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

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

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,951
Subj: I see...
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 03:42:05 pm EST (Viewed 431 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Indeed, it did not....
Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 02:56:29 pm EST (Viewed 472 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:


      Quote:

        Quote:

        ...just by reading at what Oliva wrote above, I know that all that I took the time to write was a pure waste of time. There is no discussion possible at all.

       
      There's Overwhelming proof that Thor is BEYOND being bullet-proof.. It's just a matter of accepting Reality....

    My problem is you apparently didn't care to read anything the other side had to say on the subject. You pretend we say Thor isn't bulletproof and it's false. We only say it was far from clear in his past. Not the same at all. 
    Also, we explain why using Hulk's punches and nukes are a waste of time to defend the position you have. Yet, you still carry on with that line of thought as if nothing was ever said several times already. Start by countering what has been brought to your attention and then we will see if Hulk punches and the nukes can be used.
    So far, using the "but he can resist more powerful attacks..." has as much value as us saying Thor isn't bulletproof because he always block bullets. You explained why blocking isn't necessarily a valid argument and we have listen. Do the same for us. Respect what we bring to the table even if you don't like it.

     
     
    I've listen very careful to your side of this argument for some time now, and I find it that it's not only lacking ANY validity to the extreme- it borders on the Realm of Fanatism. One thing is to be bias against a character, another is seeing evidence after evidence before your eyes and still dismiss it as if it doesn't exist. We're not discussing one bad showing by Thor saying that he must deflect some deadly bullets (it happens to  virtually ALL Super-Hero characters-like Hulk with a Snake and Superman with a Gas explosion), but a pattern of historical consistencies that overwhelmingly says otherwise. One more time, Thor has NEVER been hurt by a conventional bullet in his ENTIRE history as a Marvel Super-Hero in order to form an exact opinion that he's Not bullet-proof. Heck, Thor hasn't suffered ANY injuries by Bombs that could make a Gaping Hole in a battle Cruiser.  If Thor was bullet-resistant he would've suffered grave injuries or torn to pieces, simply because a battle cruiser Armor is bullet-proof, and INEVITABLY it would pierce Thor skin and beyond.  Just because someone is strong like Thor doesn't make him invulnerable to bullets, etc.  Luke Cage is practically bullet-proof, but can ONLY lift up to 3 tons.. Luke Cage would most probably not survive a direct hit by a Heat Seeking Missile, Thor can and the lethal attack did not injured him AT ALL.....
     
    Note: if Thor did not have a Hammer like the Sub-Mariner NAMOR- he had no choice but to take a bullet every now and then.  However, if a blast directed at Thor would burn most of his costume (but would not injure him in the least), why wouldn't he use the hammer to deflect it?


With what I can see here I'm sure you didn't read anything carefully at all if all you saw was ONE bad showing supporting all I've said. However, it's crystal clear there is nothing to hope out of that discussion so I'll simply wish you a good day and be done with it.

later Oliva.




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