What's with Roger Ebert and... sex... recently? — Page 3

I'm uncomfortable talking about my kids in a thread that combines Roger Ebert and Sex.

See, what happens when a man loves a movie, is he...[EDITED]

.....puts his fingers on a keyboard and they make a review together!

I guess you're too young to have had that talk yet.

Unfortunately it's not against the rules.

xhonzi said:

Are your kids old enough to learn about Roger Ebert?

Is anyone?

...

I'm not even sure what that meant.

Me either, but I still smirked at your post.

To be clear, I was saying I didn't know what my response meant, not xhonzi's question.

Mrebo said:

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

Is it me or does 2/4 seem to have an unhealthy obsession with xhonzi's parenting approaches?

Good thing he didn't witness all the child beatings I did when I visited.

The cast and crew hug each other in a special way and produce a movie.

Q*bert jumps to the top cube and throws it down the pyramid.

If it lands on Coily it turns into a turkey and is eaten by Ugg or Wrong Way, if Slick and Sam pick it up it becomes a blockbuster.

If it lands on an empty cube and avoids attention it becomes a cult or sleeper hit but if it falls off the pyramid altogether it ends up in the big pine cupboard behind the telly screen at Chateau Bingowings.

Can I have this one?

TV's Frink said:

Unfortunately it's not against the rules.

Exactly. If someone wants to join a community where people are banned for being "unpopular", or "annoying", or whatever, I'm sure there are enough of those out there.
How "fortunate" that kind of system is, is a matter of taste, I guess.


;)

Here's what I don't get - why would someone want to spend time at a place where pretty much everyone (backed by scientific research in a previous thread) thinks said person is annoying?

Unless they're a troll, of course.

"You" got "lucky" this TIME, 2/4.

:DD ;) :p

Mrebo said:

 

twooffour said:

For those too thick to get it - this is just another instance where I'm not the one starting to post off-topic personal bullshit in someone's thread ;)

What twooffour started with:

twooffour said:

Xhonzi, you've been a weirdo since I first read your posts about raising OT children, and you're still one now.

If you wanna read crazy perverted sex fantasies into a few sardonic remarks about a topic made fun of all the god damn time, please continue to do so. Whatever floats your boat.

Now explained as:

twooffour said:

Yea, that was a few personal jabs in the context of an on-topic response. You just jump in randomly with nothing more to say than "oh this mean twofour, this mean twofour, he so annoying please go away, clownpicture".

Calling names and being dismissive is not the same as being on topic, twooffour. Your first post boils down to "You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

That's not responsive. Saying, 'it's not perverted, it's sardonic' is not an argument. It's just a way of saying, 'you're wrong and I'm right' and then you use that to say, 'so that's why I get to call you names.' And we've seen this from you time and again.

And then you claim you didn't start off-topic personal nonsense...except for calling into question one of xhonzi's approaches to parenting, of course.

I agree with CP3S that a person should be banned if they constantly drag the forums down.

Yes, I was rather appealing to common sense than any hard "logic", but then, common sense is the name of the game here, and I don't see what more is required.

A movie critic makes a few sardonic remarks about chaste romance in a few movies (also described as having bland romance by other people who've seen them).
A lot of people do that.
It's also connected to issues like parental guidance and pandering to different target audiences while making bucks, so that's an additional reason for it to be the butt of a lot of jokes.

Pretending to be a sex-obsessed maniac in contexts like that (I don't even have to reference the Filthy Critic for that), is a very common device, too.


So I'd expect anyone who's kinda been watching movies, participated on forums, or read through some internet reviews, to catch that sort of thing - or at the very least, consider the high probability that IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN THAT SERIOUS.

But this one, no, "he mentions sex so it must be genuine obsession, what else could it be??"
Well, common sense and basic experience says that it very well may have been humor. Roger Ebert is heterosexual, and probably doesn't mind boobs, and you don't need more of a "true core" for it than that.

What "arguments" do I need to make in addition to that? It's just common sense. Insisting on sex obsession despite all of that is weird and hilarious. Wanna argue with that?



As for the other issue, again, there's a huge difference between making a few provoking remarks (or references to earlier threads) BEFORE PROCEEDING TO MAKE A POINT ON TOPIC, and just jumping in to say how much a given user suxx0rs without caring about the topic, or what said user had to say about it.

And if you can't see the obvious difference, then you're lost.
Sorry, I'll be more careful to point out that "you were the first to derail this thread by making a post BUILT SOLELY AROUND FLAMING A USER", so you won't have to make any effort to understand what should go without saying for anyone with half a brain.

"You're a weirdo. You're wrong. Whatever."

TV's Frink said:

Here's what I don't get - why would someone want to spend time at a place where pretty much everyone (backed by scientific research in a previous thread) thinks said person is annoying?

Unless they're a troll, of course.

What scientific research?

Maybe you should look up the world troll on the interwebs before waving it around.
You said yourself it gets used too lightly these days, but now you're doing that very thing yourself.

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

Here's what I don't get - why would someone want to spend time at a place where pretty much everyone (backed by scientific research in a previous thread) thinks said person is annoying?

Unless they're a troll, of course.

What scientific research?

Maybe you should look up the world troll on the interwebs before waving it around.
You said yourself it gets used too lightly these days, but now you're doing that very thing yourself.

Poor World Troll.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, according to that guy, this:

whats the difference between pvp and pve servers?

is a troll thread, because it "encourages heated arguments". And he criticizes the overuse or misuse of the world troll in the same short post... just LOL. My hilarious unintentional irony hunger is satisfied... for today.

2/4 is like Madonna.

He thinks he's the best in the world, when actually he sucks at what he does.