twooffour

Well, I believe it now motherfucker :D

Ziggy Stardust said:

This is the last time I'm going to say it:

Please, shut the fuck up twooffour. Because of you, I'm seriously thinking about leaving the forum until you are gone.

LOL, didn't know you were 5.

Good riddance, crybaby :D

Davnes007 said:

twooffour said:

Always remember, you have to be making sense on the... internet...

That's a pretty high ideal.

 

 

...Especially considering you haven't met that 'ideal' yourself.

It's pretty much a requirement if you want to argue about a particular subject without being totally lame, be it some external topic, or calling someone else an idiot. ESPECIALLY if you're gonna call someone else an idiot.

Things must, must, always be backed up :D

I may be wrong on occasion (like once very recently), but I always make the effort to substantiate my claims and insults, which I can't claim of some others here.
Because just saying "no, you're dumb" doesn't make it so, it makes you look like a doofus - and apparently some people on this board don't really grasp that yet.


"Making sense" is determined by the arguments. No arguments, no sense :D

TV's Frink said:

Well, 2/4 has turned yet another thread to shit.

Oh wait, it's everyone else that's the problem.

I'm wondering... have you really forgot that you've started this thread with a flamebait towards me, or are you really this stupid?

Warbler said:

CP3S said:

I've read (an English interpretation) of the Koran, lived in an Islamic country, visited other Islamic countries, and opted to write a series of very long research papers on the subject of Islam when I was in university. None of these experiences has ever led me to change my opinions on the religion. It is very backwards and responsible for many of the problems we see in the middle-east. I guess it is nice to hold hands and get all lovey dovey about all religions being good and equal, but that is a bit like putting blinders on and looking the other way. Some things simply shouldn't be ignored, but for the last several years there seems to have been a desperate desire to ignore this one.

just what things have we ignored?  

Many people tend to ignore, or turn a blind eye, to the stupidities, bigotries and immoral views inherent to Islam, and represented by many Muslims (Islamists in particular).
Or generally have a soft spot of "respect" towards anything religious.

If you don't do that, bloody well for you.

may I remind you that not all Muslims approve of the likes of Bin Laden?   Not all Muslims are terrorists.

How bout you take a tardis, go back to the 70's and tell Muhammad Ali to his face, that his religion is ridiculous and stupid.

As I don't really rank the truth about Muhammad Ali's opinions on anything, very highly on my priority list, here's something he said according to Wikipedia:


"Indeed, Ali's religious beliefs at the time included the notion that the white man was "the devil" and that white people were not "righteous"."

... What a bunch of SCHLOCK.

It sucked.




:)

canofhumdingers said:

Ultimately I guess I have to say "to each his own". It's difficult to discuss on a msg board specifics about why the prequel sword fights look so much faker than the OT sword fights, especially to someone who doesn't have experience with real sword weilding martial arts.

Ultimately, despite what most people might think, the OT fighting is actually much more aggresive and threating b/c of the techniquies and posture/stnaces used. A major concept in both Kendo and Fencing is "controlling the center" which, is reall too complicated to explain here. But the essence of it is to keep your sword in lined up with the center of your opponent's body, with the tip pointed directly at their throat. In this way, if they try to move in, they do the work for you by skewering themselves on your sword. Any time you deviate from controlling the center, you open yourself to attack. This is a significant part of the concept of being willing to sacrifice yourself to defeat your opponent in that you MUST give up at least some control of the center in order to strike.

While neither OT or PT fighting is truly realistic, the PT in particular really throws out the idea of maintaining an aggressive, threating posture until you see an opening in which to strike. They are constantly doing things like twirling, spinning, etc. that leaves themselves SUPER wide open for attack. The reason watching it in slow-mo still looks like it "works" is b/c it's all coreographed to MAKE it work....

But, like I said, to each his own. I can willingly suspend my disbelief while watching swordfights in movies & defer to what looks good onscreen, but only to a point. The prequels go far beyond that point for me too many times in their fights. And of course that point is going to different for each person.

And talking about controlling the center, here's a good video of two hachi dan (equivalent of 8th degree black belt, the highest rank in kendo that literally takes over 30 yrs of training to reach) fighting in slowmo. They are each trying to control the center & force the opponent to make an opening until one of them spots an opening and attacks it. If you watch, what creates the opening is the guy on the left dips the tip of his sword & brings it around to the other side of his opponent's sword in an attempt to find an opening (probably to strike the right wrist of the guy on the right). This opens the head of the left guy for attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYttYhzZZX8&feature=related

This is another really neat one that shows some of the deflecting techniques including two very effective uses of the hand guard (you never really "block" in kendo so much as just slightly deflect your opponent's blows off target)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMB_8KyW-5E&feature=relmfu

Many thanks, that was very informative!


A question about the first clip (I obviously can't apply any experience, but it's things I think to "notice"):
The attack by the right guy starts only after the left guy has brought around his tip to the other side, apparently symmetrical to the previous position (and, from the looks of it, not much farther away from the center, either) - so what advantage does the right guy have that he didn't have before?
He reaches back and then strikes directly at the head, and the left guy doesn't react quickly enough. He could've pulled the sword towards his head, into a horizontal defensive position, but he kinda doesn't.
Couldn't the same have happened, if the right guy reached out right away (without waiting for the tip to move)?


Sorry I guess, this has nothing to do with Star Wars anymore, and I don't have a competent eye for this kind of thing - but I'm kinda curious :D

theprequelsrule said:

Bingowings said:

Twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl, twirl.

^ That part was so stupid. The duel had been pretty good (not great) until this point.

LOL YEA

On the one hand, there was some "musical" grace to this bit, which is probably why it was done, and is its sole redeeming quality.

What I probably like most about the prequel fights (and the OT fights to a lesser degree - one of the exceptions being the "shrinking saber" bit from ANH), especially Darth Maul vs. Obi-Kenobi, is their very musical, electrifying rhythm and well-paced "pulse" audible in the sound effects.

Heck, in my fascination for silly musical arrangements, I might write some kind of snare drum transcription of that sequence, LOL.


When they just start twirling their lightsabers after the intense fight, shortly before pushing each other apart, it feels climactic and sort of "liberating".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xP3fI7yn5s#t=175
They sort of speed up, the music does a passing dissonance, and they just start... twirling their lightsabers as if they had built up too much energy and it had to be released, and then... BAM, force match!

It's a bit like this (much better) segment of the Burly Brawl from Reloaded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6jKffsx4l8#t=200
-3:30

Everything speeds up, speeds up, the music gets faster, the spins in the same direction start getting more frequent and then.... ..... BAM!


Trying to come up with a musical example this reminds me of, he's a drum solo by Buddy Rich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otKKwKem570#t=135
Lots of back and forth, building of suspense... and then release at 2:20, with the simple "empty" roll taking over.

There might be others.


So there is (arguably) a fun artistic idea behind it, and it (arguably) comes through a bit, but ultimately, it's stupid as hell :DD

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

can't we just be like mature adults

Buddy, I spend most of my time around kids, getting to carry on conversation with mature adults is something I always really look forward to on evenings and weekends. The way you behave doesn't make me feel like I am among adults, it makes me feel like I am on high school detention duty, because that is the only other place I've come across behavior quite like yours. Even the nastiest of drunks I've encounter are far more pleasant than you.

You seem like a typical angsty, know it all teenager who can't see beyond his own opinions. Probably a college freshman, if I had to guess.

 

twooffour said:

Actually, I take that back, I don't hate yours - your recent posts on this topic were awesome :D

Don't you see how ridiculous that is? Just because you happen to agree with what I am saying, my post is "awesome". If you happened to disagree with it, then you'd be telling me what a dunce I am.

I said it's awesome because it's well articulated, and backed up.
I wouldn't say this about a "yo, you know how tings are in Saudi Aravia, those are all crackpots man", even though I'd agree with its core message.

EDIT:
You know bloody well that I've never called you a dunce simply for "disagreeing", so quit pretending otherwise.

Probably a college freshman, if I had to guess.

Your guess is correct!

Even the nastiest of drunks I've encounter are far more pleasant than you.

Actually, I'm pretty pleasant when I'm drunk. As well as sober.

You seem to be confusing the "yelling, cursing and shaking fists around" kind of "nasty" usually ascribed to drunks, with the "smartass who likes to substantiate why other people are stupid" kind of nasty - and you really shouldn't, because a drunk who's drunk enough to be distinguished as such, certainly wouldn't be able to maintain a coherent train of thought.

who can't see beyond his own opinions.

Don't get me started on "opinions" again.
If someone has a more or less well-substantiated opinion I disagree with, I'm usually pretty civil about it.

Claiming that I haven't read Frink's post, and then later denying you said that, isn't an "opinion", it's dishonesty.
Dissing me in my thread and then claiming I started it, is hypocrisy.
And I have a low tolerance for that.

Buddy, I spend most of my time around kids, getting to carry on conversation with mature adults is something I always really look forward to on evenings and weekends.

Well our "arguments" aren't exactly adult conversations, they're pissing contests about who said what, and who the douche is.

I have no delusions about how childish that is, but that doesn't excuse you for being so sloppy and dishonest about it.

The way you behave doesn't make me feel like I am among adults

Arguing with you makes me feel like I'm talking to a dyslexic.

it makes me feel like I am on high school detention duty, because that is the only other place I've come across behavior quite like yours.

Claiming someone to be a moron without backing it up, not admitting your own mistakes i.e. (I hate to brag about it, but I had no problem with that Lost Fan-Edit thing, did I), are typical tactics that are considered "stupid" and "immature" on internet arguments of ANY kind, and are also frequently found in schoolyard bickerings between 8year olds.


Always remember, you have to be making sense on the internet - but that doesn't mean you can't be childish!

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that.

Want to know something HILARIOUS? I never claimed that you claimed that "ALL" sarcasm "was this."

I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.

You say plenty deserving this characterization.

[blathering]

Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.

Maybe because I "NEVER" said what you pretend I said. "I can't believe this." LOL

And the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbing Along.

Well, for the Aspies who may lurk around here (no offense):

"In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.)"

That bit very strongly insinuates that I'm being hypocritical by being "sarcastic", while "habitually" criticizing this in others.
Well, if you've learned ANYTHING from my response, you now know this is stupid.


If something is stupid, it doesn't matter whether you outright claim it, claim it only to 90%, or insinuate it, "wink wink nudge nudge", it's still stupid.

Sarcasm has NOTHING to do with it. It's ALL about the substance of the content. Sarcasm is a mere expression tool.

It strongly insinuates that you wrongly deride people's sarcasm when that sarcasm is justified. What I "learned" from your post is that you can offer reasoning to support the use of sarcasm. What you miss is that the same reasoning supports sarcasm used by many of us that you've derided in the past. You fail to recognize that.

I would have been easier if you just admit you misread my post than trying to find a reason to call what I wrote stupid. But you're missing the point that the sarcasm you've dismissed is justified for the reasons you now offer.

Your post says nothing about how justified someone's sarcasum is.

But you know what, granted.
I usually have the "habit" of expaining in (painful, to everyone here) detail why I claim someone's sarcasm to be invalid, or compensatory, or defensive.

But who knows what evils I may have committed in those depths of flames? Those threads were LONG, man!

So please, next time you see me do that, please call me on it! In fact, that's my contribution to this thread - I never want to accuse someone of unjustified sarcsam if it's actually justified (even if I've never done this before)!
But don't expect me to accept it without a fight, should a reason present itself :D

Pat Condell is the Satan.

So... why get offended then.

(About the media remark: a lot of the stuff about Islam, you can hear from themselves, you know.)

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

And on top of that, they're all based on something that isn't true.

Don't be a hypocrite.  Prove it or shut the hell up.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Religious claims require evidence to be valid, not "proofs of the opposite" to be invalid.

Again, that's rational discourse / skepticism 101 - you REALLY shouldn't be yawning at certain "lectures".

Twobyfour, in a topic where you and I essentially agree, I can't help but really wish we weren't on the same side because you consistently come off sounding like a complete bafoon.

 

All due respect for your experiences and research papers, that's far more expertise than I can claim at this time - but if I have to break down burden of proof to somebody who apparently has no clue (while acting aggressively abot it), then I'm bloody well gonna come off as condescending and arrogant even if you SUE me.

Now that aside, can't we just be like mature adults, and keep agreeing on what we agree on, while still hating each others' guts? ;)
Actually, I take that back, I don't hate yours - your recent posts on this topic were awesome :D

Mrebo said:

twooffour said:

I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that.

Want to know something HILARIOUS? I never claimed that you claimed that "ALL" sarcasm "was this."

I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.

You say plenty deserving this characterization.

[blathering]

Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.

Maybe because I "NEVER" said what you pretend I said. "I can't believe this." LOL

And the Red, Red Robin Comes Bob, Bob, Bobbing Along.

Well, for the Aspies who may lurk around here (no offense):

"In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.)"

That bit very strongly insinuates that I'm being hypocritical by being "sarcastic", while "habitually" criticizing this in others.
Well, if you've learned ANYTHING from my response, you now know this is stupid.


If something is stupid, it doesn't matter whether you outright claim it, claim it only to 90%, or insinuate it, "wink wink nudge nudge", it's still stupid.

Sarcasm has NOTHING to do with it. It's ALL about the substance of the content. Sarcasm is a mere expression tool.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

And on top of that, they're all based on something that isn't true.

Don't be a hypocrite.  Prove it or shut the hell up.

The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Religious claims require evidence to be valid, not "proofs of the opposite" to be invalid.

Again, that's rational discourse / skepticism 101 - you REALLY shouldn't be yawning at certain "lectures".

TV's Frink said:

More lectures.  Yawn.

Maybe if you didn't yawn, but listened, you would actually learn something. It's your choice, though.

TV's Frink said:

I'm not religious, I don't read the bible, and even I was offended by his post.

Oh no, now the politically correct "I'm an atheist, but" guy is gonna play the "offense" card.
Religions should be respected!

Hey, you know, no one claims that everything in the Quran, or the Bible, is stupid (or immoral) - and certainly no one claims all Muslims or Christians to be stupid. No one claims all sophisticated constructs and works written on these religions, to be stupid (although many of them are, once you analyze them).

But I still think it's perfectly justified to call Islam or Christianity stupid, wicked or immoral, based on the sheer amount of stupid, wicked and immoral things they contain both in their scriptures, and representatives.


Christianity is now mostly resigned to mere stupidity and bigotry, while Islam CAN still go the whole way of being dangerous and totalitarian.

And on top of that, they're all based on something that isn't true.



So I'm sorry if you get "offended" at what is cold common knowledge to most people.
For what it matters, Pat Condell only has a beef with the "leaders" and "clerics" of organized religion, the ones who actually make themselves guilty of bullshit like this - and he makes it pretty clear if you listen to more than one of his videos.

TV's Frink said:

It's not private.  I have no interest in your opinion.  Anyone else, I'm listening.

Rational discourse 101: the validity or value of an opinion doesn't depend on who says it.

Not knowing that, ESPECIALLY at your age, is inacceptable - so congratulations on the whole laughinstock making yourself out of.

Mrebo said:

Tell me what you hope to never do again on ot.com.

I'm going to pre-empt myself and try to not talk about religion. In lieu of responding to 2/4's sarcastic post (wait, doesn't 2/4 habitually criticize sarcasm as defensive and non-responsive? ah, oh well.) I'll respond with a cheerful song.

It can be defensive and non-responsive, if it is defensive and non-responsive.

I never claimed ALL sarcasm was this. Please quote me on saying that. I would never claim such insipid BULLSHIT.


Let me break this down for you:
1. Having a point = good.
2. Having no point, but arguing = bad.

1. Expressing your point through sarcasm, or adding sarcasm to your point = good. Poignant.
2. Trying to cover up your lack of point by sarcasm = bad. Over-defensive.

____

1. Having a valid point = good.
2. Having an invalid point = bad.

1. Expressing a valid point through sarcasm = good. Win.
2. Expressing an invalid point through sarcasm (which usually amounts to accidentally making an accurate statement, while meaning the opposite) = bad. Makes you a laughingstock.

Simple enough? Or do you need more Sensible Conversation 101?
All sarcasm is non-responsive... I can't believe this.

Oh, I'm sorry I intruded in your private conversation!

Then look forward to hearing it from someone else.

No, it's a very intelligent, enlightened religion, that's based on truth, revelation and evidence, and does nothing but preach peace, tolerance, freedom of speech and opinion, mutual understanding, a fair moral judgment in the proven afterlife, and empowerment of women all day.

Just like the Bible.

CP3S said:

Can we get a quote on the racism thing? I googled it, and it seems to be the consensus that he is an asshole and a dirty racist, but I can't find out exactly what makes him a racist. It seems it is mostly because the things he has said about Islam, which has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a ridiculously stupid religion.

This.
So much.

Bingowings said:

Facts don't need faith or belief.

Exactly, they need substantiation and evidence. Which you don't provide.

As it's a fact it requires proof not such a blunt tool.

And the only reason you're giving me these plattitudes instead of providing this... "proof"... is because you have none.

Bingowings said:

Not at all.

I often serve my unoriginal stupid FACTS with a side dish of absurd jokes.

Unlike yourself.

Well, if you really believe that Pat Condell (without all the "bum" bullcrap) is a racist, allow me to back to my original challenge that you dodged (with your "bum" "joke") - examples, please.

I'm pretty sure you have none.

Bingowings said:

His big bum definitely is a racist and I am unanimous in this.

I think you're just trying to hide your original stupid claim behind absurd jokes.
I hope I'm wrong.