|The Thor Message Board >> View Post|
Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:49:15 pm EST (Viewed 89 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:07:09 pm EST (Viewed 139 times)
Quote: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
Bulletproof and bullet-resistant are generally interchangeable terms. The point being that bullets do no significant damage to Thor, and have never been shown to prior to Busiek.
Quote: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 you believe that Busiek was wrong from the get-go? That is what you are saying if you think Thor #480 is a genuine example of Thor's resistance to bullets.
Quote:You probably don't go on the BB too often then because, for a lot less, people are utterly ridicule.
I've endured harsher debating climates than anything you can point to.
Quote:That we can see bullet bounce off Thor 26 years later doesn't mean it was always the case was my point.
So you disagree with Busiek that Thor's durability is the same now (pre-Ragnarok) as it has always been? Geez, you are really at odds with Mr. Busiek.
Quote:Let's just say that welts would not be "acceptable" for a lot of characters considering their history while for Thor is apparently is.
Thor's durability is not interchangeable with the Juggernaut or whoever you're talking about -- whatever your point is.