The Thor Message Board >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
In Reply To
Would be Watcher

Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:29:11 pm EST (Viewed 166 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:10:43 pm EST (Viewed 203 times)

    Come on yourself. I don't see how JIM can be weak in regard to the topic or how it's a straw man.

Then let me explain it to you.

1) It's a straw man because you are saying the pro-bulletproof argument is that there is zero evidence that Thor wasn't bulletproof prior to Kurt Busiek and are arguing against that. This has never been the case, and anyone suggesting this was never relevant to the debate. The argument is -- and has always been -- that the vast majority of evidence suggests that Thor is bulletproof, and that every pre-KB example of Thor taking artillery backs this up.

2) JiM #100 is weak evidence because it takes Thor from a time when his abilities were barely established. When super-ventriliquism and hand-lightning were in play. When Loki had a vulnerability to water.

The OHOTMU is not evidence of anything, so I promptly snipped that part of your argument. Whether or not it would touted as proof if it supported the bulletproof argument, it simply isn't canon.

    He also comment on Thor#480 and why he think that issue is the exception and not the norm.

Yeah, he said it was an artistic mistake, while ignoring the two or three other incidents of Thor (or Thunderstrike) taking bullets. He stopped researching at THOR #480... missing THOR #486, an issue of Thunderstrike, and (IIRC) an issue of Daredevil.

BTW, someone please punch the person who enabled 'fancy font effects' for this board.

Posted with Apple Safari 5.1.2 on MacOS X
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