TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Well, as you might've guessed, it was bait question, and you provided the exact answers I'd expected.

Congratulations.

1) I know what a bait question is, but thanks for assuming I didn't.
2) Ask again, I'll give the same answers.

The answers are obvious to anyone - there is no particular "reason" for anyone to want me banned over any of the other recent "dicks", that wouldn't fall apart under the weight of ludicrous bias, double standards and other kinds of considerations going against everything a forum with decent, fair rules is supposed to stand for.

If you want to be on a forum where people get a free pass for flaming unpopular members, but someone else gets banned for being "condescending" (that is not to say "blunt"), I'd say you deserve it.

And if you think I'd been sincerely enquiring about people's possible rationalizations for their hypocrisies before, because I couldn't possibly imagine how that would work, then think again.

3) Are you really having fun trolling the forum?

A bit of a hard one to answer, considering I don't troll the forum.

Ziggy Stardust said:

TV's Frink said:

3) Are you really having fun trolling the forum?

No. He just has nothing better to do with his life.

The "trolling" part aside, I'd say there are certainly thousands of things "better" than arguing on internet forums, but it's an enjoyable pastime and stress reliever in the appropriate dosis.

I've had a rather stressful exam Friday morning, so I took a "break" ;)
Although I'd say it's about to end.

Because you like to stir the water and tend to get into it with just about everyone.

Ok, so why did you stir the water in my "4th Parts" thread, if you think this is so bad?
I wasn't talking about a "reason", I was talking about "justified reason not based on a hypocrisy", and, well, have a look at the previous sentence.

you mentioned that arguing with people on forums is stress relief for you, for most people it isn't

Well I'm not going to argue with scientific studies, but there may be a misunderstanding here:

I'm pretty sure that "arguing about meaningless stuff", or watching movies, or whatever else, is a form of stress relief / escaping from reality for "most people".
It's certainly not the only component, and neither is it for me - but I certainly welcome an opportunity to get into a flamewar, if one offers itself (as one did by yourself a few days ago).

So if we can say that arguing about things that are entertaining and rewarding, is a form of "entertainment", and flaming around about who the bigger douche is, is "stress relief" and ego fapping, then... what have you (pl) been doing the last 5 days? :p

Nobody likes to see things get heated in a discussion just because someone compared the "silly fun" of The Phantom Menace to the "silly fun" of The Men in Black.

Yea, but the unambiguous implication was that it served as a reason why the two movies were kinda equally good, which is pretty damn stupid.

Here's a subsequent post by a guy with an awesome track record joining in with a visibly shittier attitude than myself, telling me to "read more carefully" while it's obvious he hasn't done that himself. And oh, to be less OTT while I'm at it.

...


And I've seen plenty of people who "like" getting "heated" when someone claims the prequels to be on par with the title of this site, and cites some idiotic fanboyish reasons for that. Members of this board, of all, should know ;)

guys like Ziggy who wish you'd get banned are just unrighteous bullies with double standards. That answer should have been obvious to you, but due to some crossed wiring in your head or something, it isn't

But...  I did say that Ziggy was an unrighteous bully with double standards! :PP

When you are in the right, it isn't normal to have this many people agitated at you.

It is, sadly, very "normal" both in real life and on the internet.

On the internet, maybe less normal on OT.com than on TFN.
But improbable things happen all the time, eh?

Although, I'm not sure, what in particular am I supposed to be "in the right" about?
You'd been arguing against my "warping of established definitions" for some time, but then we both calmed down, and suddenly what I'd been saying for days wasn't as preposterous anymore... ain't that nice :D

Don't you think just expressing your contrary opinion respectfully

I express it respectfully if I think the contrary opinion deserves respect. It often does, sometimes it doesn't.
Anything else would be dishonest.

TV's Frink said:

CP3S said:

You mentioned that arguing with people on forums is stress relief for you, for most people it isn't, and they'd rather be able to discuss stupid, meaningless things on a forum without having some hot head being an abrasive ass because he disagrees with an opinion they posted.

The term "troll" gets thrown around too often, but this is exactly what makes him a troll.  He says stuff just to get a negative reaction so he can be all high and mighty about his opinion truthiness.  And then when we call him out on it, either we didn't read all of his post, we didn't understand, or he was making a joke that we didn't get because we need humor transplants.

either we didn't read all of his post, we didn't understand, or he was making a joke that we didn't get because we need humor transplants.

Well, since that was demonstrably the case in many, many occasions, what's your problem with that?


He says stuff just to get a negative reaction
I respectfully point out that this is just your opinion, and it's based on nothing else than your fantasy. I don't think your accusatory conjecture deserves the slightest of respectful treatment, neither does your stating it as a fact.

EDIT:
So tell me Frink, what was that "blah blah blah" and similar crap you keep spreading out to other threads where I post, with no hint of condescension or animosity?
After having been criticized for that behavior by someone else?

Is it spamming? Is it derailing? Is it trolling? I dunno, you tell me - but whenever I "call you out" on that, you either shrug it off with a "I'm just being a dick to you" or a silly picture.
You're a hypocrite, and I rest my case on this one.

twooffour said:

Is it spamming? Is it derailing? Is it trolling? I dunno, you tell me - but whenever I "call you out" on that, you either shrug it off with a "I'm just being a dick to you" or a silly picture.
You're a hypocrite, and I rest my case on this one.

Case closed.

Yea, but it's how you use it ;)

K.

(Yea, that was classy -  no more dead terrorists please)

Holy shit, I thought I'd said everything... but I haven't!!

Here's a few things:

1)
Trolling also includes dishonesty as a requirement. Posting something you honestly stand behind, but know could (or will) piss people off, isn't trolling. Warping your opinions and personality specifically to piss people off (or just confuse / show them up; single rhetorical bait questions not included; Socratic irony comes close) is trolling.

There's another word for the former thing: insult.


2)
On an earlier occasion, CP3S has admitted to basically just posting stuff to get me to say something funny.
Now while that's the past by now, I haven't done anything like that in the first place.
So does anything hold any water around here aside from gravity?

The term "troll" gets thrown around too often, but this is exactly what makes him a troll.
Once again, I rest my case. There simply isn't anything more to say about this.

@Mrebo, I've just read the synopsis of "The Adjustment Bureau", and I can't see for the love of God how it's supposed to be anything close to a "remake of the Matrix without being one".

I'll watch it some time soon (it's kinda hard to find a legal link on the internet and all), but seriously, how? Some similar elements like agents hunting people through office floors, I think, but the plot is completely different.

Inception differs enormously from existenZ, and neither is the Matrix a remake of Dark City (which has both the hero becoming God at the end, and the romantic couple prevailing against controlling forces).


So anyway, speaking of poor remakes, how about Vanilla Sky?
Although I see no reason to say it was poor because it was a remake (done a few years after the original, and Cruz in the same role at that) - Tom Cruise's acting took me out of it a bit, and it generally didn't feel as intense or nightmarish as the original.

The suicide flashback was all too sweet and happy, the shrink wasn't weeping over being a zombie, the main character doesn't seem so shocked at people freezing, doesn't shoot the guards, looks uglier, and it generally felt kinda fake.
Of course, it may have been "unnecessary" to begin with (other than to bring a rather interesting story to a wider American audience), but I think it felt flat because of the execution and minor decisions.

doubleKO said:

twooffour said:
So does anything hold any water around here aside from gravity?

Gravity doesn't hold water. That's why you get wet when it rains.

I only get wet because the water falls down, so... ;)