be harmed by them. By extension it makes sense that bullets would hurt them. That said I think writters should have made it clear that these weapons are enchanted or something and made a difference between them and the mundane.
Quote:Things are what they are. I always thought it is a dumb debate. Same with WW, especially on the BB. The folks who downplay WW because a guy could just get a gun and shoot her sort of thing is just stupid. And I think some focus to much on it.
Quote:I know you know what you are doing but I would not even bother debating the point anymore. I think you have made your point well and not much more can be done. Just my two cents.
I think it IS dumb. I always thought so for WW as well BTW. I often said as much. However, it being dumb isn't the issue at all. Can you agree nothing before KB can provide any support to the claim Thor was not always bulletproof after seeing JIM#100? I can't. It's not hate, or me liking this. I do not. I think it's absurd and I'm glad it's gone. Honest. However, there is a ground to support what some pretend doesn't exist. For some reason, it seem VERY important that Thor was bulletproof from get go. What does it change apart from removing a lot of vilification toward some writers and posters?
That being said, thanks for the word of advice.
Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
|Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software|