Gaffer Tape

twooffour said:

You just kinda fail at sarcasm.

 Really?  Can you back that up?  Because I don't see you backing that up.  I just see you sorta dancing around it and avoiding it.

You're easily forgetting that in that same post where you "approved" of my banal comment about homosexuality in Politics (about as banal as this one), you then went on to act like a disingenuous dick.

Um, nope, you must not have read my post right, nor not read all of it, or thought about not reading it.  I guess I should dismiss the rest of your post because what I was saying should be obvious to anyone who read it.  Because the only other contribution I made in that post was voting in TV Frink's poll.  Maybe the fact that I voted for you was enough to get you riled up, but I would hardly call that being a "disingenuous dick."  But what do I know?  My opinions are just opinions after all.  Your opinions are facts... somehow.  I still haven't figured out how that is, though.  Perhaps you could spend about three yards' worth of text on a rambling post that goes nowhere, mentions "irony" about five times, "holding water" about three, and making claims of "backing stuff up" about nine times, with about half a dozen quote boxes in it to explain it to me again? ^_^

twooffour said:

HYPOCRISY MUCH? UNINTENDED IRONY?  BUTTHURT?!

Comeback fail, heh.

Oooh, really?  Can you back that up?  Because I don't see you backing that up.  I just see you dancing around it.

twooffour said:

Gaffer Tape said:

No, Frink!  You can't say things like that!  If you say you didn't read a post, or almost didn't read a post, or read a post on the wrong day of the week, or read a post in a way he didn't like you to read the post, or read the Saturday Evening Post, he's going to have ammunition to invalidate everything you say for the rest of your life.

Oh... like he wasn't going to do that anyway.

I admit I don't hear any hillbilly or ten year old voices, but I do register a monotonous buzzing whenever I read any of his quote pyramid rants, and it does tend to give one a headache.

I laughed when reading this, but on a serious note (only because you're seemingly not getting it):

Yea, that's it in a nutshell, basically.

Ooooh, so that means you've read all 7,000+ posts I've made?  You've read all my contributions on other forums?  You've read my personal diary?  You've read the novel I've written?  You obviously haven't read my contribution that C3PX encouraged you to seek out a minute ago.  And you say you don't very well remember the conversation we had when you first joined.  How can you possibly be expected to contribute to this conversation if you aren't completely up to date on every single thing I've ever said?  You would just look stupid to those who are.

So I guess that means I have grounds now to invalidate everything you've said and everything you're going to say because you obviously haven't come to this debate prepared enough to really know what you're talking about. ^_^

EDIT:  Oh, crap!  I just realized that, in an effort to not have my quote box all cluttered up, that I didn't quote twooffour's entire post and respond to it line by line.  That means he's going to assume I only read the portion I quoted!  And since his opinions are always factual, I guess I'm screwed!  It must be true, even though I know differently!

It's hard for me to discuss this with a serious face, but basically, I'm treating Gaffer just like any other (male) member, and yet with those you're not saying anything like "if you're gonna treat men like that in real life, you're not getting in their pants".

I would reluctantly say that he actually made a good, intelligent post here that I actually somewhat agree with, that doesn't make him sound holier-than-thou, and in which I can't find much in the way of faulty logic... but I made the mistake of saying that earlier today in regards to the Politics thread, and look where that got us.

I guess the moral is, is that even when you're agreeing with twooffour he can't allow to you win, so I guess he just has to point out how wrong you are for agreeing with him.

But if I'm wrong for agreeing with him, wouldn't it stand to follow that what I was agreeing with was wrong?  Otherwise, why would he be against me agreeing with it?  But if he was wrong, he wouldn't be right.  But he's always right!  But if I was agreeing with something that was wrong, and he has to be righter than everyone else, then he would be righter than everyone else, but then how could he be wro...

EXPLOSION!!!

Daisy, daisy, give me your answer doooooooooo...

Crap, I just had a twooffour paradox.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

So then why do you say he.

I get easily confused when I am thinking about pretty girls.

 

Well, C3PX, his "problem" is so "obvious."  I mean, it's obvious to anyone who can hold water that, unlike what you told him, he just didn't read.

I find it almost fascinating and more than a little terrifying that you've actually gone to this much trouble to so definitively assign motives and complete scenarios for every single person who has engaged you in conversation (and, of course, in every single one of those scenarios, you just so happen to be the only voice of reason surrounded by idiots or mean folk or people who just don't get you... even though you're a self-described rabble rouser... HYPOCRISY MUCH? UNINTENDED IRONY?  BUTTHURT?! =P).  Of course, I find it even more troubling that you actually seem to believe any of it.

No, Frink!  You can't say things like that!  If you say you didn't read a post, or almost didn't read a post, or read a post on the wrong day of the week, or read a post in a way he didn't like you to read the post, or read the Saturday Evening Post, he's going to have ammunition to invalidate everything you say for the rest of your life.

Oh... like he wasn't going to do that anyway.

I admit I don't hear any hillbilly or ten year old voices, but I do register a monotonous buzzing whenever I read any of his quote pyramid rants, and it does tend to give one a headache.

Has anyone ever mentioned that your posts read like listening to The Ultimate Warrior speak?  While huffing paint?

Nothing but a lot of jargon and repetitive fluff that goes on for far too long but actually means absolutely nothing (in your case to desperately cling to the notion that you're always right).  Oh, and DESTRUCITY!

So yea, so much for that.
I think you just want immediate expressions of love and gratitude for your wise "advices" and "aiding", and when someone questions a part of it, you go all "not if you're gonna be like that!" and get offended.

 

Oh, and I almost forgot about the rationalizing.  Thanks for reminding me.  Okay, so if that's how I am, and I only extend a friendly hand in order to further my sinister agenda of getting newbies to worship me, why is it that all these other people, people who don't do that, also don't like you?

Oh, wait, it's because they're so jealous that their opinions aren't as factual as yours.

twooffour said:

A bit like the last time, when you got "offended", and had even almost stopped reading my post, because I told you that you hadn't "paid attention"... after you really, and demonstrably, hadn't paid attention :DD

Accidental irony, I eat it up like honey.

For the last time, I never stopped reading your fucking posts, you little twat.  Sometimes, people can read every stupid piece of shit that comes out of your bilge-spewing fingers and still, gasp, happen to not buy it.  Go fuck yourself.

And, seriously, not EVERYTHING is irony, as much as you'd like it to be so.  I'd tell you to look that up too, but then someone would spent the next two pages debating dictionary definitions with you because you feel compelled to prove yourself right against it.  And even if it is, "LOL"ing about it three times in a single post is... oh, geez, nevermind.

Phew.  I needed that.

But, anyway, since I didn't answer your question before, as I had stopped debating with you in the Star Wars forum (and not because I didn't stop reading your fucking posts, but just because you're an asshole... I feel compelled to make that clear, even though you'll ignore it or warp what I said or just find some way to weasel around it), the first time I came to your aid was when you first started posting here and had immediately started to piss everybody off.  I jumped into the thread to tell them to lay off, that you were new, and then gave you the advice on how to behave like a mature human being, to which you responded that being a dick gives you the LOLZ and that you were going to keep on doing it, and I realized (but apparently not enough) that I give people the benefit of the doubt too easily.

I think you should hold off on C3PX.  That was his cat's vote, not his.

twooffour said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Okay, I do want to start out by saying that twooffour's last post in the politics thread was actually on-topic, relatively well-constructed, and wasn't the least bit insulting, condescending, or arrogant.  I have no problem calling him out when it's necessary, but there's really no reason to go after his posts when he's actually behaving like a decent poster.  In my opinion, it just devalues the criticisms that he actually deserves.

But all that said, I have to cast my ballot for twooffour.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but as it seems, I've been talking to a brickwall in my last response to you.

Why did you even ask?
I challenged you to provide a REASON for me to think that I "deserve" this criticism, and what do I get? Some flabby "vote". Anyone can vote, much fewer can justify their votes.


So basically, as far as I'm concerned at this stage, all your "criticisms" are just hot air and entirely worthless, and I have no reason to take any of them seriously.

Thanks for providing the second worthless vote, after the first one :D

Well, once again, I come to your aid and petition people to treat you fairly (even though you've given no one any reason to do so), and, once again, you act like a major dick in response.  And once again, I have to ask why I even bother.

But if you really feel no one's given you an answer, go to the thread full of archived quotes of yours. See my above post where I qualified what counted as a good post of yours. Reverse those attributes, and you have what constitutes a normal post of yours, the posts that I believe "deserve" criticism.

Okay, I do want to start out by saying that twooffour's last post in the politics thread was actually on-topic, relatively well-constructed, and wasn't the least bit insulting, condescending, or arrogant.  I have no problem calling him out when it's necessary, but there's really no reason to go after his posts when he's actually behaving like a decent poster.  In my opinion, it just devalues the criticisms that he actually deserves.

But all that said, I have to cast my ballot for twooffour.

twooffour said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Yeah, geez, Frink.  Haven't you learned by now that if you or anybody or anything or any idea ever has any kind of conflict or problem or disagreement with twooffour, the problem is never him, it's you.  Always, always, always, always you.  Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever him.  Geez, it's SO OBVIOUS! 

Wherever you got that idea from, Gaff.

Speaking of unintentional irony (once more, duh), here's a question:
You're having a debate with somebody, and your opponent bluntly tells you that you're wrong.
Which is the more pleasant thought, that he just happens to treat you this way because of the specifics of the discussion, or that he treats everyone like this, independent of the specifics, at all times?

Which one rather conveniently excludes the possibility (in your mind) that the "problem" may, at least partially, be on your part?

Yep, you're right.  It is "easier" to believe the person is just always like that, regardless of the situation.  But considering that pretty much everyone who has weighed in in this thread has come to the exact same conclusion, independently, through individual conversations with you... doesn't that tend to make you wonder if maybe, just maybe, that at least some of the problem lies with you?  Or are you the one who would rather take the more pleasant thought?

Yeah, geez, Frink.  Haven't you learned by now that if you or anybody or anything or any idea ever has any kind of conflict or problem or disagreement with twooffour, the problem is never him, it's you.  Always, always, always, always you.  Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever him.  Geez, it's SO OBVIOUS! 

Next you'll be trying to convince me you actually read his posts or that you have a sense of humor.  Pshaw...

CP3S said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

Hoes > Bros

Ditch that philosophy now and it'll save you a lot of grief.

A great many hoes come and go, but good bros will never leave you.

I have to say this phrasing has always left me scratching my head a bit.  I guess because it's so gender exclusive.  That and its feminine counterpart, "chicks before dicks."  I presume the message is about putting your close friends before a random piece of tail.  Good advice, I suppose.  So what if you're a dude and have all female friends?  I guess they can't be "bros."  So does that mean they're "hoes"?  Well, that doesn't sound very nice.  And if that's the case, who are the "bros"?  And why should you be putting them before your friends?  And what if you're gay?  Then that statement becomes REALLY confusing.  I mean, I guess the crux of the message still works on a common sense level:  that you should trust your friends over a random hooker you happen to meet on the street.  But why would gay me feel inclined to do otherwise in the first place considering the allure of sex is no longer a concern?  Or is it just a message that you should stay close to members of your own biological sex over anyone else no matter the actual relationship?

I'm confused.  I should go to bed.

RedFive said:

I clearly see more than three total fingers in that picture.  Just saying. =P

TV's Frink said:

Wrong thread.  Obviously.  You must not have read my post.  Or only read half my post.  Or failed to comprehend the obviousness of my post.  Go hold some water for a while, then come back and see if the obviousness of your wrongness has penetrated your brain.

Okay.  Yes.  This.  Funniest thing I've read all day.  Just felt compelled to pop in here and say that.  And now I'll pop back out.

I like the leather look, actually, even though I try to avoid leather products in real life as much as possible.  The only thing I'd change is "Prequels" to "Prequel Trilogy."  It just sounds more professional.  Not that I care about the prequels, and I'm not sure how it would work fontwise, but to me it just sounds more official.  "Prequels" just sounds like shorthand.

Oooh, I love, love, love The Adventures of Pete and Pete.  That was one of my favorite shows growing up.

As far as the Narnia thing goes, as far as I know at any rate, there isn't any definitive proof that chronological order is what C.S. Lewis would have preferred.  From what I've heard, that comes from one correspondence from one little girl who told him that she had decided to switch the books around and read them that way, and he told her he had never thought of that before and that it was a good idea.  And apparently his estate picked up on that and decided, based on that one comment, to fuck everything around.

But, yeah, The Magician's Nephew is pure exposition, pure prequel, pure sequel.  I mean, its opening line is something along the lines of, "This is the story of how Narnia came to be."  What the hell is Narnia?  Why should I care how it came to be?  Well, if I've read five other books about the place, then that's a pretty compelling reason, and that's obviously the context under which Lewis wrote that opening and that he expected his readers to have when he wrote it.

As for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, there's a reason it's consistently been the first movie adaptation of the series to be made.  It's the most popular, it's the most well-known.  It's probably the only one that's made such a strong impact on popular culture.  It's the one that everyone has read.  It's the one that I read and watched as a young child before I ever knew there were any other books.  Just like the original Star Wars, it stands alone as a separate story while all the other sequels simply do not and cannot.

See, I disagree because Return of the Jedi ISN'T about Vader, again, despite what Lucas would have you think.  It's about Luke and his internal struggles.  His desire to bring his father back to the good side.  Because of that, it's what we know about Luke that's important.  We don't really need to know about Vader or the Emperor beyond what we get in ROTJ to understand their relationship, and, more importantly, Luke's relationship to both of them.  In earlier drafts, Lucas did have more backstory and more scenes with Vader and the Emperor, but those were ultimately jettisoned because it needed to be more about Luke, and because those scenes tore down Vader as a villain and made him too sympathetic.  If we know too much about Vader, and he's made sympathetic, then whether or not he will become good becomes a non-issue.  Luke doesn't know for sure; therefore, we don't need to know until the moment that he does.

The Blu-ray uses alternate angles to branch both versions.  As far as I know (but I've never actually seen it, as I have no Blu-ray player), that means ALL the changes will reverted if you choose to watch it that way.

Just every single space shot and quite a few of the rest of the effects.  It pisses me off to no end that the original boxsets are out of print in favor of these.  It'll have to be Blu-ray or eBay in order for me to get the rest of the original original series.

Yeah, see, for me it has less to do with spoilers in the 'OMG SPOILERS!' sense, but more just in a narrative build sense.  Sequels are always attempting to build on what came before it.  Even if it's not even necessarily intended to, it's impossible not to.  So, quality aside, each Star Wars movie is building, in scope, in spectacle, in new content, upon what came before it.  So the prequels are always going to be made with the original films in mind, but not the other way around.  The PT always refers back to the OT because, even though it chronologically comes before it, it was made afterwards.  The PT was made to be watched after the OT, and George can whine and stamp his foot about it all he wants, but that's exactly the way he made them.  He made absolutely no attempt to make them work in numerical order (although, as I said, that would be practically impossible even if he had tried) and every attempt to make them nod vigorously at the OT.  Really, you're putting both trilogies at a disservice to watch them in that order because you're taking away from both of them what makes them tick:  for the OT, the freshness of brand-new ideas, and for the PT, the context it's constantly making references to.  Again, that's just the nature of the sequel business, and why would you watch three sequels before the original film?

ray_afraid said:

twooffour said:

 You certainly haven't read my post.

So, because we disagree, that means I didn't read you post? Right.

Ooooooooooh!  I'm beginning to detect a pattern.  How exciting! ^_^

Anyway, on topic, this is interesting.  Personally, I'd never introduce someone to the prequels before the originals.  And that has nothing to do with bad movies spoiling good movies or because I would refuse to show anyone the prequels or anything like that.  It's simply because, if I was seriously about introducing anyone to anything, I certainly wouldn't start with a sequel.  And that's what the prequels are:  sequels.  Why start in the middle of the story?  But I certainly see the curiosity in comparing.  As you said, you've introduced a lot of people the other way.  I've been interested in trying that too.  Unfortunately, each person only has one first impression.  I've always thought it would be a much better judge of things if you could somehow give someone two first impressions.  Show them the films in one order, record data, erase their brain, and then show them another order and record data.  That's the only way really to test things out.  Unfortunately, there's no way to do that.  But I would love to try.  Then again, I am a huge nerd!