twooffour

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

So I take it the more a quote appears like some expression of fantastical arrogance and megalomania when stripped out of its context, the "funnier" it is. And the better it fits into your silly "list".

The great thing about these quotes is they are actually far more humorous displays of arrogance and megalomania when taken in context. Taking them out of context was simply for the sake of convenience in creating an amusing concise list. Fortunately, Fink figured out a way to provide a concise list of your megalomaniacal goodness that can be browsed at a glance, while also providing links to view the quotes in full context. It is pretty brilliant!

far more humorous displays of arrogance and megalomania when taken in context
It's interesting you said "humorous", because now I'm gonna ask: humorous how? Intentionally or not?
The very last quote (the one where I boldly alter my own quotation and then reply as if Frink had missed it; and he knows that) was just a gag, and so were a few others (the "brain insult" comes to mind).

More than a half isn't meant particularly seriously, either - I may be thinking that I've got the better overview at the moment, but I'm surely playing up the "condescension" bit just because it's fun (and gets people all butthurt, like "you shouldn't be talking like that to other people! see, now I've done this to you, how you feel now? see, shouldn't be talking like this.").

So it sure IS a "humorous" display of arrogance, with the accent on "display".



Other than that, being blunt in some individual situations where you happen to have the high ground (almost always about some trivial issues a highschooler could be talking about), doesn't mean one has this same attitude about everything else.
So a quote that appears so incredibly douchey in isolation, might look completely different in contrast to the garbage it was in response to.

Take the first example, Frink basically refused to read a post based on its main conclusion, and I just said if he can't be bothered, he has nothing to contribute.
That was sure very arrogant. Of me, I mean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o18iMDaxXcA#t=21

No I didn't!

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

Well I'm still not sure where "reasonably backed up opinions" fit in, so there's only so much I can take from that one.

Opinions.  It fits in with the opinions.

Hey, don't mind me asking, I just felt I needed to - because the sole reason you would appear to be lecturing me on "facts vs. opinions" is because I told someone that they were "wrong", and that somehow means I'm confusing the two.

Well, under the definition that an opinion can't be wrong, 'cos it's, like, an opinion, man - a reasonably backed-up opinion would, indeed, fit in with the facts.

If you're confused, you might wanna resolve it by splitting the right half in two categories:
-Subjective opinions, i.e. beginning and ending with mental states. (I.e. I like this song, it's good; it's good.)
-Attempts to make reasonable, accurate conclusions about reality (like suggestions, based on what you want, and how it would be achieved, see example in the picture) or virtual constructs (such as analogies).

I'm sure you can find a picture for that, too.

TV's Frink said:

You are doing it wrong.

No, I'm doing it right.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

RedFive said:

So where does "logic" fit into the left half?

If I say that, in a music-film analogy, re-editing would be equivalent to remixing, and re-recording would be equivalent to remaking, would that be an opinion? Or fact? Would it be a logical fact? Or an opinion backed up by logic?

What about the other way round, remixing a recording is like reshooting a movie, while playing after a transcription of an audio recording, is like fan editing a movie?
Would that be also just an opinion? That can't be wrong? Would it be "disputable"?

It doesn't matter -- you dismiss everything you disagree with because you think your opinions all belong to the left half.

Well I'm still not sure where "reasonably backed up opinions" fit in, so there's only so much I can take from that one.

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?

A lot.

I was playing devil's advocate there, in case it wasn't obvious to anyone bothering to read through a massive wall of text.

It wasn't.  If it were obvious, I wouldn't have to read through a massive wall of text to understand it.

I said obvious to anyone who'd read it all... gee, learn to read!

CP3S said:

NO, WONG.

 

Hehehe.

No, it just wasn't quite funny enough to be worthy of the list of Twofortwo quotes, IMHO.

So I take it the more a quote appears like some expression of fantastical arrogance and megalomania when stripped out of its context, the "funnier" it is. And the better it fits into your silly "list".

I'm a permanent and inherent water holder!!

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

how much creativity is involved in piecing already finished scenes from an already complete movie together?

A lot.

I was playing devil's advocate there, in case it wasn't obvious.

There obviously also is a lot of creativity and work in remaking a movie with altered personalities, some altered supporting characters, different actors, different story details, different perspectives and accents, different pace, editing, angles, tone, setting, or maybe a different moral twist inbetween.

RedFive said:

So where does "logic" fit into the left half?

If I say that, in a music-film analogy, re-editing would be equivalent to remixing, and re-recording would be equivalent to remaking, would that be an opinion? Or fact? Would it be a logical fact? Or an opinion backed up by logic?

What about the other way round, remixing a recording is like reshooting a movie, while playing after a transcription of an audio recording, is like fan editing a movie?
Would that be also just an opinion? That can't be wrong? Would it be "disputable"?

You appear to be the one confusing the analogy and being unable to understand what I've been saying. You are trying mightily to blur the distinction between playing a cover of a song and somehow playing the recording itself, by which you really mean playing a cover

And when you say things like "NO, WRONG." and "no, dismissed" I just wonder who the hell do you think you are.

I know you've convinced yourself. But an idea cannot be absolutely dismissed or declared wrong unless it is a factual issue.

There is no factual issue in contrasting remakes with edits. I'm arguing that they are fundamentally different. You believe that they exist on a scale of creativity.

It's official because you say so?

Why wouldn't it be very easy? Bringing a book to life on the screen is infinitely more creative than bringing a movie to life on the screen again.

If it's just about putting fingerprints on it, it is minimally creative, as I already argued.

You say I said, "all they can do is imprint their own fingers...doing the same with different fingerprints." This is about the 5th time you've made up a quote I didn't say. It is evidence that you do not understand what I'm saying because you feel the need to invent quotes. Those invented quotes do not represent what I've argued.

See what a silly and rude thing it is to respond to an idea in that fashion?

I think the room for creativity is a major factor in whether a project is worthwhile.

And it goes a long way uphill from there.

I suspect you'd be in a distinct minority of people who would find it "cheesy."

Your views on violence against women

I think it best to "agree to disagree"

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

...

NO, WRONG.

...

I dunno, are you intentionally mixing up the analogy, or is your reading comprehension really this bad?

...

Obviously, Jackson's trilogy didn't REALLY live up to the challenge.

...

Well it's official now, so accept it.

...

Yes, and I rebutted that. It's an invalid, and completely arbitrary position that isn't justified by anything whatsoever (it also doesn't hold water).

...

NO. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FINISHED MOVIE. Got it?

...

well, it CAN turn out good. Specific "ideas" how to do it, can obviously just as well be poor.

...

No validity in "remaking a work in its own medium is wrong" at all.

...

All your arguments are pretty arbitrary, and uninteresting both to criticism, and the creative process

What I don't get, I wasn't (correctly) rebutting you with these quotes, so why get so angry?

Oh, and SHIT, how could I have forgotten about The Fly?
The old version... yea.


Then again, it was based on a short story :DD
Just read that up, though.

CP3S said:

Oooh, getting there! I liked the line about getting cocky, but can't really make it work in the list of quotes, unfortunately. Give it a few more tries perhaps?

Maybe because including it would show to what exactly I was reacting this way?

CP3S said:

I dunno. You're the humor expert. You tell me, I'll probably just be wrong anyway.  ;)

Considering that, just one post ago, you still sincerely thought that I had "insulted" you, I'd say it's either "wrong anyway", or a last minute attempt at damage control, after

CP3S said:

Yet more disappointments... :(

 

Hehe, meta meta. :D
Oh wait, you're not capable of intentional irony... :O


Here's the thing, CP, I really hate, hate, breaking down and analyzing my own stupid, lame little gags, that should at best make someone on the far end chuckle, and be forgotten about the next second.

I'd say the fact that you just made me do that more than once, and apparently still can't get over the fact that I "insulted" your brain, isn't particularly a reason for you to get all that cocky ;)

CP3S said:

Hmmm, still nothin'. :(

So I take that's a meta joke, eh?

CP3S said:

Twooffour said:

For the record, I never thought you were under the impression the prequels were released before the OT.

Well you should've been, if reading what I said at face value correctly.

So let me get this straight, first you fail by taking an obvious lame joke at face value, and then you manage to even misread THAT?
I had warned you to just let this day go; this is why.

Why would I have taken the meaning of what you were saying at face value if I thought you were misusing the word predecessor? Predecessors would refer to works that came before, prequels refer to works that were made after but take place before. I really do get it, your joke was intended to imply that the prequels were not really prequels, but were really the first movies made, riffing on stupid fanboys. The reason why I missed the joke is because I sincerely thought you misused predecessor.

And I know you were replying to greenpenguino, but in your reply to him you suggested that someone who didn't get the joke (me) would have to have a very tiny brain. Throwing around unnecessary insults like that isn't really appreciated around here, hence my "what the fuck is your problem?" (which is a question, not an insult).

 

Why would I have taken the meaning of what you were saying at face value if I thought you were misusing the word predecessor?

Because that's what "taking it at face value" means... believing that I hadn't meant "predecessor" as a joke.

JESUS, CP, why are you keep doing this to yourself?!



The reason why I missed the joke is because I sincerely thought you misused predecessor.

So why did you think I misused predecessor, but didn't think I was counting EpIV as one of the "4th parts"? The other examples were all released after the previous ones.

To make it worse, I didn't mention the word "predecessor" until greenpenguino said something along the lines of "how do you... dare...", which I took as him playing along, so I added that the "predecessors" were hardly worse than the "4th part".



And I know you were replying to greenpenguino, but in your reply to him you suggested that someone who didn't get the joke (me) would have to have a very tiny brain.

Not really, he jabbed me by implying that my gag had been so unfunny, you'd need an archaeologist to find the "humor".
I couldn't think of a witty retort, so instead I used a lame one: that you'd need an X-Ray to find his brain.

So ok, you still felt addressed by that. Can't really blame you, I really like using stealth jabs.
But, here's the thing about the brain - YOU DON'T SEE IT BEHIND THE SKULL. An MRI is the only way to see ANY brain, INDEPENDENT OF THE SIZE.

So basically I'm trying to tell him (or you) that your brain is so tiny, you couldn't see it without a scan, but then, OH SNAP.

How you could ever take it as ANYTHING approaching a "serious insult" is truly beyond me, but after being told 5 times now that IT WAS A STUPID JOKE, you still insisting that it was an insult, is just pure trolling.

I'm done with you.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

You obviously don't realize the way you come off in the eyes of your peers.

As a... condescending dumbass?

Oh. Sorry. I stand corrected. I guess you do know.

That would've made more sense, had you said "you apparently mean that ironically", instead of "you seem to take pride in that", because then following it up with "but this is what your peers actually think of you" would've actually made some sense :D

CP3S said:

timdiggerm said: 

and (as you'll see) I don't care.

Probably best not to waste your time summarizing things you don't care about, Tim.

Why would I pretend not to get his joke? His first post mentioned a 4th movie in a series that was "the bomb", his next post just said "others" then listed two other fourth parts. In the context of his first post, I assumed those were also meant to be fourth parts that he thought were good, reenforced by the fact that I like both those films. If I missed any joke there, it was that he intended to call Episode IV a bad movie; silly me. The only thing I had to say about that was that even though it was the fourth film in a series, I didn't think it should be allowed to count as such since it was the first one made. No attack or insult here.

Then he said it was a lot better than the prequels, but he called them "predecessors" which prompted me to mention I felt he was using the word wrong, which caused him to start tossing unnecessary insults. But then things got really amusing, and I think it is safe to say some of us are kind of loving it. Twooffour is very entertaining. I think he has run out of steam for the day, but I expect good things in the future. 

Nah, had an annoying exam in the morning, and just getting started.
It's pretty safe to say, though, that today you haven't had any steam to begin with :D

It's certainly entertaining how you manage to pile up more and more FAILS with each new line, but probably not in an intentional way.

Why would I pretend not to get his joke?
:D ^^


If I missed any joke there, it was that he intended to call Episode IV a bad movie;
No... it was listing it as a 4th part.
The obvious joke lies in: ODD MAN OUT.

In your scenario, I would've listed a bunch of good movies I liked, and then adding another movie which I know EVERYONE HERE FINDS GREAT, yet expecting them to laugh at the obvious irony of calling ANH a bad movie... obvious because it's listed among the other good movies?
Now THAT would be a fucking Aspie.

silly me.
Yes.

The only thing I had to say about that was that even though it was the fourth film in a series, I didn't think it should be allowed to count as such since it was the first one made.






which caused him to start tossing unnecessary insults.

No, I said you needed a humor transplant.

Get a skin, too, as it appears you have none at all.

CP3S said:

For the record, I never thought you were under the impression the prequels were released before the OT. When I suggested you look up "predecessor" it was because I was under the impression you were genuinely trying to use it to refer to the movies that precede Star Wars in the chronology of the series. It would have been a pretty reasonable and honest mistake.

Also, when you say you've established yourself as a "condescending smartass around here", you seem to say it with a matter of pride. You obviously don't realize the way you come off in the eyes of your peers. (This would've been a good moment for that "Sherlock Holmes, is Sherlock" comment).

 

 

And neither did I with my neutral "humor transplant" remark, but instead of just accepting it, you had to insist on how "unfunny" my "joke" was

Actually, I never said anything about your joke not being funny, that was someone else. In retaliation to them you made a comment suggesting that I am really stupid, which is what got my back up.

 

For the record, I never thought you were under the impression the prequels were released before the OT.

Well you should've been, if reading what I said at face value correctly.

So let me get this straight, first you fail by taking an obvious lame joke at face value, and then you manage to even misread THAT?
I had warned you to just let this day go; this is why.


to refer to the movies that precede Star Wars in the chronology of the series
There should be some term for that, I think, but yea, it's neither prequel nor predecessor.


It would have been a pretty reasonable and honest mistake.
And so was your failure to get the joke. So why get butthurt then?




Actually, I never said anything about your joke not being funny, that was someone else.

Ah, my bad.
I've just looked back, and here's the reason why I'd thought it was you:


you made a comment MOTHERFUCKING LAME STUPID JOKE (how more often do you need this spelled out for you??) suggesting that I am really stupid, which is what got my back up.

Can you answer me this, if I was talking to greenpenguino at that moment, then why the fuck did you feel addressed??

As it turns out to be, out of the two of us, you're the one who started insulting (something about me posting lots of dumbshit crap, and having a "fucking problem"), completely seriously.
I was talking to someone else, basically just having silly fun.

So thanks for the correction.




Also, when you say you've established yourself as a "condescending smartass around here", you seem to say it with a matter of pride.

Says who?


You obviously don't realize the way you come off in the eyes of your peers.

As a... condescending smartass?

timdiggerm said:

In case anyone missed it, twotofour suggested Star Wars (EPIVANH) is not very good, and that the prequels are its predecessors. I think it's pretty obvious this was a joke, seeing as he started off by saying Scary Movie 4 was good (Star Trek IV, btw, is good too, IMHO).

C3PS then proceeded to not get the joke.

I said it was "kinda better" than the prequels, while actually, it's MUCH better as a movie (I've argued against "well, EpIII is really pretty decent, and kinda more epic than IV" statements elsewhere, more than once.)

At any rate, I'm just writing this because I've seen Scary Movie 4 yesterday, and was laughing my arse off almost the entire time. (Something I hadn't expected, because somehow I had caught the vibe that it stopped being good after 3.)

So that was completely serious :D

Then everyone acted like internet arguments over whether or not people are good at posting, intelligent, etc actually matter.

CP3S said:

TV's Frink said:

Just now?  Have you never read a typical twooffour post?

"You must be an idiot if you think that..."
"You are so obviously wrong that..."
"It must be hard to be so wrong all the time..."
"Considering how obviously right I am in this instance."
"You're fighting on the wrong side right now"
"Quit this before you make more and more of an embarassment of yourself"
"Quoting douchey remarks of mine is really all you got left"

And on and on and on.

:(  For as many posts as he made over the last hour, not that many exciting new additions. Disappointing. Maybe if we keep working him up we'll get some more good ones.

I give up.

All I can hope is that you're aware of the irony here, because you've proven to be capable of extreme irony blindness in the last couple hours.

doubleofive said:

 

CP3S said:

twooffour said:
and he has an annoying tendency to pass his opinions as established facts all should agree with
No.

Hahaha! He quoted me then provided an example demonstrating just what I was referencing!

That is awesome!

Glad I wasn't alone noticing that. ;-)

 

I wonder if you also noticed something else ;)
Otherwise maybe you shouldn't be this glad.

...

I ...