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

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

Subj: I'll answer you because you have resorted to personal attacks and that I won't let go...
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 10:28:10 pm EST (Viewed 125 times)
Reply 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)

    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?

You see something that is quite clear where exactly?And why should I hear any laugh exactly? All I see here are two factions still disagreeing despite the end of the debate. 

As for me being alone, well, count again. If you actually took the time to look at the thread, it was pretty much a 2 vs 2 most of the time. Which isn't all that bad considering this is a Thor board. But, more importantly, since when numbers matter in a debate? If you are 4 billion who are of the opinion 2+2 = 5 you aren't right for it. It isn't a democracy.

    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.

Norvell hasn't destroyed anything I was defending at all if you have paid any attention. I quit the debate because we were going nowhere except into a wall and the tone was going up and up. My point was NEVER that Thor wasn't bullet proof. This is the mother of all straw man to put those word into my mouth and use that to make me look like a fool. I was in agreement even before the thread started that Thor was NOW unambiguously bulletproof. Furthermore, I even concede there were more scans of bulletproofness than I thought earlier. So much for the unreasonable monster you try to paint me into.

My sole objection, and the reason I debated so hard, was that you said "And now, he is officially bulletproof, even if he has always been (except for that one Black Panther issue, which the writer already retracted anyway)". I disagree that it's obvious he has always been. I still do and none of the scan presented by anybody so far has come close to scratch all . And the reason is extraordinarily simple: There are enough material to justify the ambiguity. It's FAR more than just JIM#100. JIM#100 took so much place because I had to debate with you and 2 others who saw Thor TEXTUALLY saying he wasn't safe from bullets as a "weak" evidence. How unreasonable does that sound? Anywhere else but HERE on the Thor board, it would never be seen as "weak". Yeah, maybe I was naive... 

    You keep on saying "burden of proof" 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.

You could have spare me those platitude. It was utterly unnecessary and, maybe to your dismay, it can also be used outside a legal frame. The principle is still very much applicable to a debate I assure you.

    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).

More Straw man I see since, like I already said, I wasn't seeking to prove Thor is not bulletproof. So needless to say, everything you said after that point fall into pieces. All I actually needed to make my point was ONE showing where he was not bulletproof to demolish the "always"  in YOUR initial stance. JIM#100, as well as other scans btw, does that perfectly unless we are allowed to manipulate words and context to no end.

Also, if you actually have been reading the debate, the reason why I said the burden of the proof was on YOU guys was because you were promoting something else than what the scan of JIM#100 was itself explicitly saying. "I" wasn't seeking to change the meaning of the scan while YOU (all who oppose the natural meaning of the scan) were. The burden isn't mine here because the text fully and naturally back my stance completely. You, OTOH, needed to modify it's meaning to avoid loosing to me because if THAT one scan was true than your "always" was defacto false.

    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.

You accuse Busiek of doing selective reading, but you do the same when it suits you. Remove Roy Thomas from the equation for one second, and I can absolutely see why anybody could at least be unsure of Thor relation vs fast moving projectile and sharp object. His habit of always deflecting or avoiding those weapons become terribly suspect when you add the comments he made over time about them being unsafe or deadly or that they could have killed him. The scans, the speech, and all the circumstantial evidences, together, end up weighting significantly in the balance. Enough that you would have to be extremely dishonest to reprimand anybody from having their doubt about that period of his history.

This doesn't mean there are no evidences for the opposite, there is. The point is, there aren't enough to remove the very legitimate doubt or, at the very least, your "always". 

    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).

If you stop making straw man one second you would know that was not a question of me liking it or not, but a question of coherence. The polemic is about bullets and sharp projectile (so yeah, spear are related enough if only because of the WW syndrome). Nobody debate Thor can take Hulk's punch. THAT would have been utterly futile since everybody, including the much hated Kurt Busiek, agree.

By the way, KB or no KB, my opinion would still be the same with what I know. I'm not paid to defend him you know, and JIM#100 isn't specifically mentioned anywhere by KB that I know of. That being said, to reduce his argumentation to wooden spears is quite unfair. In fact, it's exactly tat kind of attitude that makes me interfere in his favor so much. Many here aren't even trying to be fair at all or at least have the decency to avoid putting words into his mouth.

    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.

Did you read what I said about that or you didn't bother? Once again, I used WW because:

", 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."

That WW is more or less durable than Thor is irrelevant to the idea that I bring forth. Again, the only reason for her appearance in this thread is to destroy the argument  a character can't be vulnerable to bullet if he can take punches from Hulk. 


It's when I read stuff like that, that I'm sure I'm on a Thor board. My conclusions aren't based on assumptions. They are based on Thor's own unmodified words in that comic. YOU guys, have been working SILLY hard to give those same words every kind of other meaning save the obvious. You paint me as if I was doing what YOU are doing.  It's the opposite here and it's why it's YOUR burden if you wish to charge the words with another meaning than those that come naturally.

    It didn't show Thor was weakened by bullets, it also failed to show Thor was injured by bullets....but he did, 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.

It's not just that he flee. He said he was lucky to be able to block them before they reach him, and he wanted to go to somewhere safe from those bullets. Anywhere else BUT here, the debate about that scan would have been over a long time ago .If our place were reversed, you would call me something nasty for harboring that kind of unreasonable behavior.

    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).

What kind of argument is that? What does it matter that it's the golden or silver age? The idea is EXACTLY the same. The character has naturally changed over time. And BTW, Superman jumping to flying transition all happen in the golden age. But, like I said, it's irrelevant. There was also no Crisis on infinite golden age that I know of.

    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.

Ok, now we are at the semantic stage, which generally show it's nose when someone has run out of steam. Even if my words aren't quite correct, I trust you had understand what was meant by "debate".  Telling me that it isn't a debate because the word isn't correct wasn't terribly useful, and telling me it wasn't a debate because there was none IYO is a joke no less. That you like it or not, there is a debate about this topic since a REALLY long time now and it apparently wasn't settle here. Doubly so in your case since you completely fabricate what my position was so it's no wonder you managed to conclude stuff like that. Again, my stance was never that Thor wasn't bulletproof.Also, if this all went on for so long it's not just because "I" refuse to end it. Logic ask for at least another one to not end it. I take my share of responsibility in this, I suggest you do the same.

    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.
Now this is starting to get personal.Why should I look at myself in the mirror? We are debating what I say, not who am I. 

Also, on top of it, you continue with the usage of straw man. I defended Brevoort? Really? I suggest you stop pretending you read others and start doing so. I agreed Brevoort made a mistake and I NEVER EVER refused to consider Stan Lee's showing at all. However, I pointed out the not so negligible amount of hypocrisy from some fans that I had witnessed in the wake of what Brevoort had said (gratuitous call of hate). I didn't so much defend Brevoort than use him, as well as Walt, to try showing that. If you would at least take the time to read what others are saying... and I'M the hypocrite here...

    And as far as the pathetic'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.

Now, THIS here is the main reason why I decided to make an exception and reply one more time in this thread.  Personal attacks like this aren't supposed to be allowed. What has all of this has to do with the argument at hand? We are suppose to argue ideas not how you think I live my life or how you think it's ridiculous or not. Doubly so since you have no clue at all and it's none of your business. You seek to moralize while your own behavior doesn't grant you any moral high ground.

Finally, I don't seek to have the last word at all cost, nor do I think it's the last reply that always win. I reply because I still have munitions. If the last reply was garbage because it avoid all that the previous reply has brought it's not worth much. That being said, if you want to have the last word, simply reply to me without using any personal attacks and I won't reply. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done debating this on the Thor board.  If you want to continue this seriously, I'll gladly accept your challenge. That being said, I will accept it on the battle board. I won't answer here from now on, and the next personal attack will only trigger a mail to the mod. You have anything more to say about this topic? The battle board...

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