CP3S

I agree about Borderlands, it falls short of greatness, but is extremely good for all its flaws and repetitiveness. If you play with friends it is some of the most fun you can have co-oping or split-screening.

Not sure where Xhonzi is, but to continue with more Bioshock BS: I am really enjoying Rapture so far. Haven't been able to read as much as I'd like since I got it, only about 1/4th of the way through.

twooffour said:

The answers are obvious to anyone - there is no particular "reason" for anyone to want me banned over any of the other recent "dicks"

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

Everything I am writing in this post is 100% true and probably just about everyone will agree with me but you, yet you'll still be the one who is right and 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. When you are in the right, it isn't normal to have this many people agitated at you.

Go to the SW section and you've gotten into it with someone in almost every thread you've posted in, because you feel the need to take people to task for every single opinion of theirs you disagree with. Don't you think just expressing your contrary opinion respectfully and moving on like everybody else would be enough?

twooffour said:

Ah, many thanks for that!

Watched "China Problem" so far, pretty hilarious :D

No problem!

Definitely check out "Free Hat" too, if you haven't seen that one yet. That episode might as well be about OT.com, as the kids get frustrated nobody else seems to care about films being altered and suppressed. The fact that it exists is almost too good to be true; that episode is a perfect example of why I love that show so much.

Nah?

Ric Olie said:

The Matrix would have had more of an influence on pop-culture than the prequels, except for one small* thing:

They sucked.

Totally agreed, Olie. Totally agreed.

Yay?

Bioshock: Rapture is in my hands, and I am about to start reading.

So far it seems like reviews are fairly positive. I'm excited.

I'll be there tomorrow?

twooffour said:

So there's plenty of that kinda stuff, but I think I haven't seen any of those Simpsons/South Park spoofs (which episodes would that be)

I haven't watched The Simpsons since around the time The Phantom Menace came out, so I can't help you there. But as for South Park, just off the top of my head, in the season three epiosde "Jakovasours" they discover an extinct animal that talks like Jar Jar named Joon-Joon. This episode came out in 1999. The South Park movie (also from 1999) has an annoying Jar Jar quote randomly shoved into one scene. There is an episode called "Free Hat" where George and Steven plan on making a Raiders of the Lost Ark special edition theatrical rerelease, this episode heavily condemns the alteration of films (even though half the internet scratches their heads at us, it is nice to know Matt and Trey get it at least). Then there is the infamous "China Problem" episode, that takes the George Lucas "raped my childhood" thing and makes it literal. Both those episodes technically have Indiana Jones at the center of them, but they both reference Star Wars, the prequels, and the special editions pretty heavily. There are also PT references in the "Imagination Land" episodes.

None of the South Park ones are spoofs or parodies, but more harsh criticism of Lucas. Perhaps the Lucas criticism is more aimed at a minor sub-culture than pop culture, to be fair. But all the other prequel references and cameos throughout the series I think are decent example of the PT's influence in popular culture.

Even though Family Guy and Robot Chicken are Fox properties with Lucas sanctioned parodies and spoofs, I still think this flies as pop culture. Robot Chicken made the Star Wars special because its Star Wars clips were so popular, and since that was popular they made two more.

twooffour said:

like some random kid just blows up the donut for no reason

I was actually going to bring up I Am Legend and its three film adaptions in the "remakes" thread, but things were so bogged down in there it didn't seem to fit into any of the discussion that was going on.

The basic point I was going to make was, can you really consider those remakes of each other? Or are all three independent attempts at adapting the short story to the screen?

Each adaption takes a few details from the book, and tosses the rest out.

The Last Man on Earth was by far the most accurate to the source, but it changed the vampires to zombies.

The Omega Man kept only the premise of the immune protagonist in a world filled with infected night walkers, this time they still kept their mental state intact, but could no longer walk in sunlight and nonsensically got the uncontrollably urge to join a cult. Although the movie is one of my all time favorites simply because it uses the line "honky paradise", which may be the greatest line ever captured on film. If you watched The Last Man on Earth followed by The Omega Man, you might not even realize they were related beyond the single lone protagonist angle.

I Am Legend took the lonely isolation aspect of the source material and ran with it. I felt it did rather well with this, but left out just about anything else that tied it to the source (other than keeping its title, while completely botching the significance of that title). The CG infected just came off as extremely silly.

TV's Frink said:

adamwankenobi, confirmed pedophile.

Confirmed?

I know he made some dumb jokes about it and wrote a messed up letter to Dayv's daughter, but I always assumed he just had a hard time with reality and failed to see extreme boundaries most functional people wouldn't come within a mile of in his attempts to press buttons and stir things up.

But do we have anything more substantial than that?

doubleofive said:

I'm honored to be voted the deciding vote. Does that make me a politician now? Should I start making promises I could never keep?

FREE BEER FOR EVERYONE!

YAY! Party at the O'Fives'!

twooffour said:

So how about you don't claim that about Jordan, but about some noob kid in the neighborhouse... it'll still be an opinion, but what chance would it stand at being any true?

I'm pretty sure you could make a very solid CASE for Jordan, though.

It is funny you used the neighborhood kid example, because I almost used that as my subjective opinion example, but figured the cat worked better (since the kid could potentially turn out to be the best ever, but "cutest cat" is something that can't be quantified).

But yeah, statistics and records exist to act as a basis for an opinion about Micheal Jordan being "the best ever". But my opinion about the neighborhood boy being potentially the best ever would be purely my subjective view based on my own thought from watching him play with other kids who probably aren't that good. If the neighborhood kid had beaten Micheal Jordan during his prime in a one-on-one match, then now I would have something objective to base my opinion on.

In that sense, if I take something that passes for an opinion, not fact, and say "that's false"... am I automatically wrong for being that way?
Or would you first have to show that that "opinion" was, either a subjective opinion, or actually pretty damn well supported in contrary to what I'm saying? Or if not pretty damn well, at least makes enough sense not to be indisputably "false"?

You'd have to decide that case by case. If I say, "This has got to be the most beautiful sunset I have ever seen!" and you respond with, "Pfft, I've seen better." Our contrary opinions have just bumped heads. I could look at you incredulously and say, "Yeah right, better than this?" And then proceed to tell you all the reasons why I think it is the most beautiful one I have ever seen, and you could respond with all the reasons it pails in comparison to other sunsets you've witness. But how silly and vain of an argument would that be? We are clearly dealing with subjective data, the beauty of a sunset can't be quantifiable, because it is in the eye of the beholder.

If we're dealing with something that could potentially be proven, but can't, then it'd be a bit more reasonable to debate it, but we'd probably just still be bumping the heads of our opinions together. If I say Wilt Champerlain is the best basketball player ever, and doubleKO says Micheal Jordan was the best ever, we could argue this out, do research, and come up with stats, but ultimately the data doesn't exist to prove it either way. Records were kept differently back when Wilt played to the time Jordan played, so it is hard to measure the two against each other fairly and with certainty. So it remains an opinion on both of out parts, but each of our opinions are based on facts (they were both extremely good players) as well as subjective feelings (my affinity for Wilt against KO's affinity for Micheal). A debate about this can be fun, enjoyable, and even rewarding, but as far as determining anything, it is as fruitless as the sunset debate.

If none of that is the case, I honestly don't see why I can't do that, and then let the other one defend their opinion if they can.

You can. I think what was getting people upset was the abrasive way you'd do it, with remarks such as, "Well, its official now, accept it" etc. 

People like to discuss stupid relatively meaningless shit when they are bored, like how often is the second sequel to anything ever any good, or bounce around thoughts and theories like under what circumstances a remake could/should be justified or not. You can't really tack any of this stuff down to solid fact. The quality of movies is hard to quantify. One movie may be amazing to one person, well acted and fantastically written and crafted, but to another person it could be boring as hell and therefore a bad movie. Is one of them wrong? Maybe a little. I think you can find writing and acting and production that is objectively bad or objectively decent, but you'll still find people who find it subjectively good or perhaps even very good. I may have loved every remake I have seen, and so think they are a great idea; or I may have hated every remake I have seen, and so think they are a horrible idea. Who can prove me objectively wrong either way?

Bingowings said:

Writing twoofour's posts has given me back the wrists I had when I was teen.

I was using a sock then too as I recall.

Hahaha! Nice.

That was the most (intentionally) funny post I have read in quite a while.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour is now officially the second worst ot.com member ever.

 

Hey! Before you said you needed a 005 AND a bkev vote to give him that classification.

miker71 said:

Yes, the prequels have influenced the Fox media (Simpsons, South Park etc) 

South Park isn't Fox media. I get what you are saying about Simpsons, Family Guy, and Robot Chicken making Star Wars references and even full episodes dedicated to spoofing it, as self serving merchandising. But South Park isn't Fox and has no connection there.

In fact, South Park is extremely adversarial to the PT and the SEs, and has been pretty harsh on George Lucas for his alterations.

In the real world there's just no enthusiasm for the prequels amongst everyday people. The opposite was true with the OT and it's really hard to describe to people who weren't even born back then.

I would love for this to be true. I wouldn't mind the prequels being collectively forgotten and disappearing for ever. But I honestly think I hear Jar Jar quotes, as well as things like "My young Padawan", "Those tricks donta work on me", or "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" almost as much as I used to hear things like "I'd just as soon kiss a wookie" and other famous OT quotes.

Until I bring Wilt Chamberlain into the picture. ;)

twister111 said:

I largely feel that in spite of a few story flaws. That Chuck is really entertaining and, funny.

I definitely agree. I've really been enjoying it, and it is not that often that I can let myself enjoy a show, movie, or book without feeling the need to tear it apart (It is really annoying, apparently. My girlfriend yelled at me a couple of months ago because I was pointing out how bad the writing was in a particular episode of the TV show Bones).

So even though I pointed out flaws in it here, the fact that I have been able to really enjoy it and only pick out flaws as I reflect back on it at the end of a season, shows how much I've enjoyed it.

Plus, I was having trouble sleeping too...)

Aww, that sucks.

twooffour said:

 
Fun with Words

So what exactly am I supposed to take from a description like this:
not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

So if it MAY be based on fact and knowledge, it wouldn't be an opinion anymore, would it?

Yes, it could be based on fact or knowledge, but it isn't necessarily. I think it describes that quite clearly in the definition.

An atheist could say based on all his scientific knowledge, he is certain there is no God. But he can't prove this, so the non-existence of God is still his opinion on the matter. If somehow he can disprove the existence of God with complete certainty, then yes, now it would cease to be an opinion and become fact.

This scenario doesn't contradict your dictionary.com definitions, nor Red Five's chart, nor my Oxford English Dictionary's definition.

I can say Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, but until I provide scores and statistic encompassing the entire history of basketball and show indisputable evidence that he is was, indeed, the greatest of all time, that will just have to remain my opinion. Evidence exists to prove that Micheal Jordan was, in fact, a really fantastic player, so my opinion is based on plenty of factual data, but just not enough data to prove he was the best who ever played.

I could also make the claim that my girlfriend's cat is the cutest thing ever to exist. This opinion is of course purely subjective and has no potential to ever become indisputable fact.

The same rule apply to all three of these scenarios I listed, they all fit just fine within The Oxford English Dictionary's brief definition. The only difference is, two of them, having a basis in facts, could potentially be one day proven as facts (though very unlikely), at which point they'd cease to be opinion (though you could still hold opinions about those subjects).

It is really hard to tell exactly what you are trying to argue, because your posts are often unnecessarily long and typically full of a bunch of attempts at biting sarcasm and other baggage that gets in the way and makes your points hard to follow. However, I must say your last post was quite impressive and very well written and I actually enjoyed reading it, when you are not trying to be biting or condescending your points come through much clearer. Basically, what I think what you are getting at is that one can hold opinions about facts, and/or that one can hold opinions that also happen to be facts. If that is the case, then I agree.

TV's Frink said:

Oh, and the prequels have had zero influence on pop culture.

Mesa tinkin' dissa nota true.

twooffour said:

Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.

One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.

So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?

 

But they aren't really two completely different meanings (and I am not sure why you keep mentioning the German and Russian words, I am trilingual myself, but the English meaning is all that matters here).

The meaning from the 2nd grade text book "Fact or Opinion" chart used the definition: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"

My beloved Oxford English Dictionary words it like this in a single definition (no second or third definition like your dictionary, rather it lists those as examples): "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

Let's contrast those with your two definitions: "a factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic" and
"a statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world."

Your two definitions are saying the EXACT same thing as The Oxford English Dictionary and "Fact and Opinion" chart.

F & O Chart: "not founded on proof or certainty"

Oxford: "not necessarily based on fact of knowledge"

Twofour's Dic: "factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic"

All three of these are saying the same thing, the statement may be factual, but there isn't sufficient evidence to support it (thus it isn't founded on proof or certainty, or in other words, it isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge). Or in your second definition it is a "subjective mental state", which again is saying nothing contrary to or different from "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty" or "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

All three sources give the word "opinion" the exact same meaning, yours just does it in twice as many words. Both your definitions are encompassed under the single definition from the first two sources.

The only other meaning of the word "opinion" would be in the sense of "legal opinion" or "medical opinion" etc., but you never claimed those meanings as your reason for being so confused about what meaning of the word we were trying to use.

twooffour said:

RedFive said:

Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?

What do you mean, "still"?

LOL. He doesn't think anyone has ever been reading his posts, but he still keeps writing them.

IGNORE.

TV's Frink said:

Here's what I love about twooffour - C3PX had to take me off ignore so he can read all my awesome anti-twooffour posts! :p

Actually, I took both you and greenie off ignore sometime last week before any of this started.