The ST is meant to be part of a larger overarching story.
Again this is just your desire/opinion. I don’t care about the development of characters from PT to OT, and furthermore trying to use that as a justification for calling character development a “plot hole” just doesn’t work.
Which is your opinion, and arguing semantics.
Words mean things. Plot holes are something specific, and are not what you are describing. It’s not semantics.
But ok. I said I give up before, I mean it this time.
Words mean things. Plot holes are something specific, and are not what you are describing. It’s not semantics.
But ok. I said I give up before, I mean it this time.
“Arguing semantics is a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party’s attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument.”
I’ve explained what my issues are with the ST, which is the point, I’m trying to get across. Despite this you continue to avoid the topic, by arguing about the meaning of a word (semantics) I used to summarize my argument. A word I would gladly replace by a more appropriate term, if that makes you happy, as I’ve indicated. Ergo, you are arguing semantics. I would like to get away from semantics, and discuss the issues I’ve raised with those posters, interested in discussing them.
Actually, the full quora.com post is…
'“Arguing semantics” is a derogatory term used by one party in an argument to resist the other party’s attempt to question the terms and language used in the argument. This is generally done because the current terms favor his / her position.
In this situation the first party will often feign impatience – “Come on, let’s stop quibbling about semantics and get on with things!”’
I don’t see Frink stating ‘arguing semantics’? Do you?
And it certainly wasn’t used as a derogatory term by him - as you inferred by mentioning it in your post.
A word of warning - tread carefully when trying to cast aspersions of using a ‘derogatory term’ onto others.
That is all - thank you.
I was the one who said Frink was arguing semantics, not the other way around. I was getting impatient with Frink for banging on about my choice of words or specifically a word, when I wanted to debate an argument. I already stated, I would be happy to use an other term to summarize my criticisms. Despite this fact, Frink further debated the meaning of the word I used previously, hence my response, where I reiterated, why I felt he was arguing semantics, rather than debating the argument.