Tendo City

Pfft. Your brother doesn't have everything. Have you seen Old Boy yet, the best movie of 2004? Have you?? HAVE YOU??!!!!

I've searched for that movie on IMDb, and it turns out it doesn't exist. Huh. You must have actually mean Kill Bill Vol. 2 when you were talking about the best movie of 2004.

Everybody doesn't need to see every movie ever made, OB1... amazing, I know!

Oh God...here we go again.

Can you guys please relocate the imminent movie argument you're about to have to the Bitchathon forum before you ruin a perfectly good, long running thread?

Thank you :topic:

I doubt I watch enough movies to have much of an argument about movies with OB1...

Quote:I've searched for that movie on IMDb, and it turns out it doesn't exist. Huh. You must have actually mean Kill Bill Vol. 2 when you were talking about the best movie of 2004.

LOL, it's under the title Oldboy on imdb. One word. But going to imdb for your movie reviews is like going to gamefaqs for your game reviews. But worse. Use this site to search for reviews.

It's only the movie that won the Grand Prix prize (one of the judges was your beloved Quentin Tarantino who couldn't stop raving about the movie, btw) at the Cannes Film Festival. ;) Tarantino can only hope tp copy this movie in a future film. Tarantino is a talented director, but his work is completely derivative. It's all homages and tributes. That's it. His dialogue? Ripped from his favorite movies. Kill Bill was his ultimate fanboy tribute. Enjoyable film, but could never hope to touch the movies that inspired it, or something as magnificent as Old Boy.

My advice to you is to not find out anything about the movie and just rent the dvd when it eventually gets released in R1. The less you know about the movie the better.

Just watch the trailers:

Original korean one (which is good): http://www.film2.co.kr/realservice/trail...001295.ram

Pretty lame British trailer: http://www.film2.co.kr/realservice/trail...001295.ram

Pretty good French trailer: http://www.cinemovies.fr/fiche_multimedi...Dfilm=4498

Quote:Everybody doesn't need to see every movie ever made, OB1... amazing, I know!

Of course not. But your average American watches waaaay too much crap than they should. I want to try and balance things out as much as I can.

Bah, Tarantino's best effort, Pulp Fiction, was completely organic. Dialogue being ripped off of other movies? No way. Along with being a great director, what makes his movies great are his screenplays. The dialogue in Pulp Fiction is sharp, witty, and definetly original. With his direction and screenplays, he has made a style unto his own, has been a huge influence on other directors and writers, and has had so many others copy his direction and style. What do you have against Tarantino anyways? It's not like he stole a script from a bunch of Asian flicks and Western flicks. He incorporated many elements from those types of films, but what movies don't? I'm not an expert on Asian films by any means, but I'm willing to bet that not all of them are completely groundbreaking, and that some of the best have used ideas from other movies. Godammit, we've had a discussion similar to this before and I still don't get how you (or anybody) thinks that Tarantino's style is anything but original.

OB1 Wrote:Of course not. But your average American watches waaaay too much crap than they should. I want to try and balance things out as much as I can.

The Average American watches too much crap period. Too many movies, too much TV. People should read more. Readers are more intelligent people, and while everyone makes a movie out of a good book in their own mind, the beauty of it is that no one's imagination shows them the same image as anyone else's, requiring the author to be creative in description, and requiring the reader to be creative in comprehension. And unfortunately, for the TV-numbed masses, that's a cognitive function that's too advanced.

Thus, we get Survivor and Aliens vs. Predator.

What... Weltall, are you suggesting that Americans should use their 'brains' for entertainment? But everyone knows that the way it works now is that we get told what to think! Brain not required.

Yes, it is too bad. But people like easy, and it's easier to just stare at a screen than read and interpret a book...

Fittisize Wrote:Godammit, we've had a discussion similar to this before and I still don't get how you (or anybody) thinks that Tarantino's style is anything but original.

Because it's...not.

Quote:Have you seen Old Boy yet, the best movie of 2004?

No, but my brother has it.

Quote:Bah, Tarantino's best effort, Pulp Fiction, was completely organic. Dialogue being ripped off of other movies? No way. Along with being a great director, what makes his movies great are his screenplays. The dialogue in Pulp Fiction is sharp, witty, and definetly original. With his direction and screenplays, he has made a style unto his own, has been a huge influence on other directors and writers, and has had so many others copy his direction and style. What do you have against Tarantino anyways? It's not like he stole a script from a bunch of Asian flicks and Western flicks. He incorporated many elements from those types of films, but what movies don't? I'm not an expert on Asian films by any means, but I'm willing to bet that not all of them are completely groundbreaking, and that some of the best have used ideas from other movies. Godammit, we've had a discussion similar to this before and I still don't get how you (or anybody) thinks that Tarantino's style is anything but original.

Bubba, I like Tarantino's movies a lot, but if you're going to call him original then you really don't know a damn thing about him at all. Even he admits to being derivative. Everything he does is derivative, or as he puts it, an "homage". His talent is ripping off other sources and seemlessly putting them together to make a fine movie. If you would watch the movies that inspire his works, you would notice scenes and dialogue that he took. Remember that dialogue in Pulp Fiction with the needles and everything? Taken straight from an old 70's movie. That rape scene? Taken from Deliverence. Just about every memorable part in all of his movies are "homages" to the stuff that influenced him. To deny that his work is completely derivative is to show utter ignorance towards the director and his work.

Quote:The Average American watches too much crap period. Too many movies, too much TV. People should read more. Readers are more intelligent people, and while everyone makes a movie out of a good book in their own mind, the beauty of it is that no one's imagination shows them the same image as anyone else's, requiring the author to be creative in description, and requiring the reader to be creative in comprehension. And unfortunately, for the TV-numbed masses, that's a cognitive function that's too advanced.

Thus, we get Survivor and Aliens vs. Predator.

There's nothing about tv or movies that make them inherently mind-numbing, it's the quality that matters. People can read just as equally dumb books. And judging by your poor opinion of movies as a whole, you are simply not exposed to good movies that would get your noggin' working just as much as the greatest novel. I suggest you stop watching the crap that Hollywood produces all of the time and start looking for movies from directors like Jean-Luc Godard, Sergei Eisenstein, Ingmar Berman, Akira Kurosawa, Yasujiro Ozu, Francois Truffaut, Bernardo Bertolucci, Fritz Lang, Jean Renoir, and Federico Fellini, for starters. That's the older stuff, but there's nowhere better to start.

Quote:No, but my brother has it.

Well you better ask to borrow it!

Quote:There's nothing about tv or movies that make them inherently mind-numbing,

Yes, there is. The fact that movies just require you to watch while books require more. You need to read and interpret... yes, movies can be deeper, but the fact is that because they are visual they do not require as much thought or interpretation.

Sure, I'm sure I haven't seen many of the films you refer to. That doesn't change that basic fact. (Games, too, by the way, have more potential here (for making people think and use their brains) than film -- they require more than just passive viewing as well.)

I thought 2001 the movie require more thought and was more open to interpretation than the book...

ABF obviously only watches mindless movies and does not understand the medium at all. Because film is a visual medium it opens itself to visual allegory, something that books cannot really do. Movies can contain the same intellectual depth as books as well as the emotional resonance of a painting. No medium is superior to another as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. There have been dozens of books published on the meaning and significance of Citizen Kane alone, and with good reason. To say that film is inherently "dumber" than books because it is a visual medium shows a very limited and ignorant understanding of both mediums. Pictures speak a thousand words, as they say.

I thought you'd say something like that, OB1... that fails to get the point. Yes, movies can make up for their inherent disadvantage, but it IS an inherent disadvantage! The fact that some movies do does not change the fact that it is harder for a movie to do that than it is for a book. As Weltall said, it's about imagination. A book in requires more because you have to imagine what is going on instead of being shown it. It's a simple concept that shouldn't be too hard to understand: You have to think more when you are forced to use your imagination than when you are not.

Imagination, OB1.

Intellectual depth, that's a different question... there movies are much closer. Each has its advantages, but overall I'd say that a book has more potential just by the fact that it can fit in a whole lot more content. Yes, movies can make up for that for sure, but... generalizing, books have the edge.

This is obvious when you look at society. Watching movies or TV is easier than reading, which is why everyone watches stuff but relatively few read much. And even fewer probably frequently watch the kinds of movies you are talking about here. :) The same is true among books of course... I'm sure that most of what people read isn't great literature and detailed works of history or science but 'easier' books. I know that a lot of what I read isn't the most complex stuff ever...

I cannot think of many major instances where the visual medium matches the depth and complexity that a good example of the written medium offers.

For one thing, as we all know, movies and TV are overwhelmingly sold to the lowest common denominator. Many are trite, shallow, and simple, and to make up for that, we get lots of sex, violence and pretty explosions. We watch wrestling, even when we know it's totally scripted. We watch reality TV, even though a child can tell it's totally fake, that the Survivor cast is never in real danger, and that the Bachelorette already knows who the winner is before the first show is taped. We eat up mindless drivel like The Hulk, we give Academy Awards to actors based more on their marketing muscle than their actual talent. Toy commercials like Dragonball and YuGiOh are tremendously popular. Any movie that does even remotely well at the box office is guaranteed a sequel next summer. The movies with real depth, with real substance, are ignored, except for the lucky few that find a niche.

Many people see the same in video games. I prefer not to comment.

Now the written medium is also dominated by star power, and some think it's detrimental. However, most of these stars get where they are by sheer virtue of their talent. Books are never marketed with even a fraction of the strength that TV and movies are. Books don't have creative teams, they don't have 43 million dollar budgets. Usually, a book is written by one person, sometimes a small team of people. To build the setting, the charaters, the atmosphere, they must rely only on description and dialogue. Thus, the reader is challenged to create these in their mind, to put themselves into the book.

Stephen King, in his memoir, gave an example, which I don't remember off-hand but I can give you an idea.

Think of a rabbit in a cage. The rabbit is white and brown, with spots. The cage sits on a table, which is small and rectangular. There is a covering for this table. It's made of red velvet. Everything seems normal, but inspecting the rabbit closely, one notices a tattoo, the number 8.

The essentials are here. We know there's a table, there's a cage, and in that cage is a rabbit. We have some basic detail (the velvet color, the spots on the rabbit). But all this is still simple and basic.

However, as you absorb this, you are adding your own details. Maybe to Grumbler, this table cover has an embroidery. Maybe OB1 sees no embroidery but does see a pattern. Maybe Edenmaster sees a cage made of steel. Maybe ABF sees it with brass coloring. Perhaps Beano sees a small rabbit, young, and more white than brown, while I see an older, larger rabbit, more brown than white. Maybe one of us sees this table in an sterile, laboratory-like environment, while another sees this in a warm room with a fireplace and armchair. Perhaps later on we will find out what kind of room it really is, and maybe it will surprise us completely.

If this were a movie, we would know all of these details within a second. Our imaginations would never be taxed. We're spoonfed the whole thing, and all we are really left to wonder is what the tattoo signifies.

Movies are limited not only by their ability to make you imagine, they are also very limited in description and introspection. Books allow for much more in the way of narration. Also unlike books, movies are limited by length. Rare is the movie that exceeds 140 minutes, so if you want to tell a story, you have to tell it in about two hours, and that prevents you from allowing real depth to permeate, unless your story is fundamentally a short one to begin with (see Phone Booth). Even movies that are adapted from great books, even when the movies themselves are great (Silence of the Lambs, for instance), the movie is always missing details for the sheer sake of necessity, and the source material, to me, is always superior. Books are nearly unlimited in available space, and a truly creative writer can add as much depth and complexity as he has the talent to produce. His book can take a week to read, and no one will complain, because avid readers are more intelligent, and have greater attention spans. Because the average person does not, TV and movies are more popular and make more money.

Now, there are cases when a movie or a video game can nearly match the complexity and depth of a good book, movies like Jacob's Ladder and games like Silent Hill 2. Even still, though, they would both be able to benefit from added description.

This is the exact same argument I've heard a million times before, one that usually comes from people who simply don't watch good movies. I bet both of you consider The Lord of the Rings to be some of the best films ever, right?

Your reasons: reading is harder to do than watching a movie, movie adaptations of books are often poor, and length, are all signs of people who have never seen a good, thought-provoking movie in their entire life. Or, if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it.

First off, the difficulty argument is the sign of a pseudo-intellectual. What you're saying is that since it's harder to process the literal information of a book, that means it's more ”deep”. If you're really at that stage where the complexity of a book comes largely from the processing of its data, then you more than likely fail to understand the meaning of the data itself. The difficulty does not come from understanding meaning and true depth, but from imaging the things that are described in the book. If the depth for you comes from trying to imagine what a room looks like or how a person is taking a sip from his mug, then you my friend might want to take a step back and read something more appropriate for you reading level.

About the length issue. Yes it is true that movies really can't be as long as books unless they stretch on to sequels and the like, but you are mistaken if you think that you need a five-hour long movie to have real depth. I've seen short films that last thirty minutes and contain more depth than all of the Lord of the Rings movies combined. Length means nothing. What matters are your goals and what you do with the time you have. Different lengths serve different purposes, and books inherently need more time than movies do.

A good movie is like a dream. I've had dreams that seem to last only a dozen minutes long, yet it could take me an hour to accurately describe them, to get the entire meaning across to someone else. I've written down dreams that took dozens of pages to write. Dozens of pages for a very short dream. And why is that? Because dreams are usually metaphorical. They use images to symbolize complex feelings and messages, and that is a similar principle upon which a good movie is based upon. Symbolism. There are things you can accomplish with the movie that would be impossible to describe with a book. A picture speaks a thousand words, remember. There is wisdom to that saying. Last Life In The Universe, a recent Thai movie, could not be a book. The movie is under two hours long yet possesses an extraordinary amount of depth. In many ways understanding the movie is like trying to understand a dream. You have the first layer, the literal layer, which is easy to understand. That is the layer everyone understands. Most Hollywood movies only contain that layer. But beyond that layer are the many metaphorical layers which tell a story and give insight to the intelligent viewer that can only be understood by watching the film. Last Life In The Universe is a dream, The Rules of the Game is a dream, M is a dream. It takes great imagination and thinking to really understand these movies-- in fact, more than your average book because of how much more difficult it can be to understand a metaphor than a really complex sentence that literally spells out everything for you. Some people decide to pay attention only to the literal layer of a movie, and turn their brains off as you put it.

You're right about one thing, Ryan, that most movies and tv IS crap, and that is because of how accessible the visual medium is. I'm certain that the ratio of bad to good movies and tv is much more out of balance than it is for books, and that is absolutely because of how easy to watch movies are. But that does not mean that the medium is inherently shallow, as many examples of incredible depth can be found if you just care enough to look. Just because most games made today are crap does not mean that the medium is inherently crappy. Even if there were just two good games made for every thousand, that fact would still remain. The same goes for movies, though with movies there is plenty good to be found. You're just going to have to look harder than you normally do. It looks like your argument is based upon the fact that most of the movies you see are crap, so what you need to do is stop watching crappy movies. That's what I did. Anybody can do that if they really care enough. If you want some suggestions just let me know.

OB1 Wrote:This is the exact same argument I've heard a million times before, one that usually comes from people who simply don't watch good movies. I bet both of you consider The Lord of the Rings to be some of the best films ever, right?

No. In fact, I have never seen any of the LOTR movies, nor did I care for the books. I like fantasy, but these merely didn't seem to be my thing. Of course, I will give it another chance one day.

Quote: Your reasons: reading is harder to do than watching a movie, movie adaptations of books are often poor, and length, are all signs of people who have never seen a good, thought-provoking movie in their entire life. Or, if you have, then you have completely failed to understand it.

First off, the difficulty argument is the sign of a pseudo-intellectual. What you're saying is that since it's harder to process the literal information of a book, that means it's more ”deep”. If you're really at that stage where the complexity of a book comes largely from the processing of its data, then you more than likely fail to understand the meaning of the data itself. The difficulty does not come from understanding meaning and true depth, but from imaging the things that are described in the book. If the depth for you comes from trying to imagine what a room looks like or how a person is taking a sip from his mug, then you my friend might want to take a step back and read something more appropriate for you reading level.

I'm not saying it's harder to enjoy a book. I'm saying it requires more imagination, more comprehension from the person. It requires more effort on the part of the recipienct because you don't see it, you don't hear it. You have to read it, and you have to allow your mind to create it all. A lot of people aren't willing to exercise their minds and imaginations like that.

Quote: About the length issue. Yes it is true that movies really can't be as long as books unless they stretch on to sequels and the like, but you are mistaken if you think that you need a five-hour long movie to have real depth. I've seen short films that last thirty minutes and contain more depth than all of the Lord of the Rings movies combined. Length means nothing. What matters are your goals and what you do with the time you have. Different lengths serve different purposes, and books inherently need more time than movies do.

But many movies, I think, would benefit from having more time to allow for explanation, or fleshing out scenes better, or for better pacing. When a book suffers from a lack of any of these, it is only the fault of the author.

Quote:A good movie is like a dream. I've had dreams that seem to last only a dozen minutes long, yet it could take me an hour to accurately describe them, to get the entire meaning across to someone else. I've written down dreams that took dozens of pages to write. Dozens of pages for a very short dream. And why is that? Because dreams are usually metaphorical. They use images to symbolize complex feelings and messages, and that is a similar principle upon which a good movie is based upon. Symbolism. There are things you can accomplish with the movie that would be impossible to describe with a book. A picture speaks a thousand words, remember. There is wisdom to that saying. Last Life In The Universe, a recent Thai movie, could not be a book. The movie is under two hours long yet possesses an extraordinary amount of depth. In many ways understanding the movie is like trying to understand a dream. You have the first layer, the literal layer, which is easy to understand. That is the layer everyone understands. Most Hollywood movies only contain that layer. But beyond that layer are the many metaphorical layers which tell a story and give insight to the intelligent viewer that can only be understood by watching the film. Last Life In The Universe is a dream, The Rules of the Game is a dream, M is a dream. It takes great imagination and thinking to really understand these movies-- in fact, more than your average book because of how much more difficult it can be to understand a metaphor than a really complex sentence that literally spells out everything for you. Some people decide to pay attention only to the literal layer of a movie, and turn their brains off as you put it.

I disagree, but I think we've both seen examples of this that the other has not. Don't think for a minute that all symbolism is visual, though. One reason I love Stephen King so much is that he can create a totally compelling dream sequence, and better still, he can create a character better than practically anyone I've ever read, seen, heard, what have you. I simply do not think such characterization is possible

Quote:You're right about one thing, Ryan, that most movies and tv IS crap, and that is because of how accessible the visual medium is. I'm certain that the ratio of bad to good movies and tv is much more out of balance than it is for books, and that is absolutely because of how easy to watch movies are. But that does not mean that the medium is inherently shallow, as many examples of incredible depth can be found if you just care enough to look. Just because most games made today are crap does not mean that the medium is inherently crappy. Even if there were just two good games made for every thousand, that fact would still remain. The same goes for movies, though with movies there is plenty good to be found. You're just going to have to look harder than you normally do. It looks like your argument is based upon the fact that most of the movies you see are crap, so what you need to do is stop watching crappy movies. That's what I did. Anybody can do that if they really care enough. If you want some suggestions just let me know.

I'm not saying the visual medium is crappy. I think a lot of it is, but there are a handful of movies I absolutely love. Of course, I explained much of what I was going to say here in the IM. :D

Quote:No. In fact, I have never seen any of the LOTR movies, nor did I care for the books. I like fantasy, but these merely didn't seem to be my thing. Of course, I will give it another chance one day.

That was more directed to ABF.

Quote:I'm not saying it's harder to enjoy a book. I'm saying it requires more imagination, more comprehension from the person. It requires more effort on the part of the recipienct because you don't see it, you don't hear it. You have to read it, and you have to allow your mind to create it all. A lot of people aren't willing to exercise their minds and imaginations like that.

Again, visual metaphors can be very difficult to comprehend, and require a great imagination. I could just as easily argue that books require less imagination than some movies because with a book you have everything described to you which leaves very little to the imagination (unless you like to imagine extra stuff, or the book is not descriptive enough), but then I'd be ignoring some facts just like you are. My point? Neither medium inherently requires more or less imagination on part of the viewer. At least no way that can be accurately quantified.

Quote:But many movies, I think, would benefit from having more time to allow for explanation, or fleshing out scenes better, or for better pacing. When a book suffers from a lack of any of these, it is only the fault of the author.

Many movies, yes. And I'm not quite sure what your other point is.

Quote:I disagree, but I think we've both seen examples of this that the other has not.

You are partially correct. :) I don't consider one medium to be superior to the other while you do.

Quote:Don't think for a minute that all symbolism is visual, though.

I don't believe I ever said anything about visual symbolism being the only kind. Don't be an ABF, Ryan. :p

Quote:One reason I love Stephen King so much is that he can create a totally compelling dream sequence, and better still, he can create a character better than practically anyone I've ever read, seen, heard, what have you. I simply do not think such characterization is possible

I too have read plenty of well-written dream sequences in novels, but again I am not talking about one being superior to another. The different mediums can do things that the other cannot, some aspects probably being better than others. Each one is unique and can offer the same idea in a very different yet equal way. For an example of that read the book "The Woman in the Dunes" and then watch the movie of the same name.

Quote:I'm not saying the visual medium is crappy. I think a lot of it is, but there are a handful of movies I absolutely love. Of course, I explained much of what I was going to say here in the IM.

Yes.

Quote:That was more directed to ABF.

LOTR is pretty good, but the books... I've actually never read LOTR myself, only had it read to me when I was younger... but comparing fantasy and scifi novels, which I read a lot of, to fantasy/scifi TV and movies... books win by so much that it isn't even funny... sure, some are pretty good and sometimes the movies surpass books. But on the whole...books win. By a significant margin. Fantasy/scifi TV is entertaining, but it just does not seem to reach the level that good fantasy and scifi novels can. Which isn't surprising, given how it's harder for a TV show or movie to reach that level than it is for a novel, as I said before...

Anyway, LOTR is great, but certainly not as good as Star Wars. :) And, as I think we both agree, somewhat overrated by its extreme popularity just like Star Wars is under-rated (though the LOTR trilogy is definitely really good).

Quote:You are partially correct. I don't consider one medium to be superior to the other while you do.

If that is so then why do you come off sounding like you prefer the visual medium? And not just here, everywhere else as well. You say that, but your writings suggest differently, I'd say...

Quote:Again, visual metaphors can be very difficult to comprehend, and require a great imagination. I could just as easily argue that books require less imagination than some movies because with a book you have everything described to you which leaves very little to the imagination (unless you like to imagine extra stuff, or the book is not descriptive enough), but then I'd be ignoring some facts just like you are. My point? Neither medium inherently requires more or less imagination on part of the viewer. At least no way that can be accurately quantified.

But that argument makes no sense... things are described to you so it requires less imagination? Huh? That completely defies logic... no matter how well something is described in words it is never like a picture. And in words it's not just carefully constructed things (like visual metaphors) that require an imagination, it's pretty much everything... it does not require as much artistic attention and the result is at least as good and often greater. Anyway, the point is that I think that that potential argument of yours has no merit.

Quote:I don't believe I ever said anything about visual symbolism being the only kind. Don't be an ABF, Ryan.

You haven't said much good about written works on this subject and haven't said much bad about visual so could anyone be blamed for thinking that?


Anyway, the greater point here isn't about arguing whether books or more intelligent movies are better but to state that most people don't want to bother with either one and would rather indulge in less intelligent forms of entertainment like most movies and television shows... even if movies can come close to or perhaps equal the height books can reach on requiring imagination and being intelligent, most of the time they don't, and it's a whole lot easier to do that in film than in books and it's a whole lot easier to consume the result as well. Even the simplest book requires some amount of concentration and thought, while I don't think I would say the same about TV shows.

Quote:If that is so then why do you come off sounding like you prefer the visual medium? And not just here, everywhere else as well. You say that, but your writings suggest differently, I'd say...

No, it's just that you like to lump things into certain bizarro-ABF categories in that twisted mind of yours to make arguments easier for you to create.

Quote:But that argument makes no sense... things are described to you so it requires less imagination? Huh? That completely defies logic... no matter how well something is described in words it is never like a picture. And in words it's not just carefully constructed things (like visual metaphors) that require an imagination, it's pretty much everything... it does not require as much artistic attention and the result is at least as good and often greater. Anyway, the point is that I think that that potential argument of yours has no merit.

It has as much merit as Ryan and yours. Like both of you were doing, I was removing some very important aspects of the the topic at hand in order to give my (hypothetical) argument more merit. Ryan's point was that books inherently require more imagination than movies do because in a movie when you see a car that's what everyone else sees, while in a book a car is going to be described in detail for you to imagine in your head. What I was doing was taking this very simple example that is isolated from the entire point of my argument and doing the same thing that Ryan did. The point is not what the car looks like--the point is what exists beyond the car and what the car represents and what purpose it serves in the story. So the imagining comes not from picturing the car that has just been described to you, but seeing beyond that to the purpose of the car's existence. So basically the only thing books inherently require more imagination than movies do is in forcing the reader to use a little bit of imagination (if the books is descriptive enough) to picture that car, something that is so insiginificant compared to actually understanding what the car means. Compared to how much thought and imagination goes into understand what the car means... simply picturing is a non-existent point. And since that true imagining is unquantifiable, there is no inherent advantage one way or the other. If you really struggle to use that "artistic attention" span of yours to picture that car then you're missing the entire point.

Quote:You haven't said much good about written works on this subject and haven't said much bad about visual so could anyone be blamed for thinking that?

Not only does that sentence have nothing to do with what Ryan and I were talking about, but you just had to say something so incredible ignorant that no words can accurarely describe what I'm thinking in reply to that sentence right now. Do you think of everything in the most juvenile of terms, ignoring obvious meaning and trying to somehow balance what you think is some sort of black and white contest? I don't even know how to begin to reply to something so weird that has zero bearing on what we were discussing. It's like two people talking about the qualities of celluloid versus digital and then some weirdo coming in and saying "oh so you think that celluloid is easier to use for brushing your teeth???!!".

Quote:Anyway, the greater point here isn't about arguing whether books or more intelligent movies are better but to state that most people don't want to bother with either one and would rather indulge in less intelligent forms of entertainment like most movies and television shows... even if movies can come close to or perhaps equal the height books can reach on requiring imagination and being intelligent, most of the time they don't, and it's a whole lot easier to do that in film than in books and it's a whole lot easier to consume the result as well. Even the simplest book requires some amount of concentration and thought, while I don't think I would say the same about TV shows.

You know, it's bad enough that this entire "debate" so laughably wrong and stupid that debating over whether a saxophone is better than a paintbrush would seem like a more reasonable thing to argue about, but your (ABF's) points are so devoid of any actual insight or thought that I'm thinking that it would be utterly pointless to continue any further with this. If there's one thing I've learned from you, my dear Brian, it is that trying to educate you about anything is the most fruitless endeavor any man could ever pursue.

There are plenty of movies out there that require you to think in order to understand them. For example I watched Donnie Darko last night and I still don't really understand it...

Quote:You know, it's bad enough that this entire "debate" so laughably wrong and stupid that debating over whether a saxophone is better than a paintbrush would seem like a more reasonable thing to argue about, but your (ABF's) points are so devoid of any actual insight or thought that I'm thinking that it would be utterly pointless to continue any further with this. If there's one thing I've learned from you, my dear Brian, it is that trying to educate you about anything is the most fruitless endeavor any man could ever pursue.

What in the world are you talking about? You have said things that agree exactly with most of what I said there!

Just more proof, I guess, that you are unable to respond to statements that aren't really argumentative so you have to make it into an argument anyway... sad...

Or because I said that are you now going to make a 180 degree flip in your position, just because I said that, and argue that most TV on the air these days is intelligent?

Quote:What in the world are you talking about? You have said things that agree exactly with most of what I said there!

Your responses to most of my points made no sense whatsoever, like as if you were ignoring most of what I said in order to help your argument in some bizarro ABF manner.

Quote:Or because I said that are you now going to make a 180 degree flip in your position, just because I said that, and argue that most TV on the air these days is intelligent?

Please quote me where I said anything but that most tvs and movies produced today are crap. I'm the most vocal person here about the terrible quality of movies and tv made in this country. And the fact that you're making that point shows that you have absolutely no clue as to what I am talking about.

Quote:Please quote me where I said anything but that most tvs and movies produced today are crap. I'm the most vocal person here about the terrible quality of movies and tv made in this country. And the fact that you're making that point shows that you have absolutely no clue as to what I am talking about.

So of course when I say the same thing you go off on another rant that I'm stupid? Uhh... yeah, that makes a LOT of sense...

Quote:No, it's just that you like to lump things into certain bizarro-ABF categories in that twisted mind of yours to make arguments easier for you to create.

You do that all the time though... how you don't read what other people said closely enough and thus misstate and miscategorize what they mean... and is is wrong to think something when you so strongly defend visual and say virtually nothing good about written? Weltall assumed the same thing about what you were saying so I really don't think you can blame it all on me this time.

Quote:Not only does that sentence have nothing to do with what Ryan and I were talking about, but you just had to say something so incredible ignorant that no words can accurarely describe what I'm thinking in reply to that sentence right now. Do you think of everything in the most juvenile of terms, ignoring obvious meaning and trying to somehow balance what you think is some sort of black and white contest? I don't even know how to begin to reply to something so weird that has zero bearing on what we were discussing. It's like two people talking about the qualities of celluloid versus digital and then some weirdo coming in and saying "oh so you think that celluloid is easier to use for brushing your teeth???!!".

It's hard to get all the context of your conversation when a lot of it was obviously done on IM and not here on the forum you know... but anyway, it's true. It's not ignorant, but a reflection of how you argue, OB1... you take a position and strongly defend it! That's what you do! And here, since film was "under threat", you defend that at the expense of books. Pretty simple and wholly accurate. Sure, you say that you think they are equal. But your tone... I definitely got the impression that you are just saying that and that you don't really believe it. Why else would you talk almost solely about visual examples (and then throw in the requisite comment that they are equal)?

Quote:It has as much merit as Ryan and yours. Like both of you were doing, I was removing some very important aspects of the the topic at hand in order to give my (hypothetical) argument more merit. Ryan's point was that books inherently require more imagination than movies do because in a movie when you see a car that's what everyone else sees, while in a book a car is going to be described in detail for you to imagine in your head. What I was doing was taking this very simple example that is isolated from the entire point of my argument and doing the same thing that Ryan did. The point is not what the car looks like--the point is what exists beyond the car and what the car represents and what purpose it serves in the story. So the imagining comes not from picturing the car that has just been described to you, but seeing beyond that to the purpose of the car's existence. So basically the only thing books inherently require more imagination than movies do is in forcing the reader to use a little bit of imagination (if the books is descriptive enough) to picture that car, something that is so insiginificant compared to actually understanding what the car means. Compared to how much thought and imagination goes into understand what the car means... simply picturing is a non-existent point. And since that true imagining is unquantifiable, there is no inherent advantage one way or the other. If you really struggle to use that "artistic attention" span of yours to picture that car then you're missing the entire point.

Let me simplify that response: "You are right that books require more imagination in some regards but I think that that is irrelevant." Of course you do, since if you can't be right then the thing you are wrong about has to not matter...

Anyway, I disagree. What the car looks like DOES matter. Those elements are the core of the argument that books require more imagination! No matter how many times you deny it you simply cannot describe something in words the same way you can in an image. And more of what you say I just don't understand. So imagination is only more required in books if the book has a detailed enough descriptive style to give the person a mental image to start with? Absolutely not! The opposite is almost true, actually -- the more detail it provides the less individual imagination is required. That requires more interpretation and deduction (to figure out what the verbal image would look like), but less pure imagination... now, you definitely need some amount of detail to have a place for your imagination to start, the works that require the most imagination are probably ones where there is a 'grey area' where your imagination can work on top of what is described. With movies this just doesn't really happen.

Sure, in movies you can have plots just as deep and complex as you can in books. Not with as much length of course (and how much that matters depends on the writer in the cases of both movies and books) But imagination... it's just not the same. And I don't think it really can be. The very use of images precludes that.

Or rather, to restate my point, while what the car means is also an important question, the imagining of what the car is and what the car looks like is also a very important and very relevant question which you should not degrade as you do.

Quote:You do that all the time though... how you don't read what other people said closely enough and thus misstate and miscategorize what they mean... and is is wrong to think something when you so strongly defend visual and say virtually nothing good about written? Weltall assumed the same thing about what you were saying so I really don't think you can blame it all on me this time.

Quote:It's hard to get all the context of your conversation when a lot of it was obviously done on IM and not here on the forum you know... but anyway, it's true. It's not ignorant, but a reflection of how you argue, OB1... you take a position and strongly defend it! That's what you do! And here, since film was "under threat", you defend that at the expense of books. Pretty simple and wholly accurate. Sure, you say that you think they are equal. But your tone... I definitely got the impression that you are just saying that and that you don't really believe it. Why else would you talk almost solely about visual examples (and then throw in the requisite comment that they are equal)?

Alright look bucko, either you can grow up and try to carry on a mature discussion with me or you can be your usual self and act like an idiot. Choose one.

Quote:Let me simplify that response: "You are right that books require more imagination in some regards but I think that that is irrelevant." Of course you do, since if you can't be right then the thing you are wrong about has to not matter...

Anyway, I disagree. What the car looks like DOES matter. Those elements are the core of the argument that books require more imagination! No matter how many times you deny it you simply cannot describe something in words the same way you can in an image. And more of what you say I just don't understand. So imagination is only more required in books if the book has a detailed enough descriptive style to give the person a mental image to start with? Absolutely not! The opposite is almost true, actually -- the more detail it provides the less individual imagination is required. That requires more interpretation and deduction (to figure out what the verbal image would look like), but less pure imagination... now, you definitely need some amount of detail to have a place for your imagination to start, the works that require the most imagination are probably ones where there is a 'grey area' where your imagination can work on top of what is described. With movies this just doesn't really happen.

Sure, in movies you can have plots just as deep and complex as you can in books. Not with as much length of course (and how much that matters depends on the writer in the cases of both movies and books) But imagination... it's just not the same. And I don't think it really can be. The very use of images precludes that.

Or rather, to restate my point, while what the car means is also an important question, the imagining of what the car is and what the car looks like is also a very important and very relevant question which you should not degrade as you do.

If you truly believe that then you have to be the most shallow and uncreative person I have ever known. You're saying that you have to use great imagination to picture something that is decribed to you in great detail. That does not require any significant amount of imagination! Trying to deduce metaphors, figuring out greater meanings of plot points and really understanding what an author is trying to convey takes a significant amount of imagination. What you're talking about is superficial, on the surface. Any unimaginative person can mentally picture something described to them.

And if that's your argument--that books require more imagination--then books are therefor inferior to both music and fine art. Nothing stirs the imagination more than Bach or Van Gogh. And then to go even further than that, playing with legos is superior to all of those things.

Seriously this is a very idiotic debate, and no intelligent person would for a second actually try to argue that one medium is inherently superior to another in any objective way. This shows utmost ignorance on your part.

You are so incredibly annoying, OB1... why must everything be a violent conflict to you? Why are you physically unable to just discuss things? It makes any talking with you incredibly annoying unless we're in 100% agreement... this discussion is here because Weltall said more people should read, which is true, and that most people prefer mind-not-required media like television, which is also true. Your counter-argument is that movies can be like that too. Sometimes they can, in most respects (the 'imagination' arguement is a totally different issue that I think I've argued to death with you before (though I still don't think you get what I mean)), but that point really doesn't matter here! Not much in the TV/movie media form USES that potential and most consumers don't WANT it to because that actually would require some thought. Books, by virtue of being a more challenging media form to consume (don't even try to deny that, it's obvious), have a smaller base audience which already is predetermined to at least somewhat want more depth so there would probably be a greater proportion of people who want even more complexity than that.

Oh yeah, and many of them are probably people who would also like complex films if they watched them, I'd bet.

Books = Movies

It's all good.

You are probably the most hypocritical person I know, OB1. Pretty much everything you accuse me of are things you are guilty of yourself... you only don't admit it because you refuse to see reality. And the miniscule bits of reality that you admit exist you pretend aren't problems. It's awful and it makes you insufferable to talk to and you seem to be the only person who doesn't know it.

Often, you don't talk about the actual subject. You talk about other, possibly related subjects and then try to twist it so that that is sufficient to prove the other person wrong on all counts. Such tactics only work to convince you that you are right, OB1... not to convince others. You don't win discussions by talking about other things and then insulting the other person until they leave.

So either address THIS or go away. Because this is the point, not an argument about whether books or movies are better (I've said all along that I like both formats and that when they are good film can be as good as books so I don't see where the huge problem is... but that's not the point...)...

Quote:this discussion is here because Weltall said more people should read, which is true, and that most people prefer mind-not-required media like television, which is also true. Your counter-argument is that movies can be like that too. Sometimes they can, in most all respects (the 'imagination' argument is an essentially unrelated issue), but that point really doesn't matter here! Not much in the TV/movie media form USES that potential and most consumers don't WANT it to because that actually would require some thought. Books, by virtue of being a more challenging media form to consume (it is harder to read than it is to watch.), have a smaller base audience which already is predetermined to at least somewhat want more depth so there would probably be a greater proportion of people who want even more complexity than that.

Oh yeah, and many of them are probably people who would also like complex films if they watched them, I'd bet.

What I really don't understand is how you take a statement that says 'people watch too much stupid television shows and don't read enough' and turn it into 'you think that books are better than tv but that's not true and movies are at least as good'... perhaps that's a subtext, but it's not the stated point. Why couldn't you just say 'sure, but they also should be watching intelligent movies because those are just as good as books'? Oh right, I know, you can't handle real discussions that aren't done in the form of a shouting match...

Quote:You are probably the most hypocritical person I know, OB1. Pretty much everything you accuse me of are things you are guilty of yourself... you only don't admit it because you refuse to see reality. And the miniscule bits of reality that you admit exist you pretend aren't problems. It's awful and it makes you insufferable to talk to and you seem to be the only person who doesn't know it.

Often, you don't talk about the actual subject. You talk about other, possibly related subjects and then try to twist it so that that is sufficient to prove the other person wrong on all counts. Such tactics only work to convince you that you are right, OB1... not to convince others. You don't win discussions by talking about other things and then insulting the other person until they leave.

So either address THIS or go away. Because this is the point, not an argument about whether books or movies are better (I've said all along that I like both formats and that when they are good film can be as good as books so I don't see where the huge problem is... but that's not the point...)...

Wow how did I know that you were going to write that exact thing? Hmm... PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS YOUR REBUTTAL. Seriously, I accuse you of something and your only response is "no YOU are the one!11111!!!". I can literally predict all of your responses to every single post that I make. Every single fucking time. It never fails. And that... is the essence of Mr. Brian Black Falcon. That is your pre-programmed response to any sort of accusation, and it's beyond the point where I even care anymore.

Quote:What I really don't understand is how you take a statement that says 'people watch too much stupid television shows and don't read enough' and turn it into 'you think that books are better than tv but that's not true and movies are at least as good'... perhaps that's a subtext, but it's not the stated point. Why couldn't you just say 'sure, but they also should be watching intelligent movies because those are just as good as books'? Oh right, I know, you can't handle real discussions that aren't done in the form of a shouting match...

I've already discussed this with Ryan, who unlike you possesses some intelligence, and we've already resolved this matter. You are the annoying little punk who doesn't really know what the big boys are talking about and is trying to start his own separate argument that has very little to do with what we were actually discussing. I could reply to what you said, but it has little bearing on what we were discussing. Grow up, little man.

Quote:people watch too much stupid television shows and don't read enough

I don't remember that ever being in doubt...

But, just because they're are a lot of dumb shows on tv it doesn't mean that ALL tv shows or movies don't challenge you to think.

Right, we weren't even talking about that.

If ABF would play good games like RE4, we wouldn't have problems like this...

I don't think all of the RE4's in the world could solve the problem that is ABF.

Wel...it probably wouldn't hurt.

Possibly...

Awww, leave him alone. I need to kick his ass in fantasy baseball again this year so I don't want him to disappear for a while.

Quote:Wow how did I know that you were going to write that exact thing? Hmm... PERHAPS IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S ALWAYS YOUR REBUTTAL. Seriously, I accuse you of something and your only response is "no YOU are the one!11111!!!". I can literally predict all of your responses to every single post that I make. Every single fucking time. It never fails. And that... is the essence of Mr. Brian Black Falcon. That is your pre-programmed response to any sort of accusation, and it's beyond the point where I even care anymore.

When you don't respond to one word of what I said, what better response is there than repeating what I said before? What else could I possibly say when you do not say one single thing about what I said? It's especially frusterating when it's something that I know, if you would use a brain cell on to think about for a second, you'd have a lot of agreement with...

Quote:I've already discussed this with Ryan, who unlike you possesses some intelligence, and we've already resolved this matter. You are the annoying little punk who doesn't really know what the big boys are talking about and is trying to start his own separate argument that has very little to do with what we were actually discussing. I could reply to what you said, but it has little bearing on what we were discussing. Grow up, little man.

It's amazing that you say that and just shows how clueless you are about how you act. If anyone acts like a child it's you, as I've said many times before. Yeah, I know that you say I say it all the time. Well you know why? Because you are very, very consistent! You are able to see flaws in others that don't exist and utterly unable to see any in yourself, and the result is a constant flow of attacks and insults, often off base, and a complete inability to see anything wrong with anything you say. It's not good.

Oh yeah, and you prove once again that you are unable to discuss things. All I try to do is have a discussion and what do you do? Ignore everything I say and attack, attack, attack for absolutely no good reason and with no logical backing. It makes no sense and maybe someday you'll wake up, look at what I'm actually saying, and realize how wrongly you treat me (and others)... but I'm not holding out hope.

Intentional misrepresentations of the facts followed up with insults is about the worst possible "debating" tactic there is and it's amazing that you not only base your entire online presence on the theory but you then back it up with a massive ego and huge amounts of arrogance that make it sound like insults are appropriate responses to arguments. They aren't. An appropriate response to an argument is a counter-argument. You obviously never took debate, OB1, because you have no concept of how to debate or what makes for a victory or a defeat in discussion... totally ignoring everything the other person has to say while giving a unending string of insults IS NOT RIGHT AND NEVER WILL BE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU PRETEND THAT IT IS!

It's just stunning that you are convinced that you can respond to an argument with an attack that addresses absolutely nothing that was discussed and have anyone with a brain believe that it makes a shred of sense.

Quote:I don't remember that ever being in doubt...

But, just because they're are a lot of dumb shows on tv it doesn't mean that ALL tv shows or movies don't challenge you to think.

Sure, I know, but the ratio of garbage to good shows... it's pretty high...

Quote:Right, we weren't even talking about that.

Actually, OB1, unlike most of what you had to say that was pretty much on topic...

Quote:Awww, leave him alone. I need to kick his ass in fantasy baseball again this year so I don't want him to disappear for a while.

It's just OB1 being a jerk like usual... you get used to it if you're around here much. But when he gets like this I will say that it gets VERY tempting to block his posts so I wouldn't have to deal with the kind of stupidity that he brings with him.

Quote:When you don't respond to one word of what I said, what better response is there than repeating what I said before? What else could I possibly say when you do not say one single thing about what I said? It's especially frusterating when it's something that I know, if you would use a brain cell on to think about for a second, you'd have a lot of agreement with...

Why should I respond to something that was a response to something that I never said? I will not encourage your delusions.

Quote:It's amazing that you say that and just shows how clueless you are about how you act. If anyone acts like a child it's you, as I've said many times before. Yeah, I know that you say I say it all the time. Well you know why? Because you are very, very consistent! You are able to see flaws in others that don't exist and utterly unable to see any in yourself, and the result is a constant flow of attacks and insults, often off base, and a complete inability to see anything wrong with anything you say. It's not good.

Oh yeah, and you prove once again that you are unable to discuss things. All I try to do is have a discussion and what do you do? Ignore everything I say and attack, attack, attack for absolutely no good reason and with no logical backing. It makes no sense and maybe someday you'll wake up, look at what I'm actually saying, and realize how wrongly you treat me (and others)... but I'm not holding out hope.

Intentional misrepresentations of the facts followed up with insults is about the worst possible "debating" tactic there is and it's amazing that you not only base your entire online presence on the theory but you then back it up with a massive ego and huge amounts of arrogance that make it sound like insults are appropriate responses to arguments. They aren't. An appropriate response to an argument is a counter-argument. You obviously never took debate, OB1, because you have no concept of how to debate or what makes for a victory or a defeat in discussion... totally ignoring everything the other person has to say while giving a unending string of insults IS NOT RIGHT AND NEVER WILL BE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU PRETEND THAT IT IS!

It's just stunning that you are convinced that you can respond to an argument with an attack that addresses absolutely nothing that was discussed and have anyone with a brain believe that it makes a shred of sense.

You're doing it again.

There is a reason why I was able to discuss this with Ryan in a civil manner. Why don't you try and figure out why that is!

Quote:Actually, OB1, unlike most of what you had to say that was pretty much on topic...

That doesn't make any sense. Again. I was having a very specific discussion with Ryan, and you went off on a wild tangent. I'm pretty sure that I know what was off-topic since I was the one who started the topic. Idiot.

Quote:It's just OB1 being a jerk like usual... you get used to it if you're around here much. But when he gets like this I will say that it gets VERY tempting to block his posts so I wouldn't have to deal with the kind of stupidity that he brings with him.

I think I'm actually going to start blocking your posts on a week-by-week basis if you keep up with this immature game of yours.

Quote:That doesn't make any sense. Again. I was having a very specific discussion with Ryan, and you went off on a wild tangent. I'm pretty sure that I know what was off-topic since I was the one who started the topic. Idiot.

I responded to what he said even before you did so you can't say that you and him were the only relevant people...

Quote:You're doing it again.

Because you are too.

Quote:There is a reason why I was able to discuss this with Ryan in a civil manner. Why don't you try and figure out why that is

Sure. It's because, unlike with me, you didn't enter your discussion with him with the preconception that everything he was going to say would automatically be wrong and stupid and that you'd ignore it all and insult him instead. Pretty simple.

Quote:Why should I respond to something that was a response to something that I never said? I will not encourage your delusions.

I don't think you disagree with anything in the statement, OB1... you only say that because you have it in your mind that I am always wrong, not because of anything I actually said.

"this discussion is here because Weltall said more people should read, which is true, and that most people prefer mind-not-required media like television, which is also true. Your counter-argument is that movies can be like that too. Sometimes they can, in most all respects (the 'imagination' argument, probably the one exception, is an essentially unrelated issue), but that point really doesn't matter here! Not much in the TV/movie media form USES that potential and most consumers don't WANT it to because that actually would require some thought. Books, by virtue of being a more challenging media form to consume (it is harder to read than it is to watch.), have a smaller base audience which already is predetermined to at least somewhat want more depth so there would probably be a greater proportion of people who want even more complexity than that.

Oh yeah, and many of them are probably people who would also like complex films if they watched them, I'd bet."

Quote:I responded to what he said even before you did so you can't say that you and him were the only relevant people...

Notice that he did not repond to you.

Think about that for a while.

Quote:Because you are too.

"No YOU are!!!11111111"

Quote:Sure. It's because, unlike with me, you didn't enter your discussion with him with the preconception that everything he was going to say would automatically be wrong and stupid and that you'd ignore it all and insult him instead. Pretty simple.

Believe it or not, that's not how I go into discussions with you. You're just always wrong and stupid. Really, every time I'm about to read one of your posts I'm saying to myself "PLEEEAAASE don't let me say something retarded again!".

Quote:I don't think you disagree with anything in the statement, OB1... you only say that because you have it in your mind that I am always wrong, not because of anything I actually said.

You're still not getting the point. What you said is a rebuttal to something you imagined that I said. Why on earth should I respond to that?

Allow me to demonstrate how conversations usually work with you:


Me: I think that french bread is the best kind of bread you can buy in a regular supermarket here in the states.

You: No, I think that fresh tomatoes are very important in a sandwich.

Me: ... What does that have to do with what I just said.

You: You just don't want to respond to that because you know that I'm right!

Me: .... you are an idiot, ABF.


You see, it's not that I disagree with your statement about tomatoes (I love tomatoes), but it only indirectly has anything to do with my statement! I wasn't talking about fucking tomatoes!

Quote:You're still not getting the point. What you said is a rebuttal to something you imagined that I said. Why on earth should I respond to that?

It's not a rebuttal to any specific statement but a comment on the argument as a whole... it doesn't include all the details of course but you never pay attention to those anyway when I do include them so why bother?

Quote:Notice that he did not repond to you.

Think about that for a while.

Because you responded angrily first and I had agreed with him, and when you agree there is less to talk about... especially when there is someone disagreeing. Of course you'll focus on what they say. Though without quotes it makes it harder to figure out exactly what refers to what... you want to make it sound like he didn't respond to me because he thought what I was saying was stupid, but you can see that that's not true if you look at the actual posts.

Quote:It's not a rebuttal to any specific statement but a comment on the argument as a whole... it doesn't include all the details of course but you never pay attention to those anyway when I do include them so why bother?

Read my bread/tomato example again. You make no sense. No one is arguing whatever it is that you're trying to argue.

Quote:Because you responded angrily first and I had agreed with him, and when you agree there is less to talk about... especially when there is someone disagreeing. Of course you'll focus on what they say. Though without quotes it makes it harder to figure out exactly what refers to what... you want to make it sound like he didn't respond to me because he thought what I was saying was stupid, but you can see that that's not true if you look at the actual posts.

Ryan did not respond to your post because you were out of the picture. You were like the little kid from down the street who's always trying to talk with the big kids, more often than not making himself look like a fool.

Quote:Ryan did not respond to your post because you were out of the picture. You were like the little kid from down the street who's always trying to talk with the big kids, more often than not making himself look like a fool.

Before you embarass yourself again with misconceptions and lies go back and actually look at how the thread went...

Quote:Read my bread/tomato example again. You make no sense. No one is arguing whatever it is that you're trying to argue.

Only because you have no interest in ever actually understanding what I say.

Quote:Before you embarass yourself again with misconceptions and lies go back and actually look at how the thread went...

Why oh why are you so dumb?

Quote:Only because you have no interest in ever actually understanding what I say.

*sigh*

See above response.

OB1, all I can do is point out again and again how wrongly you act and hope that some year you realize it. It obviously won't be soon.

The worst part is how you try to pretend that I'm responsible for it becoming uncivil and for introducing "stupidity" to the thread. LOOK at it! Who is first to insult? You, 99% of the time. Who is first to respond with unhelpful posts, you, about the same amount of the time. And yet of course it's my fault. Of course, OB1, of course...

It's so frusterating every time you destroy what could have been a decent conversation... and you do it so often...