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 07:15:47 pm EST (Viewed 109 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The bottom line
Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 at 05:49:15 pm EST (Viewed 88 times)

    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.

That one is totally new to me. The reason there are two different expression is because they refer to 2 different concept. If both resist damage one is impervious, the other is not. If for you it's all the same, for me, and a LOT of people, it isn't. Even Busiek's Thor worst depiction *IS* resistant to bullet as he only sustain superficial damage or the non-lethal kind.

    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.
If we use your definition then, yes, he was definitely wrong as far as I'm concerned. However, if we use mine it's a whole other story. What Busiek was objecting against was the level of resistance that seemed to be too high for him when he was comparing it to the Thor he knew.

    Well, if there are other plausible explanations where are yours?

    Are you paying attention? I already said that, since JiM #100 took place early in his career, he may have been thinking as Blake instead of Thor. Or he was influenced by Blake's experience (remember Thor didn't even start talking like an Asgardian until well into the JiM 100s).

It's a tad hard to swallow he would  knows how to fly and is good enough with his hammer to deflect bullets but isn't aware of his durability to the point we see him act, and talk, like he does here. This is what I call far fetch. Maybe if a latter issue reveal something about JIM#100 or the character regarding his durability knowledge I'd be ready to concede again. Thor being surprised he can stand-up to bullets later or something like that would do nicely. Otherwise it's way too far fetch for my taste. Sorry. But I don't think I'm all that unreasonable here considering the scan.

    I still see nothing but you trying to grasp at future events to back a past one.

    Posting FOUR clear cut examples, completely eclipsing your one non-example, is hardly grasping at anything.

It is if you use story 26 years more recent to explain something 26 years earlier. How could the future impact on the past? Time flow from past to future not the opposite. JIM#100 can be said to impact on Thor #480 and explain why Thor still had welts instead of nothing at all, (historical influence) but not the other way around. It's even worse since you yourself admitted welts were damage and therefore supporting the other side of the argument.

    Are you red-faced? You sound awfully hostile. Could it be that I have just blown the windows out of your house without even trying?

I'll let you know if that happen. I suggest you worry about yourself. That being said, I can't see  this ending well by looking at the thread so far.

    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.

That wasn't the point. That you can endure being ridiculed doesn't really help you if you want to convince anybody you wouldn't be laugh at for trying to put the burden of the proof on my shoulder the way you tried it. But whatever...

    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.
It's so ironic that you were the one accusing me of using straw man. Why do I HAVE to disagree with Busiek again? Thor durability level could be VERY different and still not up to being bulletproof. Possibly bleeding from bullet and only showing welts is very different yet they both aren't "proof" level.

More importantly, why should I care to agree or disagree with KB? It's not like he's a friend of mine and it's helping your case in the slightest. I usually defend him because no one else care to do it to the point it's a joke often ending in a hatefest. I have ZERO agenda with Busiek to respect. If he turn out to be wrong I have no problem with that. But this is all beside the point...

    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.

You have got to be kidding me... when you don't want to see something nobody is going to make you see it apparently...

My point was, there is an historical reason why welts were "acceptable" for many Thor fans. As a Superman fan, I can assure you NO fan would think it would be acceptable in the light of that character's history unless he is severely depowered because it has always been the very least level of durability for him. For Thor, OTOH, it was his celebrated best vs bullets. Best as in the matter was really ambiguous before that. 26 years of ambiguity that was happily greeted with welts.

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