All I can say is that, grammatically, you're incorrect. Because of the use of "projection," the burden of proof is on those who think that it's not in the real world. Unless someone can prove that "projection" means "projecting it into the vision center of a person's brain" in this instance, then that's not what it means.
I think you're reading too much into the word projection. Here's a dictionary definition of project:
the dictionary said:
v. pro·ject (prə-jĕkt'), -ject·ed, -ject·ing, -jects.
v.tr.
1. To thrust outward or forward: project one's jaw in defiance.
2. To throw forward; hurl: project an arrow.
3. To send out into space; cast: project a light beam.
4. To cause (an image) to appear on a surface: projected the slide onto a screen.
[several more definitions cut]
It
could mean projecting into space, or onto a screen, or just throwing something in general. In short, all the word projection
proves is that you're sending something outward from a point of origin. Combined with the word "telepathy" I think it's perfectly reasonable to see it as sending thoughts or images
outward from your brain (hence "projection")
into someone else's head (hence "telepathic").
I'm not saying your interpretation
couldn't possibly be right, but I went with the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. Given the many possible meaning of "projection", I think it's ultimately an opinion call. Other voters may have a different opinion.
Aristotle said:
Yeah, but that's the old negative-space problem. If you can sense everything except a Green Lantern-shaped nothingness, then you still know where he is!
This would make sense to me if he was in a room packed full of people, because then she would realize that was the only place in the room thought
weren't emanating from. But it's not like there are other consciousnesses floating around in the air. I don't think telepathy would let you distinguish empty air (from which no thoughts are discernible) from psi-shielded Green Lantern (from which no thoughts are discernible.)
Aristotle said:
Come on, dude. Seriously? It's not an attack unless he strikes a blow on her person. I mean, this wasn't even disputed by Frank! He didn't even think it was a problem! (Now he will, I'm sure.) I mean, first of all, the very fact of her creation of forcefields is an attack on my entire team, because they're dangerous weapons explicitly designed to cause my team pain. I mean, if Flash knocking her personal forcefield down is an attack, then her big forcefield over her whole team is an attack. And second of all, how can busting through a wall be an attack? That's what it amounts to! This isn't like Flash ripping off somebody's armor, this is just busting through a wall!
Attacks can be more than just physical blows, or even a psi-blast wouldn't be an attack. To me, demolishing someone's personal defenses is an attack. If you had Silver Surfer vaporize Iron Man's armor with transmutation, wouldn't you say that's an attack?
I wouldn't really have a problem with Flash breaking the bubble around the whole team, which I would agree is more like a wall, but Sue's personal bubble
is more akin to armor in its function (shielding her body specifically), even if it happens to be wall-like in shape.
I do think you have a decent point that if Invisible Woman tried to shield her
uber teammates from attacks, then she could be considered to have engaged the opposing ubers, and then an attack against her would be justified. But there's really no good reason for Sue to shield her uber teammates when Hal Jordan can make forcefields of his own.
I'll try not to respond further, since I don't want to do Franklin's debating for him. But I think I'm allowed to reply to a critique of my reasons for voting.