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

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

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 3,786
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:07:09 pm EST (Viewed 139 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 04:01:07 pm EST (Viewed 112 times)

    So you're saying that JiM #100 is consistent with Thor #480? Welts are damage.

First, I was correcting you about what you put into my mouth nothing else. I never said anything about Thor being in a life or death situation. Only that he wasn't impervious to bullets in the past. Not quite the same.

That being said, in that sense, you are right. For some reasons I wasn't thinking of welts as damage. Which isn't a good news for you when we think about it tho. If Thor taking damage from bullets means he isn't bulletproof, and welts are sign of damage, he therefore never really was bulletproof until relatively recently... remember this is you who insisted... by your own admission the scan where Thor has welts now serves the other side of the bulletproof argument. I should thank you? I guess...

    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!!!

    Are you saying there is no plausible explanation other than that Thor could not take a bullet? Knowing full well that Thor can and has taken bullets, mind you.

Well, if there are other plausible explanations where are yours? I still see nothing but you trying to grasp at future events to back a past one. You bark and bark but you don't bite at all. I have asked at least 3 times now what it could have meant except what it literally mean. I even dare people to humor me and I still see nothing as I read your reply... this doesn't look too good. On top of it part of the future upon which you cling now serve the other side thanks to you.

You want to be right? then give me a plausible explanation. Plausible as in not far fetched and respecting what was said in it's context. It's only the fourth times I asked for it and all I hear is your outrage at the idea I might imply there is nothing else plausible. Your outrage isn't a plausible explanation.

    Were we anywhere but on this board, you would have been murdered for saying something like you just said.

    Hah, I somehow doubt that.

You probably don't go on the BB too often then because, for a lot less, people are utterly ridicule. That being said, I wasn't expecting you to admit anything at this point... there is no way you will admit there is a good deal of double standards going on.

    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.

    Yet here you are, with four solid pieces of evidence of Thor/Thunderstrike clearly taking bullets, and you're doing mental gymnastics trying to justify the relevance of JiM #100. An issue from like the 17th century which isn't conclusive of anything.

More straw man? I was referring to you arguing AGAINST JIM#100 despite blood being present. So, again, why the little twist here? You really are showing a lot of ill-will from where I stand. 

Also, you speak as if I was saying Thor wasn't bulletproof today, or as if I hadn't already concede there indeed were more scans earlier in his history supporting him being bulletproof than I previously thought.  Just so we are clear, it's not the case at all. I agree Thor is now bulletproof and that there were more scans supporting him having been earlier.

My problem, since you apparently didn't figure it out, is with Thor history prior to the 26 years that have passed since the beginning and your scans. That we can see bullet bounce off Thor 26 years later doesn't mean it was always the case was my point. 

What is sad for you is  you managed to make things even worse by convincing me welts are damage and by definition exclude the word "proof" out of "bulletproof" for at least one scan. In that sense, at least one of your "proof" is more a case of bullet resistance than bulletproofness.

    I'll have to take your word for it since you have no link or quotes.

    Sorry, I didn't keep a paper trail of my discussions with Busiek or archive what he has said on the subject.

In that case I guess it's worth less than JIM#100 to you if we understand each other.

    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?

    Busiek rejected the proposition that Thor was less vulnerable at one point, and later 'evolved' into his power. He said that, unlike the Hulk or Superman, Thor's powers don't work like that.

You avoided my question again and Busiek was nowhere to be seen in the part you are replying too BTW. 

    If it was Juggernaut, people wouldn't have settle for that level of "acceptable" was my point.

    I don't know what your point is, and frankly I don't think you do at this point
Please... try that vs someone else. Let's just say that welts would not be "acceptable" for a lot of characters considering their history while for Thor is apparently is.

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