Pogo
2041
You’re even more ignorable than Brett is.
JoshV
2043
Alan Moore is probably too left for the qt3 Hivemind.
Scuzz: you seem to have trouble communicating since about every third thread you are in features you saying some variation of this line.
Please define what “strings” you are talking about. Without definition the word can be defined however the reader interprets. Do you see the problem?
My city has several programs for the homeless. They have places available for them to stay and get fed. However one of the problems (according to many who deal with these people) is that they don’t want the limitations. They want the freedom. They prefer being free to live in a cardboard box under a freeway than in a controlled environment featuring warm food and a bed.
Please define “limitations”. What are the “limitations” the homeless people refuse to deal with? Please define “freedom”. What “freedom” do they refuse to give up?
Do you see where the confusion comes from? You are assuming too many facts in evidence, that ALL of us are perfectly aware of what you speak.
If you don’t define your words people will interpret your post as they see your character. As they have been doing. As you are fighting against. Please, in the future, reread your posts to eliminate ambiguous concepts. And, when questioned on these, don’t get all indignant without redefining them. “You know why I’m angry” is a significant other technique, not a forum argument.
Jibble
2045
Glad to get that out of the way.
If you’re upset about being called a sock puppet, I’d suggest taking it up with Andy Bates, since the two of you are either the same person or had some kind of weird mind meld for a few posts there.
If you’re upset about my attitude in pointing out that you could easily Google the answer to your question, I stand firmly beside that. Much though I enjoy making people look stupid when they say stupid things, I’d much prefer that they stop being stupid in the first place.
Stop going for his juggler, Warren!
Glad to see you stand firmly behind being wrong AND being a troll. Good work there I guess.
Jibble
2049
These days people seem to love to use the word “troll” simply to describe anything they find objectionable or insulting towards themselves.
So far as I can tell my great sin here is pointing out that you and Andy sound too much alike, then displaying an insufficient amount of caring for the delicate sensibilities of people who, without bothering to take any efforts to be sure they’re not just spouting bullshit, project their political attitudes onto someone else’s opinion.
If that’s too much for you, I’ll be happy to get you a fainting couch so you don’t keep hitting your head on the floor.
Pogo, so glad to see you policing this thread too. Do you ever post any actual discussion point, or do you just scan the threads to tell people to stop posting?
I made a comment, then Brett asked a question, then I asked a follow-up question. That’s what happens on forum posts. I’m not sure what’s so confusing.
Yes, the threads are full of people asking questions about things where they could easily use Google instead. So? I don’t see the problem with him asking, but I don’t get your response of (paraphrasing), “Hey idiot, here’s the answer to your question! Next time try Google so you don’t look so stupid!” Look stupid for what? Asking a simple question that other people might know the answer to? Again, isn’t that the point of this forum?
This.
And yea, the far right do this weird mind merge thing when it comes to anyone rocking their cosy boat.
So that’s not just me? whew
Pogo
2053
In P&R? Nope. But unlike you and Brett, I don’t pretend that I do, and then cry like a little bitch about “trolls” when my shit gets blown up.
Brett is notorious for calling people trolls. I can’t find it, but someone posted a link to an OO wiki page (if I recall) on him that notes his favorite hobby is calling people trolls on the internet, or something close.
edit: even the crappy forum search returns 44 posts where Brett calls someone a troll.
Jibble
2055
The conversational thread lent itself to seeming like responding to the same person, which was the point I was making.
If the question is “What kind of headphones should I buy?” or “Anyone know of any dating sims with pigeons?” then that’s one thing.
It’s another thing when someone makes a baseless accusation about Alan Moore’s feelings towards Frank Miller, then requests further proof that the accusation is ridiculous. Brett, meanwhile, is a victim of his own decision to try and jump into your leaky boat so he could rationalize your opinion. That question wasn’t asked in a vacuum.
Scuzz
2056
:) I have a position open for a post editor, someone who can check my spelling, correct any errors and verify that the meaning of the post somewhat correlates to the intended meaning of the post.
Position will include no pay and no benefits. Inquire within.
Baseless what? Yes, the part about him retroactively changing his opinion was wrong, and someone quickly pointed that out two posts later (and without calling me an idiot for not knowing that). But I stand by my original point that you can criticize someone’s political opinion without having to say (for example), “I always thought the Sin City stuff was unreconstructed misogyny, 300 appeared to be wildly ahistoric, homophobic and just completely misguided.” That’s the part that seems childish.
As for Brett’s question, he very carefully qualified his question (“Not saying it is incorrect…”), then you called him an idiot for even asking. And you response was another example of Moore criticizing Miller for political reasons, which is why I asked my follow-up question. It just seemed funny to me that I accuse Moore of bashing Miller based on his politics, and you disprove that by posting another example of Moore bashing Miller based on his politics.
Why can’t you do both? 300 is wildly ahistoric, homophobic, and just completely misguided, for example, whether you hate Frank Miller’s politics or not.
“Whether you hate Frank Miller’s politics or not” is the point: If it’s a discussion about Miller’s politics, I don’t see how it adds to the conversation to bash the man’s work. Moore’s comments seemed unrelated to the issue of Miller’s politics. He basically said, “Well, I haven’t liked Miller’s comics for a long time. I think they’re terrible. Oh, and I also disagree with him politically.” Why not just address the political point directly?
Furthermore, I think Moore’s point is that Miller’s world view is what influences both his politics and his work.
