The first argument used to support there was no doubt about Thor's past regarding bullets was that he could survive so much more powerful attacks. Oliva still go that route despite all that was said.
The other side has replied that the power of the attack isn't a sufficient proof in the light of many comicbook characters. WW was the example taken to illustrate that idea.
Then you say it's not the same because it hasn't been said explicitly for Thor as it had been for WW in ONE issue. As if before Byrnes there was any doubts anyway...
I then proposed Lobo, who just like Thor, hasn't anything explicit said on that topic. All we know, we know because of what we saw in the books he appeared in.
Then you say it's diffenrent because he has a healing factor. As if a healing factor necessarilly means bullet can't bounce of you. It's doubly disturbing when you consider the first argument you guys propose: how can lobo be affected by bullets if he isn't by Superman's punch? He doesn't heal from Superman's punches, he is plain undammaged. So what gives? You can't blame the healing factor if there is nothing to heal. He just has that good a durability vs at least punches. Conlusion, he respond to different kind of attack differently... maybe a bit like Thor in some period of his past.
As for me implying you were a liar that wasn't my intention. However, I think it wasn't accurate to use the word "always" considering what we have. At least, there is ground for the pros and the cons in roughly equal amount. The reason why it's equal is that when we remove all the showing who aren't about bullets and sharp projectiles what remains is very little. As little as what remains when we remove Thor blocking everything as an indicator he need to.
The reason he keeps on fighting despite sustaining so many injuries is because his healing factor enables him to. You can't really stop him because any damage he sustain, he immediately heals from it. But he do get damaged.