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: Maybe because the server couldn't stomach what you were feeding it...
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:59:44 pm EST (Viewed 7 times)
Reply 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 206 times)

Previous Post


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.






Anyway, there has been quite a number of responses to this thread, and it's quite clear that you are the only one trying to prove Thor's lack of bulletproofness.  Can you hear the board laughing now?
 
Thanks to Norvell, he posted some scans destroying your one non-evidence and inconclusive scan (and there were some who already commented that as far as evidences go, JIM 100 is weak).  So, you had to "partially concede", but then again, you had to have the last word in, so you try to say "well, it's not representative of Thor's history...blah..blah...blah".  Here is a news for you, Thor's stories are mostly in Asgard or in space.  The few times he fights on earth, he also deal with Asgardian or other mythical villains... As a rule, he do not fight bank-robbers (with obvious exceptions), so guns are seldom used against him.  The few times that they do threaten him, he blocks them (which is sensible), and in those instances which bullets hit him, he is never injured. So, you can spin JIM #100 all you want, it's nothing.
 
You keep on saying "burden of proof"...do you even know what it means?  It's used in criminal cases...which states that, generally, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused.  Meaning, it's up for the prosecution to make their case.  If they fail to overcome the burden, then the accused is acquitted.
 
Now, how does that apply to this topic...well, as far as "burdens" go, you have the burden of proving that Thor is not bulletproof.  The reason is simple, those who thinks he is bulletproof need not prove anything because there is not one instance showing Thor being harmed by bullets, while at the same time, there are showings that bullets hit him and he was never injured.  As far as comic readers go, he has always been bulletproof (since nothing is printed in comics saying it isn't so). 
 
It's Busiek who tried to negate this (and You) by coming up with the most laughable argument ..."well, he doesn't act like he is bulletproof, so he's gotta be not bulletproof"...very silly.   If you read the Thor's vast history, he has always been shown to be made of sterner stuff than ordinary Asgardians (so, no, Hogun doesn't cut it), and he has survived far worse.  You say, it's not relevant because it's the nature of the bullet which makes it deadly to Thor....but then again, there is NOTHING in Thor's history which shows that he is weakened by bullets.  Busiek talks of sword cuts...well, just look at stories where Thor simply walk through Asgardian elites with swords in hand going to confront Odin...Thor is never injured (apart from some visible scratches, which neither draws blood, nor are visible next panel later).  Busiek's main argument was Walt Simonson's "Last Viking" story, where Thor blocked wooden spears (take note, that's not a bullet)...and at the same time, Busiek disregarded those other stories showing Thor being bulletproof because, according to him, Walt Simonson's stories carry greater weight...Busiek conveniently left out Roy Thomas, one of Thor's early definitive writers, who wrote a story showing Thor's bulletproofness.  And Walt was kind enough to give a response to this board regarding that story...his response was something like - "Thor's durability was not the focus of the story"...meaning, he just wanted to tell a story.
 
So, you do not like examples which are not bullet-related, so no grenades, nukes, etc....but the writer you are defending cannot come up with a better argument than Thor blocking wooden spears (note: NOT a bullet).
 
As far as Wonder Woman goes, that's not really a good comparison, because she has been shown to be injured by far less than what Thor has endured.  I still haven't read your reply regarding that one martian heat vision which immediately incapacitated her, while Thor walked through Superman's heat vision.  And John Byrne already went on record (and published in WW comics) that Wonder Woman is tough, so she can take punches or blunt attacks, but she cannot take bullets or other pointed attacks.  Not really the same as the "nature over power of the attack" argument you got going there.
 
And as far as Journey into Mystery #100 go, IT'S A WEAK EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE CONCLUSION YOU GET FROM IT IS BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION.  It didn't show Thor was weakened by bullets, it also failed to show Thor was injured by bullets....but he did flee...so, you are assuming that he can be injured because he fled.  Not really.  The Hulk sometimes runs away from guns, but that doesn't make him not bulletproof (and if you try to make that argument, the Church of Hulk will have you for their latest offering).  It's inconclusive, at best.  But given that there are hard evidence showing Thor is bulletproof prior to JMS, then that is the only practical conclusion.
 
About Superman's early days where he was merely jumping...pssst, here is a clue, that happened during the golden age...different character as Superman from the silver age, Superman from modern age, and whatever Superman we have now.  Whereas Thor's history is intact.  As far as I know, we haven't had one of DC's crisis or spidey's OMD/BND.  What was good during the early years is good also today (and during Kurt Busiek's Thor faux pas).
 
About beating you in this debate...well, plain and simple, it's not a debate.  A debate entails a moderator and panel of judges to settle the issue.  Here, we have you (and only you) disagreeing against me (and a whole slew of others).  This discussion will never be settled because you fail to heed reason.  People are already pointing how JIM #100 is weak and have given you scans showing Thor has been bulletproof prior to JMS, but you either dismiss them or give an excuse ("well, doesn't represent Thor's history, blah, blah, blah").  This went on as far as it did because you refuse to let it end.  So, as far as beating you in this discussion goes, I don't have to...because I still haven't read a story in Thor's comic showing him being harmed by bullets, and i really do not care how you feel about that.
 
You don't like lies...well, what about you?  Look in the mirror lately?  You are defending Kurt Busiek with Stan Lee's JIM #100...but at the same time you are defending Tom Brevoort in the "Thor cannot summon Mjolnir" debacle and refuse to consider Stan Lee showing Thor can summon Mjolnir.  Hypocrisy is a tribute vice pays to virtue.
 
And as far as the pathetic comment...it's really kind of pathetic obsessing about this topic (something which you yourself have admitted to).  The difference between you and me, I merely come here to read the latest on Thor (fyi, I came here a couple of days ago because of the Patty Jenkins thing, and Avengers vs X-Men), and when i see a topic i like, i post a reply and leave it at that.  While you have to be in the Alvaro Boards (maybe not the Thor board specifically) and argue to no end...and according to you, you have so much invested in this topic.  There is no prize if you out post somebody.  It doesn't mean you won just because you give the last response.  Thinking that you have to put the last word in a discussion is a false sense of accomplishment.  And with that, I bid you adieu.