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

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

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 11:32:55 pm EST (Viewed 163 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 10:29:11 pm EST (Viewed 165 times)





    Quote:
    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.


Sorry but it's false on both account.

First, in THIS thread, I debate vs a guy who said and I will quote "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)." JIM #100 is before the black Panther story and it does cripple the claim it ALWAYS was  like he said it was. So for that part there is ZERO straw man at all.

Second, even if we pretend the argument was always that there were MORE pointing toward bulletproofness than toward the opposite I still do not agree for the already explained reason I, and KB, presented on the topic. There aren't more on the side of bulletproofness because the bulk of what is presented, that I know of, isn't about bullets but about lasers and missiles or Hulk punches. The ONE bullet showing the other side has, that I know of, is what KB refers as the anomaly and more a showing of bullet resistance to begin with. So again, no straw man here either unless I miss something.

One way or the other I disagree. This is all old stuff to me and I suggest you click on the link I provided before to read what has been said before on that topic. The simple fact that polemic ever came to exist should ring a lot of bells. That being said, If you have anything new I'll gladly read it.


    Quote:
    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.

I'm sorry but how does that "argument" help you in this thread? Was JIM#100 a part of Thor history yes or no? Yes. So does the claim Thor was ALWAYS bulletproof before KB true knowing that? No. 

Again, is someone saying Superman was jumping at first using a weak argument because he would eventually fly therefore his powers weren't "well defined"? It's ridiculous. Thor was shooting lightnings from his hands in his debut so what? We are talking about the character all the way down to his inception aren't we? Yes, we are. So what is your point again? I find it funny that you point my argument as the weak one? Yours sound desperate.


    Quote:
    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.
What a surprise 

It's not like I didn't I expected that. I will however say this: being an official Marvel product it still at least provide circumstantial evidences. Granted it's not enough on it's own, but coupled with JIM, Thor's behavior and speech  vs bullets as well as other instances where his life was said to be in danger by very low level of attacks, relatively speaking of course, it does seem to add it's weight to the evidence things weren't always the same. But I'll leave it at at that.


    Quote:
    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.

You are misquoting him here tho. He didn't say it was an artistic mistake. He said : "To decide that the scene is correct requires us to take large chunks of plot out of earlier stories (Hogun doesn't get wounded, the Asgardians have no reason to be impressed by automatic weapons and use them to invade Hel, etc.). But to decide that the scene is slightly incorrect requires only two minor fixes"

The artistic mistakes is only what he propose as a fix to solve the continuity problem Thor #480 represent from his POV. Doing the opposite is a lot harder without retconing a lot of stuff is what he says.

That being said, what issues are you referring to and are they before or after his BP story? You might have the proof you need if you were able to show me what you are speaking of. I could concede to you if those issues show what you pretend they do. No missiles, lasers or grenade tho. Bullets. You have a shot here don't waste it.


    Quote:
    BTW, someone please punch the person who enabled 'fancy font effects' for this board.
Someone might not like what you say here, but I must admit I have problems of my own with the quote system sometimes.




Posted with Google Chrome 15.0.874.121 on Windows XP
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