Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I saw your post in the "Hi, I'm New" thread. You are such a fucking loser.

    Edit: AND you suck.

    Edit Edit: I'm sorry I take it back I don't know what came over me I crown you King Smogon Greeter.
    I noticed you didn't actually call OP a dick, I was just playin' since I thought it was funny given the content of your post that you said what I said but more bluntly :D
    just as a word of note: from what i read of the story, martin was indeed not in his own neighborhood but was taking a break from watching his brother's away basketball game at the time
    He was living with his father's girlfriend, who lived within that gated community.
    K, thank you for setting me straight then!
    Anecdotal experience and appealing to popularity are actually two different fallacies, you also forgot this in a pretty short time;

    "Also, to shoot the shit, the thing about informal fallacies is that they are not by definition incorrect. They certainly can be, and the whole point is that they don't work as the foundation for an argument."

    Your appeal to popularity was at the time your only argument in favor of Disney. My anecdotal evidence was just my closing statement, kind of a personal touch where I also called you a fool (maybe that's why it's insulting) but here's a better one;

    I don't think you read the definitions I posted on comparison. So I'm gonna copypaste one a bunch of times.

    "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences"

    "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences" "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences" "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences" "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences"

    "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences"

    "to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences"

    "resemblances or differences"

    "or differences"

    Why yes! Things that are not exactly alike, which I hope I can say about most art, do have things that aren't in common. How fuckin astute! So it turns out you were right, this is semantics! I mean you were that right that it was semantics, you were sure as shit as wrong about the semantics, but all this time you just had a bug up your ass because "we can't compare things that have differences" which you were just plain wrong about. Dictionary says so. ALL THE DICTIONARIES SAY SO. ALL OF THEM. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECKED (the first time I posted the definitions in fact, I checked all of them I could find just in case, all of them, try it sometimes, try fact checking before you embark on these stupid fucking crusades, I do it with EVERY POST believe it or not).

    You at some level compare things, call it whatever the fuck you want, call it inwardly, outwardly, call it a civil fucking union, but the more attention you pay to it instead of just naysaying like a bitch the more you can make the kind of detailed analysis that even impressed DrRobotnik as opposed to the "this is objectively better end of post" that you just can't abide by on the internet.

    Take a few days to think on it, or don't, but seriously fuck off. You're right about one thing, you're the only one consistently busting my balls anymore (RIP Morm, at least you had a ruthless conviction going for you) but as of this argument it's not cute anymore, it's pathetic. If I didn't "chose not to believe that I could ever say something intelligent" before, I sure as shit do now. So next time you feel like it, just don't. And the next time you make an open insult post like "If anyone is having difficulty recognizing that Disney and Ghibli animation is so vastly different that they're completely incomparable then that person needs to refine the way they look at films." (completely incomparable, your words) then I'll try not to either. And the whole forum will probably be better off for it.
    Once again, I have compared Sly Cooper to Battlefield 3. It's honest to god why I went out of my way to play both games; so that I could compare them to my current vast palate of game experience and integrate any positive or negative game design into my personal artistic philosophies. It was also neat that the Cooper series was amazingly fun but I bought it because it might make me a better artist with a more informed opinion. By comparing Sly Cooper and B3, one a narrative game and the other generally seen for its multiplayer, we get a small part of the bigger picture as to what makes these different sub-mediums work. I have been in the last year compiling several rules of sub-medium and I couldn't do that without comparing my experiences with games exactly like you said.

    Of course there's a bigger picture to comparing PM and Wall-E, yet you don't want me to compare them so I don't know how you are ever going to see it. Here's an OP ed piece I found that compares Wall-E and PM in an attempt to discover why these movies succeeded where other environmental movies fail. I haven't read it thoroughly and can't attest to its opinions, but it's a legitimate question. By comparing and contrasting Wall-E and to PM to Fern Gully, asking why the first were good while the later was poor, we can form artistic philosophies that will better prepare us to make our own environmental movie in the future, or help us get a better sense of why we enjoy certain movies and dislike others.

    So why would someone writing an academic paper on the matter (which can't be stressed enough) benefit from comparing Disney and Ghibli? Maybe he's an art or film student, and he's busy (with the teacher's instruction) forming his own artistic philosophies. If he wants to be an animator, is he going to take cues from Disney's thick bubbly colorful direction, or Ghibli's sharper detailed yet still whimsical direction, or is he gonna try to forge his own path using all the experience he's gained by examining both? Hell, noting those thick lines is more useful than anything you did in the thread, not to mention that its another comparison that you say is so futile.

    To illustrate why comparison is so integral, it seems to irk you that people in the thread called Ghibli objectively better without explaining why. Without proper comparison they might not be able to fully articulate it, but I can. The #1 rule of animation as a medium is that things should be in motion more often than that. Animation is after all, "The act, process, or result of imparting life, interest, spirit, motion, or activity". You'll find few animators who disagree with this point. As a big budget movie studio Disney certainly always did this above average, especially in terms of musical numbers. But what truly separates Disney and Ghibli (who can also do thick bubbly lines) is in the more mundane moments. Ghibli animates faces better. Ghibli is the only studio where I can get a sense of a character's hair standing up in the back of their neck, it's such a minute and subtle motion when they do it but it's so powerful that it makes my own hair stand up every time. The layers in establishing shots don't pop out as much. The action is smoother, more intricate, and often has more layers on screen. That's an opinion, but it's one that comes from careful examination of over a dozen movies. My current game has no animation, but hopefully the day will come when I can instruct employees to follow these principles.

    In short, comparison of vastly different art forms helps us get the most out of each. It helps to establish rules of medium, it helps us develop artistic philosophies. You subconsciously compare these things which causes you to develop opinions, but only by doing it consciously will your opinions be more informed and more articulate. You should always be the first and second person to question your own opinions, and that's not an opinion; that's advice. Why don't you man-up and try it the next time you see a movie, instead of complaining that I keep missing your point; your point keeps changing. If it truly ever had to do with how you don't want people to say one is better than the other, which I keep calling you out on, you sure as shit didn't say that in the first place when going off on a tangent about how two unrelated subgenre movies couldn't be compared.

    I've tried to "understand you" because you are coming across as incredibly foolish, but no one I've asked about it on IRC knows what you mean when you say you can't compare Ocean's Eleven and Reservoir Dogs, or Disney and Ghibli for that matter, as apparently no one in the thread has given that they keep trying. Also again, for a thread to help an academic paper to compare the two, I'd wager the teacher doesn't understand you either. The smartest thing you did was take this to PM, cause the OP explicitly wants what you would deny him (and for absolutely no reason, you've shown that you could have added new insight to the paper instead of trying to stop the thread).
    On the contrary, I don't feel that outside of this visitor message you've tried to explain yourself at all. You started off by saying that we shouldn't compare two animation studios, no more than that, two heist movies, which falls pretty neatly within "other things that are similar" by your own admission. However yes Transformers can be compared to the Notebook for the same reason that PM can be compared to live action by its creator, in the same way that we can compare movies to tv shows which helps us establish rules of medium. In examining my thoughts on movies as a medium, I've found myself comparing Princess Mononoke and Silver Linings Playbook. You could probably have facetiously thrown out those two movies just as much as any other comparison, but in putting these two movies back to back I actually came to some radical conclusions as to how I feel about the medium as a whole.

    And that's me going out of my way to explain myself way more than you ever do, and frankly it's for your own damn good this time. I may not like all of your opinions, but now I can see how you form them all so poorly. You are limiting yourself by creating artificial barriers when evaluating art, which hurts you as an art consumer (let alone if you are an artist yourself, I forget). By all means watch Transformers and The Notebook back to back and compare and contrast what each does well and differently.

    Also Wall-E and PM are both pro-environmental message movies, which I have seen compared in academia.
    Bluewind was trolling too. Hey here's a secret, I know the difference between masterful and jeb. The question still bears asking; why are people treating them differently when in the end they both shit all over the thread with useless posts? "Oh, he's just a troll, it's cute". Last time I checked, that sort of 4chan shit was pretty heavily reviled here. So if he wants to act like masterful I'll treat him like that.
    You said yourself, they are trolls. They are being purposefully retarded, I called them out on it. The idea that trolls cannot have their feelings hurt is an insane myth of the internet that runs counter to some of the most basic human psychology. Fuck, I was once banned from a website for "counter-trolling with teeth". But I'm not keen on getting banned here, or even getting modded, so I was just making the point for the points sake. Again, it's not like I haven't expounded on the nuances of Ahri before.
    Also, to shoot the shit, the thing about informal fallacies is that they are not by definition incorrect. They certainly can be, and the whole point is that they don't work as the foundation for an argument.

    For instance, if my friend Morgan says "1+1=3" and I respond with "You are wrong, because you are an idiot," that's ad hominem. If I said instead, "Actually 1+1=2, and you are an idiot," now that's just a good old fashioned insult.
    So how are gonna hash things out really? Cause even the last time you agreed with me you made color comments about it. I wouldn't extend an olive branch over it except that I really have no ill-feelings towards you, I enjoy arguing this shit and gushing about my champs. So what's the problem?
    and actually the Seahawks are relatively well off - the dome at home is only 72/28 to win (although this is a pretty great rate for postseason), actually relatively normative as far as w/l goes for HF (it has more implications for dogs and gambling in general than w/l), dome on the road is a lot more brutal (my version of it was 82% w/l coming into this season and is up to like 84% based off a 4-0 run so far since week 17)
    dude it is no sweat, even the nearly infalliable me cannot cite EVERYTHING in the world correctly, the dome thing I am citing is totally correct but yeah you got me

    I just have the dome thing saved in the form of ((o:team = Texans) or (o:team = Lions) or (o:team = Falcons) or (o:team = Saints) or (o:team = Vikings) or (o:team = Colts) or (o:team = Cowboys) or (o:team = Cardinals) or (o:team = Rams)) and some other nonsensical python stuff to go with it, so while I loosely remember everybody top of my head, it is not like I have an ordered alphabetical list in my mind :P

    (this list wins me lottssss of playoff money)
    can't even begin to explain that... Peyton/Tannehill/Luck/Bradford/Newton don't have particularly spectacular rushing attacks in either pure volume of attempts or effectiveness with those attempts. Cassel/Fitz aren't surprising at all, and Rodgers is so good that he'll take advantage over the slightest edge over the defense. maybe that's the only reason Peyton's up there too?

    how does Drew Brees compare with play action? iirc they were very effective out of play action last season when they could actually run the ball, but considering they've been a terrible rushing team this season I'd imagine his YPA is hardly improved from non-play action to play action.
    those are exactly the three guys I'd expect to be up there too

    damn though, I'm surprised that RGIII is THAT far ahead of everyone else though.

    1. what's funny about that, it's akin to people finding humor in so called "speech ebonics"
    2. I don't see the merits of cynicism in this world, but this is a philosophical difference between us
    FYI Mexican isn't a language so unless you're a racist for future reference it's called "Spanish"
    { 03:42:54 AM } <&lynne> valk
    { 03:43:04 AM } <&lynne> i want you to beat me up so you can buy me expensive presents the day after and bring me flowers
    { 03:43:06 AM } <&lynne> deal?
    { 03:43:09 AM } <pookar> he left
    { 03:43:10 AM } <&lynne> WOW
    { 03:43:11 AM } <&lynne> FUCK VALK
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…