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: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 03:11:56 pm EST (Viewed 140 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 02:21:54 pm EST (Viewed 152 times)




    Quote:
    I know.

Then why bother bringing the rest in the conversation and say the burden is on me because of the rest? 


    Quote:
    No, the burden is on YOU to prove that the bullets would have threatened Thor's life, when you have four additional incidents showing that Thor could withstand bullets just fine. You can't look at evidence in a vacuum. It has to mesh with other evidence or it becomes an aberration.
First, my claim was never that it was threatening to Thor's life. It was only about bullet being able to damage Thor or not remember?  (Who uses straw man again?) 

Second, how can you conclude it is MY burden when EVERYTHING in the dialog support MY stance. YOU, as well as others, are the one trying to make those words say something else not "I". So far, I have often asked for just ONE other plausible meaning to what Thor could have really meant by what he said and NOBODY could come close to give me ONE answer that had any leg to stand on. NOBODY!!! So, no, the burden really is on the person seeking to convince others the words that were used don't really mean what they do. You at the very least need to propose something good for you to pretend the burden could be on my shoulder and even then...

Were we anywhere but on this board, you would have been murdered for saying something like you just said. Be really careful in the future if you ever try to use anything to support your stances, because if people play the way you do now, nothing will mean anything even when it's written black on white. After reading you so far, I bet even if JIM#100 had Thor bleeding all over the place you'd still try to find an out for Thor. 


    Quote:
    Because he felt that Thor's skull & bones are strong enough to withstand bullets.
 
Then we are a long way from a guy saying any bullet can kill Thor...


    Quote:
    Do you have the reference you are alluding to? Maybe a bullet in his eye could yield more deadly result per Busiek but I speculate


    Quote:
    Busiek said on this and the Avengers board that Thor would not block an attack that only left welts, stung him, or in no way threatened his life. He said that to block an attack that merely inconvenienced him would be unmanly, and that there would have to be a mortal danger (even though I have scans of Thor blocking an attack which he specifically says would not injure him).

I'll have to take your word for it since you have no link or quotes. That being said, this doesn't remove what he also said that contradict what you say to at least some extent.


    Quote:
    In what capacity? Thor fans have always been willing to accept the evidence available -- which suggested that high caliber bullets could sting him and leave welts. It's Busiek that wanted to change the status quo with a new interpretation/agenda. Those are simply the facts.

If so little was "acceptable" for you 26 years later, how can you find it so hard to believe Thor was possibly less durable vs that kind of attacks before that point? Doubly so knowing how comics evolve? Had Thor really been totally impervious to bullets before, nobody would have "accept" welts with a smile and using these scans every time Thor bulletproofness was addressed. So, again, this in itself says a lot. If it was Juggernaut, people wouldn't have settle for that level of "acceptable" was my point.