This must be a clear sign that a lot of the critics loved it as far as musicians having their own biopic is concerned. I'm a dude, and I really don't get the hate for this movie when you guys haven't even seen it. Not sure how imdb has SUCH a low rating. I'm really questioning the commentator's on IMDb's ability to judge a film without any form of bias with or against.
shareThe Movie currently has a 3.0 rating on here, way too high.
shareThe Movie currently has a 3.0 rating on here, way too high.
I was never alive to experience World war II, yet I know it was something horrible. Same goes for this Movie.
shareThere's a pretty big difference between a war that ended over a billion lives and a movie about a band you don't like.
shareOver a billion? That's far more higher than the real number. But Think of it this way, this band ends billions and billions of braincells. That's not just "a band I don't like", it's band that's so terribly worthless that it becomes a danger to the human intelligence.
shareIf you're talking logistics here (which based on the fact you needed to call out the billions of deaths comment), can you please elaborate a bit further on the killing of brain cells, etc. that you are referring to?
sharejilluh exactly !! i hate the worst song ever and this movie is like a commercial to push up the fame of the boy band
shareLook up the word logistics in the dictionary and then try again.
shareWhat's the correlation between the actual loss of human life and people who are only joking about losing brain cells?
shareSay what you want, this band is a scaled down World war.
shareTell that to WWII vets and see how they react.
shareThey'll laugh. Then I'll let them listen to a 1D song, and they'll cry and moan instead.
shareSo did you actually speak to a WWII vet about One Direction? Or are you just trying to defend your terrible logic?
share[deleted]
And you spread your hatred for these artists, hating them not because you know them personally, but simply because you don't like their music. Just like Hitler and his Reich.
shareSo now I'm Hitler, huh? Because I don't like their Music? I'm sorry, mein führer, please don't gas me.
shareYou spread your hatred for individuals you don't know and think they're worse than people who actually took millions of lives. Of course, you conveniently ignored that bit.
I guess you draw the line when someone dares to apply a WWII analogy to you.
Spread my hatred? Bah, all I've done is criticize them. And I haven't once said that they're worse then Hitler and others, I know that they're not even Close to that. I just compared them, symbolically.
Get things straight you inbred woodchuck.
And I haven't once said that they're worse then Hitler and others
this band ends billions and billions of braincells. That's not just "a band I don't like", it's band that's so terribly worthless that it becomes a danger to the human intelligence.
We have Bieber, the führer himself, who succesfully manage to brainwash all those people. We have 1D: NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps. The Directioners: SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word.
Not the human population, the human intelligence. You, if anyone, should be aware of that.
That's not a symbolic comparison, that's you flat-out comparing these people to the Third Reich
There's nothing about your comparison that was symbolic. You flat out compared bands you don't like to the National Socialist German Workers' Party. And you didn't think there was a difference between the human population and human intelligence until now.
shareNothing? Nothing at all? You're not the one judge wether or not a comparision is symbolic or not. I said Bieber symbolically brainwash people, just as Hitler did once(into doing much worse things though). I symbolically compared Directioners to SS, I didn't say they were like them. Just because I didn't say the Word "symbolic" in every sentence, it doesn't mean it isn't.
I've never stated that I Believe these bands are doing things that are worse or even near as bad as what NSDAP did. Why don't you read what I actually say instead making things up, eh?
And you didn't think there was a difference between the human population and human intelligence until now.
it's band that's so terribly worthless that it becomes a danger to the human intelligence.
No, you only said your comparison was "symbolic." Just because you claimed your comparison was symbolic doesn't mean it actually was.
You didn't say Justin Bieber is like Adolf Hitler, you said he is Adolf Hitler.
We have Bieber, the führer himself
We have 1D: NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps.
The Directioners: SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word.
I've never stated that I Believe these bands are doing things that are worse or even near as bad as what NSDAP did. Why don't you read what I actually say instead making things up, eh?
Say what you want, this band is a scaled down World war.
Didn't you see the Word "symbolic" in the beginning of that post? As I just said in the last post, just because I don't put that Word in every sentence, doesn't mean I don't see it as symbolic.
No, you only said your comparison was "symbolic." Just because you claimed your comparison was symbolic doesn't mean it actually was.
A "scaled down World war" sounds almost as bad as a real World War.
So you're trying to say human intelligence has no impact on the human population?
Like I said before, just because you wrote "symbolic" doesn't mean your comparisons actually are symbolic. That doesn't mean they aren't symbolic either, it means your word alone doesn't cut it.
What I did was prove your comparisons were not "symbolic" with direct quotes from yourself (which you conveniently ignored).
We have Bieber, the führer himself
We have 1D: NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps.
The Directioners: SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word.
Almost. Almost. Not the same, but almost.
or even near as bad as what NSDAP did.
But anyway, I didn't said how scaled down. It could aswell have been scaled down 43 billion times.
Then I'll let them listen to a 1D song, and they'll cry and moan instead.
No, I'm trying to say that I have used the Word "intelligence" once, and the Word "population" zero times, yet you accuse me of not making any difference between the two.
Like I said before, just because you wrote "symbolic" doesn't mean your comparisons actually are symbolic]
What I did was prove your comparisons were not "symbolic" with direct quotes from yourself (which you conveniently ignored).
Didn't you see the Word "symbolic" in the beginning of that post? As I just said in the last post, just because I don't put that Word in every sentence, doesn't mean I don't see it as symbolic.
I don't have a terrible logic. I'm not saying that 1D literally is like World war 2, but symbolic. They, along with other over exposed, half-decent main stream artists. We have Bieber, the führer himself, who succesfully manage to brainwash all those people. We have 1D: NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps. The Directioners: SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word.
We have Bieber, symbolically the führer himself, who succesfully manage to brainwash all those people. We have 1D: symbolically NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps. The Directioners: symbolically SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word
Maybe you should re-read your own posts.
Your statement says nothing about it being scaled down by a large amount.Just as it says nothing about it being scaled down by a low amount.
By including "World war" in your description of the band, you're admitting they cause massive damageI haven't admitted anything. I simply took something that's considered bad in general, it could've been anything, but that was the first thing that came to my mind. Then I just used that as a way to state that I don't have to see this Movie to know it's terrible, just as I wont have to experience a World war(or a murder, torture, getting beaten up etc.) to know it's also something terrible. But then you, as the naive dumbass you are, had to comment on war being far more terrible then this band. As if I didn't already knew that. Everybody knows that. I just took something that's considered bad, and compared it to this Movie being considered bad(and yes, I know that WW2 is worse). Would you please like to stop taking Everything literally?
It was just a simple comeback, it isn't mean to be taken literally. Of course I know they won't.
You think WWII veterans who experienced massive amounts of death and destruction firsthand will be brought to tears by music you don't like
Considering what they've already seen and heard, One Direction's music must be pretty bad to cause such a reaction...
I said the problem with your comparison between One Direction and World War II is actual lives were ended in WWII
And you didn't think there was a difference between the human population and human intelligence until now.That's what I responded to from the beginning. Well anyway, I know actual lives were ended i WW2. I know actual lives haven't been ended by 1D. That's why I used your seemingly favorite Word: "symbolically". Symbolically, you could compare a peanut to Roman Polanski.
You responded by saying One Direction is just as bad because of all the brain cells they killOh, but I never did. I said, and I'll qoute once again:
But Think of it this way, this band ends billions and billions of braincells. That's not just "a band I don't like", it's band that's so terribly worthless that it becomes a danger to the human intelligence.Where in that sentence, am I saying that 1D is just as bad, or even near as bad, as WW2? I'm joking about them killing braincells and being a danger to the human intelligence. Never once did I even use the Word "WW2".
Now that you're trying to differentiate the two, you've rendered your initial argument useless.I've differentiated the two since the begining. And what original argument? The one about they killing braincells or being a danger to our intelligence? Oh yes, because that was such a valid argument, wasn't it? Stop taking comebacks literally, seriously. share
When I write the Word "symbolic", I mean that something is symbolic. It doesn't mean something is psudeo-pregnant. It doesn't mean something is yellow-coloured. It doesn't mean something is car-sick. It means something is symbolic. Is it really that hard to get?
Ignored it?! It was the first damn thing I responded to! Want me to personally tell you what it is? Here:
See? See?! And here's the proof:
See that? See the Word "symbolic" in the beginning of the post? 13th Word of the post, you must have seen it. Do I really have to write that damn Word in every single freaking sentence for you to get what I mean? Here:
I should read my own posts? When I wrote "almost", I was just qouting you, since you first stated that I've said these bands are just as terrible as Hitler & C:O, but then change your mind and states that I've called them almost as bad. You didn't get that I was mocking you? I even wrote the Word like this. Maybe you should read what I'm saying more than once, so you get what the hell I'm saying?
Just as it says nothing about it being scaled down by a low amount.
I haven't admitted anything. I simply took something that's considered bad in general, it could've been anything, but that was the first thing that came to my mind. Then I just used that as a way to state that I don't have to see this Movie to know it's terrible, just as I wont have to experience a World war(or a murder, torture, getting beaten up etc.) to know it's also something terrible. But then you, as the naive dumbass you are, had to comment on war being far more terrible then this band. As if I didn't already knew that. Everybody knows that. I just took something that's considered bad, and compared it to this Movie being considered bad(and yes, I know that WW2 is worse). Would you please like to stop taking Everything literally?
It was just a simple comeback, it isn't mean to be taken literally. Of course I know they won't.
Congratulations, you got the Point of my comeback.
No you didn't. You said, and I'll qoute:
There's a pretty big difference between a war that ended over a billion lives and a movie about a band you don't like.
That's what I responded to from the beginning. Well anyway, I know actual lives were ended i WW2. I know actual lives haven't been ended by 1D. That's why I used your seemingly favorite Word: "symbolically". Symbolically, you could compare a peanut to Roman Polanski.
Oh, but I never did. I said, and I'll qoute once again:
Where in that sentence, am I saying that 1D is just as bad, or even near as bad, as WW2? I'm joking about them killing braincells and being a danger to the human intelligence. Never once did I even use the Word "WW2".
I've differentiated the two since the begining. And what original argument? The one about they killing braincells or being a danger to our intelligence? Oh yes, because that was such a valid argument, wasn't it? Stop taking comebacks literally, seriously.
Shut up u *beep* 1D fan! the fact is that 1D music is *beep* It is a fact. It's up to everybody whether to like it or to despise it.
share
And I could say this sentence is in 3D. That doesn't mean it really is. You're just throwing out empty statements without any logic to back you up.
The only thing you're responding to is you threw in "symbolic" and you think that makes your comparison acceptable. It doesn't. You're clearly saying Bieber, One Direction, and One Direction fans are not like Hitler and company, they are the Third Reich
All I see you making direct comparisons and trying to hide behind a term you don't understand. Just like the Nazis were only following orders.
I don't have a terrible logic. I'm not saying that 1D literally is like World war 2, but symbolic. They, along with other over exposed, half-decent main stream artists. We have Bieber, the führer himself, who succesfully manage to brainwash all those people. We have 1D: NSDAP, the loyal servants who helps. The Directioners: SS, the blindly following sheeps, determined on exterminating the "haters" and spreading their führers Word.How would you write this sentence? How would you deliver the same message while being symbolic? Show me, oh genial person, embrace my simple mind.
Then there's us, the victims, who have to put up with all this.
My Point was to compare something symbolically. I made it several Days ago, yet you still haven't figured out what I meant.
Too late, you already made your point. You can't backtrack on what you've already said.
You previously said the bands you dislike haven't done anything "even near as bad as what NSDAP did." By calling One Direction a scaled down World War, you're admitting that's almost as bad as what Nazi Germany caused- in other words, something "even near as bad as what NSDAP did."By Calling 1D a scaled down World war, I'm Calling 1D a scaled down World war. I'm not admitting a damn thing. If, however, I wanted to say that 1D is almost as bad as what Nazi Germany caused, I'd say something in style with: "1D is almost as bad as what WWII caused". Did I say that sentence? Did I? No, I did not. You're really good at assuming stuff.
I guess you never realized why I put those two quotes from you together.I guess you still not realize that when I wrote "almost", I was quoting you, but when I wrote that it isn't even near as bad, it was my actual Words.
It doesn't have to. The term "World War" is associated with catastrophe. When you call something that term, you're automatically implying that thing causes massive damage. Now you're trying to pull the literal card to cover up your lies and horrible logic.Yes, when I'm Calling something that term. The thing is, I didn't. I called it a scaled down World war. "Scaled down", as in "not the same", or "much less". If I had said "slightly scaled down", or "scaled down a Little bit", then it would be pretty bad. But I just wrote "scaled down". And by that, did not include any actual numbers or hints on how scaled down.
I said they're both considered bad in general. And that's the truth, everybody despises the horrors of WWII, and this Movie currently has a 2.9 rating. Therefore, they're both considered bad. My analogy works perfectly fine.
You don't get it. Your analogy doesn't fail because World War II is far worse than this movie. Your analogy fails because war is enjoyed by virtually no one who experiences it. This movie is enjoyed by fans of One Direction.
Your analogy fails because there's no physical harm involved in watching this movie.Haven't stated that either.
Your analogy fails because World War II isn't just far worse, it's nothing like this movie.They share one thing: they're both considered bad in general. Even if WWII is considered worse, they're both considered bad.
And check it out, the guy who claims calling One Direction a scaled down World War is acceptable because he didn't specially say how scaled down it was is telling me to stop taking things literally.Yes he is. He's also telling you to stop assuming stuff that haven't been said.
Yes, you see, that's the Point of a comeback, to be offensive. By the way, who hell says I was offended? I freaking laughed when I read it.
Yeah, it's suddenly a "simple comeback," while you take offense to me comparing you to Hitler
Which is you admitting One Direction is just as bad as a World WarNo, it is me joking about vets Crying while listening to 1D Music.
I don't know what I like better: your inability to spell "quote" (do you really think simply typing "quote" will cause the IMDb markup to appear) or how you've been reduced to misquoting me because you know you're wrong. This was my first reply to you and it's what you've been responding to from the beginning.I don't know what I like better: the fact that you're so desperate to use the phrase "I don't know what I like better" that you have to mock a non-native for mixing up two letters, the fact that you accuse me of believing that Writing "qoute" will cause the IMDb markup to appear while you've seen me being able to use that markup several times without Writing that, or the fact that you, you, of all people, actually accuse someone of misquoting.
But you wanted to defend your logic and prove One Direction is just as bad as World War II. So when I pointed out actual lives were lost in the war, you tried to argue One Direction is equally damaging by pointing out all the "brain cells" they've apparently killed. Not exactly a loss of life, but something that's still pretty bad.I've never tried to prove that 1D is just as bad as WWII. I've tried(and succeeded) to symbolically compare them. That's what I've done. And not once have I stated that 1D is equally damaging. The thing about braincells was a response to "just a band you don't like".
Yes you did. You've either forgot or you're ignoring my first message.No. I said 1D is bad. Not "just as bad as WWII", but bad.
Try the part where you say One Direction is "a danger to the human intelligence." Unless you don't believe intelligence is valuable, they've caused a lot of devastation according to youWhat is it with that part? It's stating they're bad, yes, but not as bad as WWII. And yes, they've caused alot of devastation, just look on what they've done to your intelligence. But it still isn't near what WWII caused.
"Stop taking comebacks literally," says the guy who claims he never used the word "WW2." What you did use is "World war II", which has the exact same meaning as WW2Ok, what really is that first sentence supposed to mean? How is the second part even relevant at all to what you wrote in the beginning? Anyway, I have never claimed to never having used that Word, I claimed to not having used it in one particular post, which is correct, I didn't used that Word in that post. Are you really that stupid that you don't get that? Seriously?
Now we're veering into self-parody territory.That's what happens when you leave a bunch of inaccurate accusations and is stubborn enough to stick to them despite how many times they're proven wrong. share
[deleted]
You know what you're talking about buddy. But it's damn fun to Watch him/her/it come up with stupidity after stupidity.
shareIgnored it?! It was the first damn thing I responded to! Want me to personally tell you what it is? Here:
See? See?! And here's the proof:
See that? See the Word "symbolic" in the beginning of the post? 13th Word of the post, you must have seen it. Do I really have to write that damn Word in every single freaking sentence for you to get what I mean? Here:
But we know this sentence isn't in 3D, it's a fact, everyone knows that. If something is symbolic or not, however, that's a far more debatable subject. You may see it as unsymbolic, but I see it as perfectly symbolic. An since I'm the original writer of the Word, I should propably be more aware of whether or not it was really intended to be symbolic, than some nitpicky stranger who could disagree with anything I'd say for the sake of keeping a dead subject alive.
You IQ-freed, brainless, drooling Sunday-moron, how many times do I have to explain it for your mawky excuse for a brain to get what I'm saying? Ok, either you're joking, or you're so unbelievably dumb that it isn't even funny. Do you not get what the Word "symbolic" means? Ok, I'll try explain as easy as possible: Writing Word "symbolic" in beginning= Something is meant to be symbolic= when you say a name and then Another name after, it's SYMBOLIC= I'm not saying a person is Another person= I'm saying he is symbolically that person= The actual purpose of Writing the Word "symbolic" in the beginning= You're a dumbass. Get it? Get it?! Or do I have to get sock-puppets and try make it even simpler?
Sigh...symbolic comparisons. Symbolic. *beep* I understand the term perfectly, thankyou. Just being curious now but...
How would you write this sentence? How would you deliver the same message while being symbolic? Show me, oh genial person, embrace my simple mind.
My Point was to compare something symbolically. I made it several Days ago, yet you still haven't figured out what I meant.
By Calling 1D a scaled down World war, I'm Calling 1D a scaled down World war. I'm not admitting a damn thing. If, however, I wanted to say that 1D is almost as bad as what Nazi Germany caused, I'd say something in style with: "1D is almost as bad as what WWII caused". Did I say that sentence? Did I? No, I did not. You're really good at assuming stuff.
I guess you still not realize that when I wrote "almost", I was quoting you, but when I wrote that it isn't even near as bad, it was my actual Words.
Yes, when I'm Calling something that term. The thing is, I didn't. I called it a scaled down World war. "Scaled down", as in "not the same", or "much less". If I had said "slightly scaled down", or "scaled down a Little bit", then it would be pretty bad. But I just wrote "scaled down". And by that, did not include any actual numbers or hints on how scaled down.
I said they're both considered bad in general. And that's the truth, everybody despises the horrors of WWII, and this Movie currently has a 2.9 rating. Therefore, they're both considered bad. My analogy works perfectly fine.
Haven't stated that either.
They share one thing: they're both considered bad in general. Even if WWII is considered worse, they're both considered bad.
Yes he is. He's also telling you to stop assuming stuff that haven't been said.
Yes, you see, that's the Point of a comeback, to be offensive. By the way, who hell says I was offended? I freaking laughed when I read it.
No, it is me joking about vets Crying while listening to 1D Music.
I don't know what I like better: the fact that you're so desperate to use the phrase "I don't know what I like better" that you have to mock a non-native for mixing up two letters, the fact that you accuse me of believing that Writing "qoute" will cause the IMDb markup to appear while you've seen me being able to use that markup several times without Writing that, or the fact that you, you, of all people, actually accuse someone of misquoting.
I've never tried to prove that 1D is just as bad as WWII. I've tried(and succeeded) to symbolically compare them. That's what I've done. And not once have I stated that 1D is equally damaging. The thing about braincells was a response to "just a band you don't like".
No. I said 1D is bad. Not "just as bad as WWII", but bad.
What is it with that part? It's stating they're bad, yes, but not as bad as WWII. And yes, they've caused alot of devastation, just look on what they've done to your intelligence. But it still isn't near what WWII caused.
Ok, what really is that first sentence supposed to mean? How is the second part even relevant at all to what you wrote in the beginning? Anyway, I have never claimed to never having used that Word, I claimed to not having used it in one particular post, which is correct, I didn't used that Word in that post. Are you really that stupid that you don't get that? Seriously?
That's what happens when you leave a bunch of inaccurate accusations and is stubborn enough to stick to them despite how many times they're proven wrong.
the fact is that 1D music is *beep* It is a fact.
It's up to everybody whether to like it or to despise it.
You don't appear to be having very much fun.I had a few laughs at your stupidity, yes.
Oh sure, "a far more debatable subject." Of course, you're now exaggerating details to prove to yourself that you're right.
You didn't even get the point of what I wrote. Just because you write something doesn't mean it's true. Your claims are not automatically true. I guess you're trying to propose everyone speaks the truth online. Or at least you always tell the truth.Yes, I did got the Point. It's just, your Point is wrong. And, have you seen? A Word isn't automatically true, just because I use it, huh? Yet you keep pointing out that I, by only using the Word "WWII" in the same sentence as 1D, Is automatically stating 1D have caused alot of destruction? Heh...funny.
But you know what? It doesn't matter if your comparison was symbolic or not. You still compared Justin Bieber to Adolf Hitler, One Direction to the Nazi Party, and One Direction's fans to the SS. Those are highly negative analogies. Regardless of your sputtering and whining of how you meant it "symbolically," you're implying that they are horrible humans who commit great evils.You see, you had spared alot of time if you just had said this from the beginning, in stead of keep nagging about how I said 1D is these people. And yes, they are pretty horrible people(not even near as bad as the people I compared them to. Saw the need to say that, or else you'd be whining in the next post on how I've "admitted" something new). By Writing "symbolically" in the beginning, I made myself clear that I did not see these people as equally or even near as evil, I just wanted to compare something to to Another thing, and that's just what I did. You see that's the beauty of comparing something symbolically, you can exaggerate and leave out any details you want, because you aren't stating they're literally the same. Because literally, even the most hardcore 1D-hater wouldn't Think of it as horrible as WWII.
Repeating a term doesn't make it true or acceptable.And ignoring a term doesn't make it wrong or unacceptable.
I wouldn't even write the sentence because it would come off as offensive to people you don't know, even if you try to argue your comparison was merely "symbolic."It's not my problem if you get offended by anything, I know what I said and I'm very well aware of how offensive I intended it to be.
You never realized how offensive it is compare a band to a world warCompare symbolically, thankyou.
You yourself saying One Direction is a scaled down World War is you admitting you think One Direction is almost as bad as World War II. Calling the band a scaled down World War has the same meaning as what you claim you didn't say. It's just said differently. All you can do now is be a literalist because your neurological developmental disorder won't let you admit you're wrongNo, me myself saying 1D is a scaled down World war, is me saying 1D is a scaled down World war. I'm aware of what my original intention with that sentence was, and I do not suffer from any neurological disorder.
The "almost" was a response to this lie from you: "I've never stated that I Believe these bands are doing things that are worse or even near as bad as what NSDAP did." Doesn't surprise me you'd forget about that, you don't remember your own contradictions.No, the "almost", was from this sentence from you:
A "scaled down World war" sounds almost as bad as a real World War.Which, in turn, was a response to this sentence from me:
Say what you want, this band is a scaled down World war.
Once again, you try being a literalist and hide behind a term you threw into your statements. Doesn't matter, by using the term "world war," you automatically meant the band is highly damaging. No sugar coating from you can change this.So just by using a Word in the same sentence as Another Word, I'm automatically saying one of the Words is something that's highly damaging? Nice reasoning, I salute you.
Wrong, because the horrors of World War II came from people who actually experienced it. Nobody who survived the war enjoyed the experience. The 2.9 rating came from people who didn't see the movie and just hate the bandThere you go, if someone rates this Movie low, he automatically haven't seen it? Or maybe, just throwing this out, maybe people with actual taste in Movies rated it low? Just as people with any morals at all knows WWII was terrible.
The 66% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes proves most people who saw this movie did enjoy itJust as the 49% approval on Metacritic could prove the opposite. The positive ratings came from people who put their expectations below their feet and are just thankful they didn't get a headache.
And you had to assure yourself that your analogy doesn't work because deep down, you know it doesn't.My analogy did work because I didn't threw out everything literally. People who'd say something in style with "1D r nazis, they h8 jus in c-cret", they'd have alot of things to explain and apoligize for. I was merely making a small comparison to make a Point.
"I was never alive to experience World war II, yet I know it was something horrible. Same goes for this Movie." Keyword: same.Well, it's true, I didn't experience WWII, but I know it's terrible. I didn't see this Movie, but I know it's terrible.
To call World War II simply "bad in general" is such a massive understatement, it shows how little empathy you have.Understatement, yes, but it's true. And one could not say everyone would consider WWII something bad, there's neo-nazis and other nutcases. So even if most sane people despise what happened in WWII, there's still some idiots against that. And even if the majority of people aware of this movie dislike it, there's still some idiots against that. I'm not saying these people are neo-nazis, just that the general opinions of two things could be considered comparable, becuase they're both bad. Not at all the same degree of bad, but bad.
World War II is a completely different level of bad than a movie you don't like. The type of bad that results in massive loss of life. There is no real comparison between the two, especially when the critical score proves this movie isn't considered bad by those who actually saw it.See last section. For the critical score, I've already explained that.
So now you're Tarzan? I guess your primitive mind didn't want to deal with the irony of you telling me to stop taking things literally while you take things literally.But there's a difference. You take comebacks and and insults from me literally, while the only things I take literally are my own arguments and what their intentions are. I haven't taken anything from you literally though.
Oh, so you think it's acceptable to offend people. That explains a lot.Here's a perfect example of what I just said. Only by explaining the Point of a comeback, I'm being accused of finding offending things acceptable. Read things twice Before you talk.
Once again, you ignore my Point. Only by telling this joke, I got accused of "admitting" this band is as horrible as WWII. And when I did explain it isn't the case, you quickly change the subject to "it wasn't a good joke". Way to go and save your face.
Which isn't a very good joke considering what WWII vets have experienced.
you copy me (and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery)I copied you for the sake of mocking what you said, as you may have seen right in the second section.
throw in the word "desperate" without any logical foundation and hope for the bestJust as you accused me of believing Writing the Word "quote" would cause the markup to appear, without any real logic other than that I used it as a way to vary my writing twice in one post.
whine about me calling you out for misspelling a word that's right above your postsI said I was non-native, I mixed two letters up without knowing it thanks to language and pronunciation differences. The real problem I had with your post though, was the fact that you saw the need call me out on a misspelling, since that's really the lowest form of mockery. You've written sentences where you've
(while you try to present yourself as intelligent),You did not just said that, did you? I try to present myself as intelligent? I?! And you're the one to speak?! From the very beginning, you've done nothing but throw in as "fancy" and "advanced" Words as possible, for the sake of sounding intelligent. The fact that you try make even the simplest of sentences as long and advanced as possible is a good proof for that. But the fact that you repeatedly use innacurate accusitations, misguided assumptions and take every single comeback literally proves that you're nothing but a monkey who learned how to talk. If you look closely, you could see that all your posts are simple and highly innacurate *beep* with thrown in "advanced" Words to make them sound intelligent.
assume because I asked you a question, I must believe what I saidMonkeys with language abilities tend to do that very often.
and unsuccessfully attempt to turn the tables on me as you ignore the fact that you did misquote me.You misspelled "successfully". But I did not misquote you, I showed the exact quote from you that I had been responding to. And even if I did misquote you, I Think we'd be even, considering the countless time you've misquoted me.
I'm not, I'm trying to make a Point on not having to see this Movie to know it's terrible.
It's still a comparison and you're trying to make One Direction sound like World War II
Besides, you're simultaneously trying to argue One Direction is on the same level of devastation as WWII. "they're both considered bad in general."A shining example of how you take every single comeback and insult literally. I included the devastation part to be able to throw in this insult:
just look on what they've done to your intelligence.But I guess you just read what you want. By the way, I clearly said that the devastation of WWII was worse, so what's up with the "you're simultaneously trying to argue One Direction is on the same level of devastation as WWI" part?
The best part about this statement is the smug "and succeeded" remark you put in. Is that one of your greatest accomplishments?Comming from the very person who've spent hours on arguing with a 15 year old Swede on an IMDb message board.
Then you wouldn't have kept comparing the two.Compared 'em symbolically.
Ah, but you admit they cause a lot of devastation, which puts them near WWII in your mind. You think they're close in overall badness.You've already said this and I've already proven you wrong.
The only thing you proved in this paragraph is you don't understand irony.Sure, let that be your response. I mean, it isn't relevant at all, it's rather simple and you barely seems to know what you're talking about, but it's one of those many moments where you get the chance to use a new phrase and new "fancy" Words.
Says the guy who's trying to back down from his WWII analogy and pulling the literal card to justify what he said. Control your autism alreadyI had the literal thing in my mind already when I wrote the things from the very beginning, if I hadn't used Words such as "symbolically", you'd be leaving even more innacurate accusations than you already are. share
I had a few laughs at your stupidity, yes.
It is a far more debatable subject. It's easy to say when something's in 3D. It is not as easy to know wether or not a comparison was symbolic or not.
Yes, I did got the Point. It's just, your Point is wrong. And, have you seen? A Word isn't automatically true, just because I use it, huh? Yet you keep pointing out that I, by only using the Word "WWII" in the same sentence as 1D, Is automatically stating 1D have caused alot of destruction? Heh...funny.
You see, you had spared alot of time if you just had said this from the beginning, in stead of keep nagging about how I said 1D is these people. And yes, they are pretty horrible people(not even near as bad as the people I compared them to. Saw the need to say that, or else you'd be whining in the next post on how I've "admitted" something new). By Writing "symbolically" in the beginning, I made myself clear that I did not see these people as equally or even near as evil, I just wanted to compare something to to Another thing, and that's just what I did. You see that's the beauty of comparing something symbolically, you can exaggerate and leave out any details you want, because you aren't stating they're literally the same. Because literally, even the most hardcore 1D-hater wouldn't Think of it as horrible as WWII.
And ignoring a term doesn't make it wrong or unacceptable.
It's not my problem if you get offended by anything, I know what I said and I'm very well aware of how offensive I intended it to be.
Compare symbolically, thankyou.
No, me myself saying 1D is a scaled down World war, is me saying 1D is a scaled down World war. I'm aware of what my original intention with that sentence was, and I do not suffer from any neurological disorder.
No, the "almost", was from this sentence from you:
Which, in turn, was a response to this sentence from me:
But you missed by Point, you accuse me of stating it really was "almost as bad", when I was simply qouting you.
So just by using a Word in the same sentence as Another Word, I'm automatically saying one of the Words is something that's highly damaging? Nice reasoning, I salute you.
There you go, if someone rates this Movie low, he automatically haven't seen it? Or maybe, just throwing this out, maybe people with actual taste in Movies rated it low? Just as people with any morals at all knows WWII was terrible.
Just as the 49% approval on Metacritic could prove the opposite. The positive ratings came from people who put their expectations below their feet and are just thankful they didn't get a headache.
My analogy did work because I didn't threw out everything literally. People who'd say something in style with "1D r nazis, they h8 jus in c-cret", they'd have alot of things to explain and apoligize for. I was merely making a small comparison to make a Point.
Well, it's true, I didn't experience WWII, but I know it's terrible. I didn't see this Movie, but I know it's terrible.
Understatement, yes, but it's true. And one could not say everyone would consider WWII something bad, there's neo-nazis and other nutcases. So even if most sane people despise what happened in WWII, there's still some idiots against that. And even if the majority of people aware of this movie dislike it, there's still some idiots against that. I'm not saying these people are neo-nazis, just that the general opinions of two things could be considered comparable, becuase they're both bad. Not at all the same degree of bad, but bad.
See last section. For the critical score, I've already explained that.
But there's a difference. You take comebacks and and insults from me literally, while the only things I take literally are my own arguments and what their intentions are. I haven't taken anything from you literally though.
Here's a perfect example of what I just said. Only by explaining the Point of a comeback, I'm being accused of finding offending things acceptable. Read things twice Before you talk.
Once again, you ignore my Point. Only by telling this joke, I got accused of "admitting" this band is as horrible as WWII. And when I did explain it isn't the case, you quickly change the subject to "it wasn't a good joke". Way to go and save your face.
I copied you for the sake of mocking what you said, as you may have seen right in the second section.
Just as you accused me of believing Writing the Word "quote" would cause the markup to appear, without any real logic other than that I used it as a way to vary my writing twice in one post.
I said I was non-native, I mixed two letters up without knowing it thanks to language and pronunciation differences. The real problem I had with your post though, was the fact that you saw the need call me out on a misspelling, since that's really the lowest form of mockery. You've written sentences where you've
forgotten entire Words, but I haven't seen the need to call you out on that.
You did not just said that, did you? I try to present myself as intelligent? I?! And you're the one to speak?! From the very beginning, you've done nothing but throw in as "fancy" and "advanced" Words as possible, for the sake of sounding intelligent. The fact that you try make even the simplest of sentences as long and advanced as possible is a good proof for that. But the fact that you repeatedly use innacurate accusitations, misguided assumptions and take every single comeback literally proves that you're nothing but a monkey who learned how to talk. If you look closely, you could see that all your posts are simple and highly innacurate *beep* with thrown in "advanced" Words to make them sound intelligent.
Monkeys with language abilities tend to do that very often.
You misspelled "successfully". But I did not misquote you, I showed the exact quote from you that I had been responding to. And even if I did misquote you, I Think we'd be even, considering the countless time you've misquoted me.
I'm not, I'm trying to make a Point on not having to see this Movie to know it's terrible.
A shining example of how you take every single comeback and insult literally. I included the devastation part to be able to throw in this insult:
But I guess you just read what you want. By the way, I clearly said that the devastation of WWII was worse, so what's up with the "you're simultaneously trying to argue One Direction is on the same level of devastation as WWI" part?
Comming from the very person who've spent hours on arguing with a 15 year old Swede on an IMDb message board.
Compared 'em symbolically.
You've already said this and I've already proven you wrong.
Sure, let that be your response. I mean, it isn't relevant at all, it's rather simple and you barely seems to know what you're talking about, but it's one of those many moments where you get the chance to use a new phrase and new "fancy" Words.
I had the literal thing in my mind already when I wrote the things from the very beginning, if I hadn't used Words such as "symbolically", you'd be leaving even more innacurate accusations than you already are.
Too bad those quotes contradict you.You're saying that Three quotes where I'm mocking your intelligence contradicts the quote where I say I've had a few laughs at your stupidity? All right then, I fail to see how you can even know wether or not I actually did laugh while Writing them, and I don't see why these Three quotes only could cut as proof to it, considering all other quotes I've written.
Once again, you try to change the subject because you don't want to admit you're wrong. The simple fact is what you claim isn't automatically true.Have you seen me argue that a Word is automatically true if I write it? No! What I've done is to state over and over that I did meant what I said when I wrote "symbolically". And that is the truth, I really meant it. You, on the other hand, has wasted a bunch of posts arguing that a Word isn't automatically true if I write it or not, to the Point that you're now only arguing on that subject, despite that I haven't said anything different. You've made your Point over and over, and I haven't even disagreed with it. All I've done is to state that I meant what I said. So I fail to see how I'm changing the subject by bringing up the original subject again. And I really fail to see how I'm wrong when I haven't argued for nor against your Point.
Knowing that you can't refute me, you resort to twisting my words to try to get an edge on me. Instead, you continue to reveal how desperate you've become.You know, it almost feels like you practised what to say in front of a mirror, and then forgot that the ramble was supposed to be about somebody else.
Anything written by an individual is not automatically true.Haven't said anything different. All I've said is that I meant what I said.
I'm using you as an example.Which is a bad example considering you can't be sure on wether or not I actually meant it.
That doesn't mean it's false eitherThank you!
my point is your word alone doesn't cut it as proof.Yeah, I know. I got it the first time. But what really cut it as proof, huh? The context. And you can clearly see that my comparison indeed was symbolic. You're welcome to disagree(as if you'd do anything else), but I'm well aware of how symbolic I intended to be. By the way, can you see what you're arguing about? You're arguing that a Word isn't automatically true if I use it, on an IMDb message board, with a stranger you're never going to meet, in a thread that's propably never going to be read by anyone else. My question is: why? Why is it that important to Point out? Why do you make countless of posts where you state the same obvious thing over and over? I got your Point the first time, you could stop now please.
Since you claimed my point is wrong, your logic statesIt's not that your Point is wrong, it's just the general opinion on...well, Everything you say.
The best part of this rambling is you completely missed my point.No I got it. I just don't give a damn about it.
It doesn't matter if your comparison isn't literally, it doesn't matter if you're being "symbolic," it doesn't matter if you don't believe One Direction is as horrible as WWII. Comparing someone to a member of the Third Reich is incredibly negative and gives the implication (keyword: implication) that said individual is a horrible person. For example:If a person on the internet is comparing, well, anything, to WWII, you do realize he aren't too serious, right? Fine, let me ask you a question. Do you see me as a horrible person? Do you Believe that I'm free from morals and have no sympathy for the people who suffered and died in WWII? Do you get the implication that I'm a horrible person because I symbolically compared two things that you find incomparable? Because if you do, I can't see why you'd continue talk to me. If I got that implication from someone, I'd be too disgusted to talk to him again.
Protip: When you respond to a truthful statement with a lie, you should probably stop talking.Then why are you still talking?
So if a WWII vet or Holocaust survivor is offended by your comparisons, is it also not your problem?Well, that's why no one ever compared 1D to WWII in front of any of these people. If someone made a joke about something else, e.g an idiot, they wouldn't be offended. But if someone made fun of idiots in front of you, you'd get offended. It's rather simple.
Fascinating statement. Just brilliant. Heh...meh.
The lady doth protest too much.
What I like about this quote is you claim you don't have a neurological disorder right after you fail to understand what your statement means and only talk about what it says.As if you'd have any better understanding for my own statement means then I myself, the original writer of it.
Which was a response to what I quoted in my previous post. So thanks for proving me right
I'm afraid you're only half right. It was a response to both the sentence you brought up and the quote I brought up. Note that my quote was preceded by two simultaneous quotes from you.
But you did. You were in agreement with me that it was "almost as bad." And with that, you effectively contradicted yourself because you also wrote "I've never stated that I Believe these bands are doing things that are worse or even near as bad as what NSDAP did."Sigh...should I try? Should I even try explain again, despite how many times I've made myself clear, to the level of that you're now sounding that you're joking when you keep talking? I Think I'll give it one last shot. Here goes nothing: When I wrote this sentence: "Almost. Almost. Not the same, but almost." It wasn't my actual opinion. I was quoting your use of the Word in the earlier post, for the sake of mocking you. But since you clearly have no sense for sarcasm, mocking, insulting etc. you immediately believed this quote to be my actual thoughts. This sentence: "or even near as bad as what NSDAP did.", that's my actual thoughts, that's what I Believe. These two quotes doesn't contradict each other at all since one is an imitation on someone else's Words, while the other is an actual opinion. Am I clear enough this time?
Yes, because that term was "World War", and said term is used in reference to high levels of destruction.Oh, really? You don't say?? Obvious sarcasm aside, that's a pretty terrible logic. And WWII isn't a term, it's a historical event. Since both Words are substantives, I can use them in the same sentence without saying that they've caused the same amount of anything. Or else, if I used the Word "pinapples" in the same sentence as the Word "gsbr", I'd be stating that pineapples are retarded.
Odds are he did because people who watch movies for a living thought this was watchable.They're not the only ones with actual knowledge and taste in Movies, they just happen to have their opinions published on a website. Besides, the 49 on Metacritic shows that less than half liked it. Atleast there.
No it doesn't because A.) a 49 on Metacritic indicates "Mixed or average" reviews, not negative reviews and B.) Rotten Tomatoes has more reviews than Metacritic.Yes it does because: A.) A 49 on Metacritic means less than half liked it and B.) The amount of Reviews doesn't matter, if more people on MT gave Reviews, the score could aswell go down.
You going to prove that statement? Doubt it.Since when is it neccessary to prove the obvious?
Also, it's not a good for you to use Metacritic as a citation because One Direction's albums have mostly positive reviews on that site."It's not a good for you"? It's not "a good" for me? Huh?
A comparison is never small when you include big issues like World Wars and Nazis.When the comparison is symbolic it is. You can compare Everything to anything symbolically, that's the Point.
No you don't. You only assume the movie is terrible because you don't like the music. That's a subjective issue. The horribleness of WWII is objective due the massive loss of life.Let's see: An incredibly low IMDb rating(perhaps the lowest of this year), a less than half approval on Metacritic, and every single newspaper I've read have given this Movie either one or two stars, all with the same Reviews: "Just a long Commercial", "Completely plot-and-pointless", "Serves no other purpose than to bring in Money" etc. There are many musicians whose Music I dislike, and whose Movies I don't give a damn about. But this...it just...it've crossed the line.
Putting aside how you completely ignored WWII being on a different level of bad than this movieNo, as you may have noticed, I brought that up in the last sentence of the message: "Not at all the same degree of bad, but bad." See? You're really good at making accusations. But you suck on making credible ones.
the critical consensus destroys your analogy. According to Rotten Tomatoes, the majority of people who saw this movie liked it. According to Metacritic, the opinion is split.So that's the only two things you care about on a Movie? What RT score and what MT score it got? Alright then.
You didn't even provide a good example of someone who considers WWII good, I don't think Neo-Nazis are happy about their side losing.But without it, nazism would propably never be as famous, and they wouldn't have discovered their ideology from the beginning. My Point is, regardless of the extremeness of a subject, nothing terrible will ever be considered bad by everyone. The majority, yes, but there will still be some morons against. Which means, both that war and this Movie can be considered bad in general. Despite the extreme differences of badness.
Which makes this quote completely pointless and it's only part your efforts to get the last word on everything.I had to say something, or else you'd be whining about me not responding to Everything you say. Anyway...I have to get the last Word on Everything? And that's comming from you? X stated that Y has to get the last Word on Everything, and you're X? I'm sorry, I can't handle that much hypocrisy at the same time.
The context doesn't matter. You think it's alright to push the literal meanings of the things you write while complaining about me apparently taking things literally. That's the ironyBecause what you take literally is freaking comebacks. It's impossible to argue with someone whose basing their arguments on insults and sarcasm.
Not to mention you can't even prove I'm taking you literally.Prove?? You know, you use that card all the time. If I don't put 63 different examples behind a statement to back it up, I'm automatically wrong. But fine, you want proof? How about the time I joked about WWII vets Crying by listening to 1D:s Music, and you accused me of believing in that? How about the time I joked about them being a danger to the human intelligence, and you accused me of believing in that? Oh, how about that time I joked about them causing devastation and used your intelligence as an example, for the sake of being able to mock you, and you accused me of actually admitting that? I know, how about every freaking time you've responded to my comebacks?
Yeah, because you said the point of a comeback was to be offensive. By that logic, you're attempting to be offensive when you write a comeback. Otherwise, you haven't accomplished your main goal in your comeback.Yes I'm attempting to be offensive when I write a comeback, everyone is!!
Ironically, you follow up on your accusations of me taking you literally by taking me literally. You try justifying what you said as a joke, I say it doesn't really work as jokeYou said it was a bad joke, that's it. You didn't say anything further to show what you "really" meant.
You respond by taking a dump in your diaper and screaming that I changed the subjectAnd we're on to "poopy jokes" now, are we? Swell.
hoping to finally get leverage over me.Twice in this post have you made a comment on you "having the leverage over me", and me "trying to get it". Those who see the need to openly brag about having the leverage in an argument are usually the ones losing.
Try againThe evidence is piling up.
If what you said isn't a good joke, then what is it? The literalist in you would say "A bad joke." But it's really what I've been saying it is; you admitting you believe One Direction is as bad as World War II. I'm eliminating your justifications of the quote. If One Direction's music is capable of making a WWII vet cry, then it has to be as bad as the war.I couldn't help but chuckle at the "I'm eliminating your justifications of the quote" part. Why don't you just say what you really mean: "I'm going to ignore all you say because I can't come up with a good argument against it". Go ahead, say it. I won't judge you. Why is it that hard for you to face the fact that you can't Always be right? Just admit you said something stupid and move on.
Doesn't matter, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.Imitation for the sake of mocking isn't.
I asked you if that's what you believe. Determined to find something that'll make you look better, you try turning my question into an accusation. Chalk this up as another desperate measure on your part.The question wasn't a real question, it was a rhetorical form of mockery. See now who's pulling the literal card.
I don't care, the proper spelling of "quote" is right above you. When you use the quotation brackets, you can clearly see how to spell the wordAre you fluent in Swedish? If not, then you wouldn't understand. I'm well aware of how to spell the Word, but I mixed two letters up unknowingly because the letters are pronounced different here, the Word would be pronounced different, and the translate of the Word is completely different. I still mess the two letters up unintentionally, but now I go back and check twice. So thank you for Calling me out on it.
It's pretty ironic you would simultaneously misspell the word and misquote me.I didn't misquote you, and I'll soon prove it. Stick around!
You don't see me calling you out on the majority of your spelling and grammatical mistakes.Then we're even.
Also, if you were more interested in giving your statements a dosage of logic, you would know attacking someone's sexuality is the lowest form of mockery.Maybe in your opinion it is. Besides, I don't even know your sexuality. Perhaps your species, but I have nothing against dogs.
The great part about this quote is you immediately begin with a condescending remark while simultaneously denying you present yourself as intelligent.-is a perfect example of what you just said.
Whereas you can't provide one example of me using "fancy" and "advanced" words"Whereas", "condescending", "simultaneously" etc. That's Three Words in one paragraph. If I was to name even half of all the times, I'd still be Writing in the next week.
(while you continue to harp on the word "symbolic"),
here's a list of all the condescending things you've said in this post alone.Half of these aren't even condescending. Besides, it's hard not to sound codescending while talking to an A-list moron like you.
You just insulted yourself by the way you worded my quote and you don't even realize it.I insulted myself, huh? Yet you included the phrase as one of the examples of me being condescending to you.
Oh, so that's why you Think I misquoted you? I'm afriad you've gotten the entire thing wrong. Let me explain: when I said that the quote from you about the human population was what I'd been responding to from the beginning, I didn't meant the beginning of our entire history of arguing, I meant the beginning of one particular argument, i.e. the one about the differences between human intelligence and human population. I propably should've made myself clearer, but I actually thought you'd be smart enough to figure out what I meant. Now I've learned a lesson: never overestimate your intelligence.
It doesn't surprise me in the slightest you believe misquoting someone will successfully turn the tables on him, making desperate attacks is your forte. Not to mention you ignored what I said about you misquoting me. Here's a review of the quotes that you can't squirm out of.
You (posted on Fri Aug 30 2013 06:52:31): I was never alive to experience World war II, yet I know it was something horrible. Same goes for this Movie.
This was your comparison between World War II and One Direction's movie. My response was this.
Me (posted Fri Aug 30 2013 09:26:58): There's a pretty big difference between a war that ended over a billion lives and a movie about a band you don't like.
This was what you've responded to since the beginning. After all, it was my first response to you. You tried claiming you were replying to "And you didn't think there was a difference between the human population and human intelligence until now" from the start, despite that quote being made two days after our initial conversation and you writing quite a few responses to me before I wrote that.
To top it off, you throw in a pointless line about how it's alright for you to misquote me because I apparently misquoted you more than once, all while failing to back up your statement.But you didn't really back your statement up until just now either...
And yet you still compared this movie to World War II. You didn't have to experience World War II to know it was terrible, "just like" this movie. Isn't the point of a comparison to show the similarities between two things?Compared, yes. But not their level of destruction, their amount of human Lives taken, their amount of buildings blown up etc. Just their symbolical badness.
Way to miss the part where I said "same level of devastation."What about that part? It's a lie, that's what it is.
Even if two things are deemed "bad," you can't compare them if they're not on the same level of badness.If I compare 'em symbolically I can.
I can't compare crashing my car to the sinking of the Titanic, even though neither event was "good."If you compare 'em symbolically you can.
You went ahead and compared One Direction and World War II, showing that you think they're on the same level.I compared 'em symbolically, showing that I Think they share one aspect, i.e. they're both considered bad in general.
Irony goes over your head again. Bonus points for reposting your assumption, which revealed a little bit about yourself.Congratulations, you possess the ability to steal corny lines from the internet.
And I Believe this statement to fall short because you didn't give it any logical Foundation. See what I did there? Easy as hell.
Your statements continue to fall short due to your inability to give them a logical foundation
So, all of a sudden, it's ok for you to use nazi metaphors? How neat.
Just like the Nazis were only "following orders."
Wrong, you keep harping on how you don't think they've caused the same level of destruction, but when I say you believe they've caused similar levels of destruction, you fail to make a refutation.Of course I fail to do it in your opinion, you could disagree with anything I'd say for the sake of keeping up a subject. I could aswell go on and say that all of your accusations regarding the destruction part fail too, just because I can do that. It's easy.
There wasn't anything for me to respond to. You were confused by what I wrote and reduced to writing a series of goofy rhetorical questionsI was confused by it because it doesn't make any sense. You start an overused phrase, then end it with a completely different overused phrase, and succeed on nothing but making the sentence seem like a big mess. I asked two questions, none of whom were rhetorical. You just choose to see them as rhetorical because, well, you're to stupid to come up with an answer to 'em.
Irony is a fancy word? Alanis Morissette must be a pretty fancy songwriter then.You may have seen the quotation marks around the Word "fancy".
Translation: I used "symbolically" in my post to appear intelligent and to have an excuse to hide behind if the offensive nature of my comparisons were noted.And we're on to more overused phrases. Anyway, the Word "symbolically" isn't fancy, I just used it because, well, there's no other Word for it that I'm aware of. If some inbred moron takes offense in a symbolic comparison because he/she/...it(?) isn't aware of the concept of humor, it isn't my problem. Eat more carrots or something, I don't know.
The irony of this whole mess is you're probably a One Direction fan in denial.Once again, your statement falls short due to your inability to give it any logical Foundation. Ha! Ohh, this isn't even funny anymore.
Wow a super wrong direction fan .
shareYou're saying that Three quotes where I'm mocking your intelligence contradicts the quote where I say I've had a few laughs at your stupidity? All right then, I fail to see how you can even know wether or not I actually did laugh while Writing them, and I don't see why these Three quotes only could cut as proof to it, considering all other quotes I've written.
Have you seen me argue that a Word is automatically true if I write it? No! What I've done is to state over and over that I did meant what I said when I wrote "symbolically". And that is the truth, I really meant it. You, on the other hand, has wasted a bunch of posts arguing that a Word isn't automatically true if I write it or not, to the Point that you're now only arguing on that subject, despite that I haven't said anything different. You've made your Point over and over, and I haven't even disagreed with it. All I've done is to state that I meant what I said. So I fail to see how I'm changing the subject by bringing up the original subject again. And I really fail to see how I'm wrong when I haven't argued for nor against your Point.
You know, it almost feels like you practised what to say in front of a mirror, and then forgot that the ramble was supposed to be about somebody else.
Haven't said anything different. All I've said is that I meant what I said.
Which is a bad example considering you can't be sure on wether or not I actually meant it.
Thank you!
Yeah, I know. I got it the first time. But what really cut it as proof, huh? The context. And you can clearly see that my comparison indeed was symbolic. You're welcome to disagree(as if you'd do anything else), but I'm well aware of how symbolic I intended to be.
By the way, can you see what you're arguing about? You're arguing that a Word isn't automatically true if I use it, on an IMDb message board, with a stranger you're never going to meet, in a thread that's propably never going to be read by anyone else. My question is: why? Why is it that important to Point out? Why do you make countless of posts where you state the same obvious thing over and over?
I got your Point the first time, you could stop now please.
Yes, I did got the Point. It's just, your Point is wrong.
It's not that your Point is wrong, it's just the general opinion on...well, Everything you say.
Have you seen me argue that a Word is automatically true if I write it? No!
No I got it. I just don't give a damn about it.
If a person on the internet is comparing, well, anything, to WWII, you do realize he aren't too serious, right?
Fine, let me ask you a question. Do you see me as a horrible person? Do you Believe that I'm free from morals and have no sympathy for the people who suffered and died in WWII? Do you get the implication that I'm a horrible person because I symbolically compared two things that you find incomparable? Because if you do, I can't see why you'd continue talk to me. If I got that implication from someone, I'd be too disgusted to talk to him again.
Then why are you still talking?
Well, that's why no one ever compared 1D to WWII in front of any of these people. If someone made a joke about something else, e.g an idiot, they wouldn't be offended. But if someone made fun of idiots in front of you, you'd get offended. It's rather simple.
Fascinating statement. Just brilliant. Heh...meh.
As if you'd have any better understanding for my own statement means then I myself, the original writer of it.
Sigh...should I try? Should I even try explain again, despite how many times I've made myself clear, to the level of that you're now sounding that you're joking when you keep talking? I Think I'll give it one last shot. Here goes nothing: When I wrote this sentence: "Almost. Almost. Not the same, but almost." It wasn't my actual opinion. I was quoting your use of the Word in the earlier post, for the sake of mocking you. But since you clearly have no sense for sarcasm, mocking, insulting etc. you immediately believed this quote to be my actual thoughts. This sentence: "or even near as bad as what NSDAP did.", that's my actual thoughts, that's what I Believe. These two quotes doesn't contradict each other at all since one is an imitation on someone else's Words, while the other is an actual opinion. Am I clear enough this time?
Oh, really? You don't say?? Obvious sarcasm aside, that's a pretty terrible logic.
And WWII isn't a term, it's a historical event.
Since both Words are substantives, I can use them in the same sentence without saying that they've caused the same amount of anything.
Or else, if I used the Word "pinapples" in the same sentence as the Word "gsbr", I'd be stating that pineapples are retarded.
They're not the only ones with actual knowledge and taste in Movies, they just happen to have their opinions published on a website.
Besides, the 49 on Metacritic shows that less than half liked it. Atleast there.
Yes it does because: A.) A 49 on Metacritic means less than half liked it and B.) The amount of Reviews doesn't matter, if more people on MT gave Reviews, the score could aswell go down.
Since when is it neccessary to prove the obvious?
"It's not a good for you"? It's not "a good" for me? Huh?
Anyway, how the hell is their albums relevant? I'm talking about the Reviews on their film, I don't give a damn about their Music.
When the comparison is symbolic it is. You can compare Everything to anything symbolically, that's the Point.[quote]
That's really strange, because you can't. But if you want to try comparing a basketball to a vacuum cleaner on a symbolic level, be my guest.
[quote]Let's see: An incredibly low IMDb rating
(perhaps the lowest of this year)
a less than half approval on Metacritic
every single newspaper I've read have given this Movie either one or two stars, all with the same Reviews: "Just a long Commercial", "Completely plot-and-pointless", "Serves no other purpose than to bring in Money" etc.
There are many musicians whose Music I dislike, and whose Movies I don't give a damn about. But this...it just...it've crossed the line.
No, as you may have noticed, I brought that up in the last sentence of the message: "Not at all the same degree of bad, but bad." See? You're really good at making accusations. But you suck on making credible ones.
So that's the only two things you care about on a Movie? What RT score and what MT score it got? Alright then.
But without it, nazism would propably never be as famous, and they wouldn't have discovered their ideology from the beginning. My Point is, regardless of the extremeness of a subject, nothing terrible will ever be considered bad by everyone. The majority, yes, but there will still be some morons against. Which means, both that war and this Movie can be considered bad in general. Despite the extreme differences of badness.
I had to say something, or else you'd be whining about me not responding to Everything you say. Anyway...I have to get the last Word on Everything? And that's comming from you? X stated that Y has to get the last Word on Everything, and you're X? I'm sorry, I can't handle that much hypocrisy at the same time.
Because what you take literally is freaking comebacks. It's impossible to argue with someone whose basing their arguments on insults and sarcasm.
Prove?? You know, you use that card all the time.
If I don't put 63 different examples behind a statement to back it up, I'm automatically wrong.
But fine, you want proof? How about the time I joked about WWII vets Crying by listening to 1D:s Music, and you accused me of believing in that?
How about the time I joked about them being a danger to the human intelligence, and you accused me of believing in that?
Oh, how about that time I joked about them causing devastation and used your intelligence as an example, for the sake of being able to mock you, and you accused me of actually admitting that?
I know, how about every freaking time you've responded to my comebacks?
Yes I'm attempting to be offensive when I write a comeback, everyone is!!
What do you Think the Point is, to be complimenting?
That still doesn't show that I find offensivities acceptable, it just shows I'm aware of the intentions of a comeback.
You said it was a bad joke, that's it. You didn't say anything further to show what you "really" meant.
And we're on to "poopy jokes" now, are we? Swell.
Twice in this post have you made a comment on you "having the leverage over me", and me "trying to get it". Those who see the need to openly brag about having the leverage in an argument are usually the ones losing.
The evidence is piling up.
I couldn't help but chuckle at the "I'm eliminating your justifications of the quote" part. Why don't you just say what you really mean: "I'm going to ignore all you say because I can't come up with a good argument against it". Go ahead, say it. I won't judge you. Why is it that hard for you to face the fact that you can't Always be right? Just admit you said something stupid and move on.
Imitation for the sake of mocking isn't.
The question wasn't a real question, it was a rhetorical form of mockery. See now who's pulling the literal card.
Are you fluent in Swedish? If not, then you wouldn't understand. I'm well aware of how to spell the Word, but I mixed two letters up unknowingly because the letters are pronounced different here, the Word would be pronounced different, and the translate of the Word is completely different. I still mess the two letters up unintentionally, but now I go back and check twice. So thank you for Calling me out on it.
I didn't misquote you, and I'll soon prove it. Stick around!
Then we're even.
Maybe in your opinion it is. Besides, I don't even know your sexuality. Perhaps your species, but I have nothing against dogs.
-is a perfect example of what you just said.
"Whereas", "condescending", "simultaneously" etc. That's Three Words in one paragraph. If I was to name even half of all the times, I'd still be Writing in the next week.
Yes, incredibly fancy. More than 5 letters!
Half of these aren't even condescending.
Besides, it's hard not to sound codescending while talking to an A-list moron like you.
I insulted myself, huh? Yet you included the phrase as one of the examples of me being condescending to you.
Oh, so that's why you Think I misquoted you? I'm afriad you've gotten the entire thing wrong. Let me explain: when I said that the quote from you about the human population was what I'd been responding to from the beginning, I didn't meant the beginning of our entire history of arguing, I meant the beginning of one particular argument, i.e. the one about the differences between human intelligence and human population.
I propably should've made myself clearer, but I actually thought you'd be smart enough to figure out what I meant. Now I've learned a lesson: never overestimate your intelligence.
But you didn't really back your statement up until just now either...
Compared, yes. But not their level of destruction, their amount of human Lives taken, their amount of buildings blown up etc. Just their symbolical badness.
What about that part? It's a lie, that's what it is.
If I compare 'em symbolically I can.
If you compare 'em symbolically you can.
I compared 'em symbolically, showing that I Think they share one aspect, i.e. they're both considered bad in general.
Congratulations, you possess the ability to steal corny lines from the internet.
Wow! This is the longest rant I have ever seen. Let's sit here and see how long they go for....
shareAnd I Believe this statement to fall short because you didn't give it any logical Foundation. See what I did there? Easy as hell.
So, all of a sudden, it's ok for you to use nazi metaphors? How neat.
Of course I fail to do it in your opinion, you could disagree with anything I'd say for the sake of keeping up a subject. I could aswell go on and say that all of your accusations regarding the destruction part fail too, just because I can do that. It's easy.
I was confused by it because it doesn't make any sense. You start an overused phrase, then end it with a completely different overused phrase, and succeed on nothing but making the sentence seem like a big mess. I asked two questions, none of whom were rhetorical. You just choose to see them as rhetorical because, well, you're to stupid to come up with an answer to 'em.
It isn't irony. Just look at it. The two examples you've used to show the "irony" aren't relevant to each other at all.
You may have seen the quotation marks around the Word "fancy".
And we're on to more overused phrases. Anyway, the Word "symbolically" isn't fancy, I just used it because, well, there's no other Word for it that I'm aware of. If some inbred moron takes offense in a symbolic comparison because he/she/...it(?) isn't aware of the concept of humor, it isn't my problem. Eat more carrots or something, I don't know/
Once again, your statement falls short due to your inability to give it any logical Foundation. Ha! Ohh, this isn't even funny anymore.
Yeah, you copied me again. You must really love meOverused phrase number...what is it, 47? I've lost the Count.
I had been using them for awhile. It's funny how you continually rely on the same excuse.For shame, Penelope, for shame. How heartless can one be? Sitting here and comparing people to nazis on the internet, you really have no limit, have you?
As a matter of fact, you do that all the time. Check out what I said about what the term World War is linked to.WWII isn't a term, it's an event. My accusations work, because, well I do more than just Writing: "you fail, goodbye!"
You told me to stop taking comebacks literally. In the same post, you claimed you never used the word "WW2." On a literal level, you didn't. But you did use the word ""World war II", which means the exact same thing as "WW2." You were taking me literally while you attacked me for apparently taking you literally. I was providing an example of you being a literalist. Since you were doing the same thing you accused me of doing, you effectively insulted yourself (i.e. self-parody). That was also the irony that went over your head. Your questions were rhetorical- in this paragraph, you're admitting you believe what I wrote didn't make sense. So when you ask me "Ok, what really is that first sentence supposed to mean?", you're not expecting an answer. You're trying to attack my message for its allegedly confusing nature.Are you blind or just helplessly ignorant? You start the sentence with: "Stop taking comebacks literally," says the guy who", implying that you're going to provide me with an example of me taking one of your comebacks literally. But you don't, you end with: "claims he never used the word "WW2." ", an accusation that not only is incorrect, but also has nothing to do with the start of the sentence. You aren't even providing me with an example of me taking you literally, you're providing me with a wrongful example of what you Think is me pulling the literal card on my own statement. And even if both things could be about someone taking something literally, they aren't. I'm not claiming to never having used the word "WWII", I'm claiming that I didn't use it in one particular post, because I didn't use it in that post. I even said that the first time: "Anyway, I have never claimed to never having used that Word, I claimed to not having used it in one particular post, which is correct, I didn't used that Word in that post. Are you really that stupid that you don't get that? Seriously?" See? Did you just forgot about this part or what? It completely destroys your inaccurate accusation that I took it literally, you're the one who's too stupid to understand a statement, and base your arguments on missunderstandings.
What I see is you confused about what you're trying to prove.I'm trying to prove that quotation marks aren't just a fancy detail.
There's no other word for "irony" either, but you don't seem to be aware of thatI never stated that the Word "irony" is fancy, that's just your assumption.
The issue isn't so much that you use the word "symbolically," it's how often you use it, and you frequently talk about its usage.I fail to see how that is making me seem like I'm trying to sound fancy, it's just me keep bringing up a Word because you keep ignore it and Everything about it.
Typically, you defend what you said because it's "humor."Most of my first posts was humor, the symbolical comparison was me making a half-decent Point because you kept asking for one.
it was the McCanns problem that they were offended over the Encyclopedia Dramatica entry on their daughter. Sure it was accusing them of raping and murdering their own daughter- but the entry was supposed to be "humorous", so it was totally their problem!I fail to see why they read a Encyclopedia Dramatica article about their missing daughter in the first hand. It's like a homosexual going to deepest of Alabama and asking random rednecks for their view on homosexuality, why do it if you know it's going to offend you. But me making a humorous symbolic comparison on an IMDb message board isn't the same, I admit that it could be viewed as a rather tasteless joke, but it's just between me and Another stranger on the internet. No one affected by the war is ever going to read it, and if they were, I would never make that comparison. The only one who can take offense by it is you, but you don't seem to care that much.
Note that said "probably," not that you actually were a One Direction fan. And you're still quick to deny it. When you continually talk about how much you hate something instead of ignoring it, suspicions tend to be raised. Whenever you hate on One Direction, they're in your mind. You can't stop thinking about them. A lot of people don't realize the opposite of love is indifference, not hate. And you're certainly not indifferent to One Direction.The opposite of love is hate. The opposite of indifference is difference. What you're saying is that I could be seen as a fan of the band because...I keep hate on them? Brilliant logic. I wouldn't even continue talk About them if it weren't for you talking about them in your arguments. share
Overused phrase number...what is it, 47? I've lost the Count.
For shame, Penelope, for shame. How heartless can one be? Sitting here and comparing people to nazis on the internet, you really have no limit, have you?
WWII isn't a term, it's an event. My accusations work, because, well I do more than just Writing: "you fail, goodbye!"
Are you blind or just helplessly ignorant? You start the sentence with: "Stop taking comebacks literally," says the guy who", implying that you're going to provide me with an example of me taking one of your comebacks literally.
But you don't, you end with: "claims he never used the word "WW2." ", an accusation that not only is incorrect,
Never once did I even use the Word "WW2".
but also has nothing to do with the start of the sentence.
You aren't even providing me with an example of me taking you literally, you're providing me with a wrongful example of what you Think is me pulling the literal card on my own statement. And even if both things could be about someone taking something literally, they aren't. I'm not claiming to never having used the word "WWII", I'm claiming that I didn't use it in one particular post, because I didn't use it in that post. I even said that the first time: "Anyway, I have never claimed to never having used that Word, I claimed to not having used it in one particular post, which is correct, I didn't used that Word in that post. Are you really that stupid that you don't get that? Seriously?" See? Did you just forgot about this part or what? It completely destroys your inaccurate accusation that I took it literally, you're the one who's too stupid to understand a statement, and base your arguments on missunderstandings.
I'm trying to prove that quotation marks aren't just a fancy detail.
I never stated that the Word "irony" is fancy, that's just your assumption.
I fail to see how that is making me seem like I'm trying to sound fancy, it's just me keep bringing up a Word because you keep ignore it and Everything about it.
Most of my first posts was humor, the symbolical comparison was me making a half-decent Point because you kept asking for one.
I fail to see why they read a Encyclopedia Dramatica article about their missing daughter in the first hand. It's like a homosexual going to deepest of Alabama and asking random rednecks for their view on homosexuality, why do it if you know it's going to offend you. But me making a humorous symbolic comparison on an IMDb message board isn't the same, I admit that it could be viewed as a rather tasteless joke, but it's just between me and Another stranger on the internet. No one affected by the war is ever going to read it, and if they were, I would never make that comparison. The only one who can take offense by it is you, but you don't seem to care that much.
The opposite of love is hate. The opposite of indifference is difference. What you're saying is that I could be seen as a fan of the band because...I keep hate on them? Brilliant logic. I wouldn't even continue talk About them if it weren't for you talking about them in your arguments.
You mean just like you keep overusing the phrase "overused phrase"?It isn't a phrase, it's a statement. A correct one, by the way.
When you compare others to National Socialist Party, you're going to get compared to them.That is incredibly respectless by you, comparing a war that ended millions of lives to a guy you've had a fight with on the internet. The things are incomparable, show some respect for the victims of the war, will you?
That's strange, I said "World War", not "WWII."There have only been two World wars, and I've never used the term "World war" in any of my previous posts. The Word "WWII" though, that's been used alot in all kinds of versions.
Or maybe I'm going to provide an example of you simply taking things literally. Kind of like you're taking things literally now.Would've worked better if you'd provided me with an actual example instead of a missunderstanding.
That last quote doesn't work as a single quote, it belongs in the entire sentence, or else it's incredibly missleading.
Keep track of what you say.
You told me to stop taking you literally, I posted an example of you being a literalist, which was pretty ironic.I wasn't being a literalist, you simply just missunderstood what I was saying due to your wonderful ability of only Reading what you want.
Review time.
* You: I was never alive to experience World war II, yet I know it was something horrible. Same goes for this Movie.
* Me: There's a pretty big difference between a war that ended over a billion lives and a movie about a band you don't like.
* You: Over a billion? That's far more higher than the real number. But Think of it this way, this band ends billions and billions of braincells. That's not just "a band I don't like", it's band that's so terribly worthless that it becomes a danger to the human intelligence.
Later, when this issue gets brought back up:
* Me: I said the problem with your comparison between One Direction and World War II is actual lives were ended in WWII. You responded by saying One Direction is just as bad because of all the brain cells they kill. Now that you're trying to differentiate the two, you've rendered your initial argument useless.
* You: (after reciting your past quote from above) Where in that sentence, am I saying that 1D is just as bad, or even near as bad, as WW2? I'm joking about them killing braincells and being a danger to the human intelligence. Never once did I even use the Word "WW2".
You said "World war II" in the statement that spawned the "particular post" you're talking about. You compared the movie and the war, I said your comparison didn't work, and you mentioned the bit about brain cells to prove that it did. So even if you didn't intend to take me literally, you've continued to demonstrate you have a hard time following your own posts.
Then you must be insulting Alanis Morissette.Don't know who the hell that is and don't care.
Well hang on, the whole phrase could be seen as fancy. And "paragraph" sounds pretty fancy too, 9 letters and all.
Good, that means you proved absolutely nothing.
Because you ignore it every damn time I use it, causing wrongful arguments that I repeatedly have to prove wrong simply by throwing in the Word. If I wanted to appear intelligent in front of you I'd simply say "Tree", "Cactus", "blue" etc. "Symbolical" isn't really what I'd call a fancy Word.
Because you don't just keep bringing up on the word. You say it every chance you get. You sprinkle it into your posts because you want to appear intelligent.
That's why I said "typically."And I keep saying "symbolically" but you don't seem to care about that.
"Web article"? You're making them sound much better than what they are. They're a joke site, existing for no other purpose than to offense and cause controversy. It's their own twisted version of saying that they find something to be a subject of matter, even if their satire is incredibly extreme. Anyone aware of the site would be stupid to search for an article of a subject they're sensitive about.
There's a pretty big difference between visiting people who primarily share their offensive viewpoints only with those who agree with them and a web article that can be seen and accessed by everyone with no effort involved.
Unsurprisingly, you do think it's the McCanns' problem they were offended. I guess you don't understand that the article was publicly slandering them.I haven't said no such thing. The site is also to blame for their offense, after all, they wouldn't be able to go on the site, read the article and be offended in the first Place if it weren't for them posting it. There's times when they go too far, and I Believe that article to be that.
Your comparison is being made on a public forum that can be seen by everyone and like the ED article, it's done for the sake of "humor." Since your posts are public, they can been seen by people who were affected by the war. You might not have intended for them to see what you wrote, but you easily can.WWII ended almost 70 years ago, Madeleine McCann disappeared 6 years ago. Most people who fought in the war are either dead or too old to be using internet. Madeleines parents and family are still rather Young and the disappearence is relatively recent. There's a diffence in making a symbolic comparison on an IMDb message board for a 1D Movie where you compare something that's considered bad in general to a more horrible thing, and Writing an article on a site with numerous visitors about a still fresh subject where you do nothing but mock the victims and openly call them rapists. I'm not mocking the victims of WWII, I'm not seeking to cause controversy, all I did was to make a symbolic and unbiased comparison.
Now you're saying a Holocaust survivor is wrong. No surprises there.....what?
Love and hate are similar in that they both involve a person having intense feelings for someone or something. Due to this similarity, they are not opposite terms*beep* They share thing, yes, but in completely opposite ways.
You're thinking about One Direction, you have feelings for them, and you always talk about them. You've made posts throughout this board talking about them without any provocation from me. One Direction just refuses to leave your mind.I don't give a damn about 1D, it's this Movie that bothers me. I occasionally trash the Movie on my favorite site when I'm bored, that doesn't really show that I have any feelings at all for the band.
I'm an idiot.I agree. share
It isn't a phrase, it's a statement. A correct one, by the way.
That is incredibly respectless by you, comparing a war that ended millions of lives to a guy you've had a fight with on the internet. The things are incomparable, show some respect for the victims of the war, will you?
There have only been two World wars, and I've never used the term "World war" in any of my previous posts.
Say what you want, this band is a scaled down World war.
Would've worked better if you'd provided me with an actual example instead of a missunderstanding.
That last quote doesn't work as a single quote, it belongs in the entire sentence, or else it's incredibly missleading.
I wasn't being a literalist, you simply just missunderstood what I was saying due to your wonderful ability of only Reading what you want.
"That spawned the particular post"? Really? That's all you could come up with? That I'm being a literist because I'm stating to never having used a Word in a post, but used the Word in a post that spawned the post? That's your weakest attempt at an argument yet.
Don't know who the hell that is and don't care.
Well hang on, the whole phrase could be seen as fancy. And "paragraph" sounds pretty fancy too, 9 letters and all.
Because you ignore it every damn time I use it, causing wrongful arguments that I repeatedly have to prove wrong simply by throwing in the Word. If I wanted to appear intelligent in front of you I'd simply say "Tree", "Cactus", "blue" etc. "Symbolical" isn't really what I'd call a fancy Word.
And I keep saying "symbolically" but you don't seem to care about that.
"Web article"? You're making them sound much better than what they are. They're a joke site, existing for no other purpose than to offense and cause controversy. It's their own twisted version of saying that they find something to be a subject of matter, even if their satire is incredibly extreme. Anyone aware of the site would be stupid to search for an article of a subject they're sensitive about.
I haven't said no such thing.
Anyone aware of the site would be stupid to search for an article of a subject they're sensitive about.
I fail to see why they read a Encyclopedia Dramatica article about their missing daughter in the first hand. It's like a homosexual going to deepest of Alabama and asking random rednecks for their view on homosexuality, why do it if you know it's going to offend you.
WWII ended almost 70 years ago, Madeleine McCann disappeared 6 years ago. Most people who fought in the war are either dead or too old to be using internet. Madeleines parents and family are still rather Young and the disappearence is relatively recent. There's a diffence in making a symbolic comparison on an IMDb message board for a 1D Movie where you compare something that's considered bad in general to a more horrible thing, and Writing an article on a site with numerous visitors about a still fresh subject where you do nothing but mock the victims and openly call them rapists. I'm not mocking the victims of WWII, I'm not seeking to cause controversy, all I did was to make a symbolic and unbiased comparison.
....what?
*beep* They share thing, yes, but in completely opposite ways.
I don't give a damn about 1D, it's this Movie that bothers me. I occasionally trash the Movie on my favorite site when I'm bored, that doesn't really show that I have any feelings at all for the band.
I agree.
SRS BZNS
sharePeople still listen to them? I thought their 15 minutes were up.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Another case of literalism. Looks like you couldn't comprehend the irony of overusing "overused phrase."I haven't stated that you're overusing phrases, I've stated that you use overused phrases. In my deffense, it's pretty hard not to overuse that phrase while talking to you.
This is coming from the guy who compared a band he doesn't like to the war# "Durrrrrrrrr, my comparison Was symbolic!" you immediately protest# It's still a comparisonA symbolic one. There is a difference in that and just making a comparison. What's that Penelope? You wanna hear what it is so you can die happy? Alright then, I'll tell you. When you compare two things symbolically, you show that you Believe two things to share one aspect, in this case being, they're both considered bad. As I've said Before, it doesn't really have to be only WWII. I know being punched in the face, falling of a Cliff, getting beat up etc. is something bad, even if I've never experienced these things. I simply used WWII as an example because, well, it was the first thing I could Think of. It doesn't matter how bad they are, they just have to be bad. I'm not making a serious, measured comparison, I'm making an over the top symbolic one, not for the sake of causing controversy, not to tell that I Believe they're on the same level, not to say that they've caused equal devastation, but to show that I find them both to be bad. If you're that offended by it, then fine, I promise to never do that again.
You were saying?Fine, I was wrong, I forgot that quote. Still can't see why you'd start bring up the term again now after it being used once several weeks ago. For the rest of our posting, I've specifically said "WWII".
You are aware than misunderstandings can be caused by taking things literally, right?Yes. Or as in your case, by being born with a too small brain.
Errrr...yes, it isn't really an answer to what I said#
A sentence that was linked to the quotes I cited.
Kind of like how you read "'Stop taking comebacks literally,' says the guy who" as calling someone out for only taking comebacks literally instead of taking things in general literally.That's how a normal person would read it. Still, would've worked better if you actually provided me with an actual case of me taking something literally.
Despite being my "weakest attempt at an argument yet," you sure couldn't refute it.No Point, it's like trying to refute someone who's stating that Nintendo are Serbo-Croatian serial killers.
http://www#youtube#com/watch?v=Nm-1xvWibt0I see. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qJaZ41tJmmE/TPIN9TOhHyI/AAAAAAAAABw/9bafN_D1 9mU/s1600/I+don%2527t+give+a+damn.png
And who would actually consider these words to be fancy, pray tell? There aren't too many synonyms for "irony" and "paragraph."I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who would, since some people even see the Word "symbolic" as fancy.
That's right, all you do is throw in the word. What you don't do prove your comparisons are symbolic. To compensate for your lack of proof, you keep inserting the word into your posts, thinking that'll be just as good as evidence. It's notMaybe not in your opinion, but I can't record the last time I actually cared about it. I throw in the Word because you keep exclude it in your posts, that's the simple explanation for my overuse of it.
Obviously you yourself wouldn't call "symbolic" a fancy word because you don't want to make yourself look bad.Let's see...8 letters, Three syllables...you sure it qualifies as of being "fancy", Penelope?
Another fallacious analogy, nothing new here.Agree, they keep piling up everytime you're in a conversation.
Again with the literalism. It doesn't matter what Encyclopedia Dramatica actually is. There's no effort involved in finding an Encyclopedia Dramatica article unlike your analogy. Everyone in the United States can experience an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. An Encyclopedia Dramatica article can be sent to the easily offended. Is someone who gets offended by an ED article sent to him at fault for being offended?No, that's the person who sent its fault. But you never said they had the article sent to them, you just stated that they were offended by it.
Here you are, questioning why the McCanns would even go to their daughter's article to begin with.That's correct. Still not saying it's their fault they were offended.
Do you believe those who experienced World War II are now incapable of reading? Do you believe they lack the mental capacity to use the internet?No, I said most of them are.
Like Encyclopedia Dramatica article on Madeleine McCann, you claim your comparisons were supposed to be humorous. You were making light out of a tragedy, a tragedy that living people have experienced.That's the difference, they were making fun of the victims. I was making fun 1D, not the people and victims of WWII.
They are capable of seeing what you wrote and being offended by your wordsYou mean my countless of posts were I've stated that I don't actually Believe the two things to be equally bad, and were you've done nothing but trying to antagonize me?
You wrote your comparison on website that's accessed more than Encyclopedia Dramatica.On a message board that's accessed less than their article.
Anyone can see what you wrote.But only a handful of people will. Not sure why WWII vets would go on the IMDb page for this Movie and read the message boards.
You didn't compare "something that's considered bad in general to a more horrible thing" because this movie isn't considered bad in general. The critical scores prove thisYou mean the slighly more than avarage bogus rating on RT, and the the less-than-majority-liked-it rating on MT? You know, that's not the only two things used to judge the quality.
"But the 49 MT score shows less than half critics liked it!" you protest. No it doesn't, it shows the average critical rating and that rating is mixed. Not negative, mixed. Something that's considered bad in general (i.e. Movie 43) wouldn't receive primarily mixed reviews.Two sites for critical opinion isn't general. It's just a handful of bribed persons, but if people go on and rate the Movie 3.0(wether they've seen it or not) on IMDb, if everyone I've met aware of the film see it as nothing but a joke, if every local newspaper I've read rates it low, then that shows it's considered bad in general.
You compared something you don't like to the most catastrophic war in history.And you compared me to the nazis, but apparently, it isn't important.
But you still think it's acceptable do that because your comparison is "symbolic" (even though it's still a comparison)Correct.
and it's supposed to be humorous (just like Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Madeleine McCann).I wonder if it's that you find the joke tasteless as much you just don't agree with my opinion on the film.
Elie Wiesel said the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. Elie Wiesel is a Holocaust survivor. By claiming the opposite of love is hate, you are saying Elie Wiesel is wrong.And what has the fact that she's a holocaust survivor has to do with it? It's just a part of your greed to antagonize me as much as possible.
Doesn't matter, they share things, which contradicts the concept of them being opposites. I see you had nothing to say about indifference not being the opposite of difference. Love is caring for someone, indifference is not caring. That's why they're opposites.Love is to care about someones well-being, hate is to wish bad for someone. Indifference is against both of them. Every opposite share one aspect: Tall and short are both extreme versions of height, fat and thin are both extreme versions of weight, smart and stupid are both extreme versions of intelligence. If they didn't share atleast one aspect, they wouldn't be relevant to each other.
As you are the one who wrote that quotation, you just admitted you're an idiot.I was quoting you diary. share
I haven't stated that you're overusing phrases, I've stated that you use overused phrases. In my deffense, it's pretty hard not to overuse that phrase while talking to you.
A symbolic one. There is a difference in that and just making a comparison. What's that Penelope? You wanna hear what it is so you can die happy? Alright then, I'll tell you. When you compare two things symbolically, you show that you Believe two things to share one aspect, in this case being, they're both considered bad. As I've said Before, it doesn't really have to be only WWII. I know being punched in the face, falling of a Cliff, getting beat up etc. is something bad, even if I've never experienced these things. I simply used WWII as an example because, well, it was the first thing I could Think of. It doesn't matter how bad they are, they just have to be bad. I'm not making a serious, measured comparison, I'm making an over the top symbolic one, not for the sake of causing controversy, not to tell that I Believe they're on the same level, not to say that they've caused equal devastation, but to show that I find them both to be bad. If you're that offended by it, then fine, I promise to never do that again.
But now let's take a look at you. You've also compared something to nazis, that being me. What's that? It was meant as to be humorous? Not to be taken seriously? Perhaps, symbolic? Well, to quote you: it was still a comparison.
Fine, I was wrong, I forgot that quote. Still can't see why you'd start bring up the term again now after it being used once several weeks ago. For the rest of our posting, I've specifically said "WWII".
Yes. Or as in your case, by being born with a too small brain.
Errrr...yes, it isn't really an answer to what I said#
That's how a normal person would read it. Still, would've worked better if you actually provided me with an actual case of me taking something literally.
No Point, it's like trying to refute someone who's stating that Nintendo are Serbo-Croatian serial killers.
I see. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qJaZ41tJmmE/TPIN9TOhHyI/AAAAAAAAABw/9bafN_D1 9mU/s1600/I+don%2527t+give+a+damn.png
I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some people who would, since some people even see the Word "symbolic" as fancy.
Maybe not in your opinion, but I can't record the last time I actually cared about it. I throw in the Word because you keep exclude it in your posts, that's the simple explanation for my overuse of it.
Let's see...8 letters, Three syllables...you sure it qualifies as of being "fancy", Penelope?
Agree, they keep piling up everytime you're in a conversation.
No, that's the person who sent its fault. But you never said they had the article sent to them, you just stated that they were offended by it.
That's correct. Still not saying it's their fault they were offended.
No, I said most of them are.
That's the difference, they were making fun of the victims. I was making fun 1D, not the people and victims of WWII.
You mean my countless of posts were I've stated that I don't actually Believe the two things to be equally bad, and were you've done nothing but trying to antagonize me?
On a message board that's accessed less than their article.
But only a handful of people will. Not sure why WWII vets would go on the IMDb page for this Movie and read the message boards.
You mean the slighly more than avarage bogus rating on RT, and the the less-than-majority-liked-it rating on MT? You know, that's not the only two things used to judge the quality.
Two sites for critical opinion isn't general. It's just a handful of bribed persons, but if people go on and rate the Movie 3.0(wether they've seen it or not) on IMDb, if everyone I've met aware of the film see it as nothing but a joke, if every local newspaper I've read rates it low, then that shows it's considered bad in general.
And you compared me to the nazis, but apparently, it isn't important.
Correct.
I wonder if it's that you find the joke tasteless as much you just don't agree with my opinion on the film.
And what has the fact that she's a holocaust survivor has to do with it? It's just a part of your greed to antagonize me as much as possible.
Love is to care about someones well-being, hate is to wish bad for someone. Indifference is against both of them. Every opposite share one aspect: Tall and short are both extreme versions of height, fat and thin are both extreme versions of weight, smart and stupid are both extreme versions of intelligence. If they didn't share atleast one aspect, they wouldn't be relevant to each other.
I was quoting you diary.
I didn't say you did, I said it's ironic that you would overuse "overuse phrase." Try using some alternatives.By that phrase I referred to your use of phrases that's overused in general, but the phrase itself is only overused by me, which takes away the irony.
And you said exactly what I predicted you to say. Despite your lengthy protests and justifications, you made a comparison involving the worst war in history.As did you.
Then you attempt to be a white knight and claim it's "incredibly respectless" for me to make a WWII analogy.Clearly, you didn't get the obvious sarcasm of it.
Your other examples of bad- involving mere injury or one death are also on a completely different level than the one World War II is. You think a movie about a band you don't like and the world's most devastating war are comparable, end of story. Keep on sputtering about "symbolic" comparisons because your autism won't let you admit you're wrongYes, I find the two to be comparable thanks to certain aspects I Believe them to share. But you keep insist that I find the two to be on the same level and that I have no sympathy for the victims of the war.
It's a comparison and I never said it was anything other than that. It's the only thing that would register in your skull.A comparison, alright. By your logic, you find me to be on the same level as nazis.
I've been saying "World War" is a term since September 4th.I couldn't hear it.
Just avoiding the point.I tend to do that when the Point is irrelevant and innacurate.
You said your last quote belonged in a full sentence and didn't explain why. I'm saying they're all linked.I said the quote belongs in a sentence so it won't sound missleading. You responded with some irrelevant jibber-jabber about the quoted being linked to the sentence.
That's how you read it. Considering how you're still dragging this conversation out and refuse to let it die until you get the last word on everything, you're not a normal person.You're dragging the conversation out just as much as me.
Meanwhile, you're having a hard time proving you weren't being a literalist.Well I did, but apparently, you gotta explain things about 7 times Before you get the Point. Tell me, please, how I am being a literalist because I claimed to not having used a Word in a post, and the sentence concerned was spawned from a previous post were I did use it? It also backfires your claims that I was being a literalist in Another way, i.e that I claimed not having used a Word but I did use a different version of it. Once I explained that, you immediately changed focus of your claims in order to not looking stupid. Doesn't matter how much I explain something, I am still guilty in one way or Another, thanks to your incredibly ability of making far fetched accusations that only makes sense to you.
You know, trying to act psychologist and being able to Point out peoples predictabilities would be considered pretty cool in an argument. That is, if the person actually has a clue about what he's saying, instead of just throwing out first best theory.
In other words, you know I'm right and it's killing you.
Which is contradicted by your need to highlight the word "irony."6 is a number. That is all.
You swear, huh? Well, your Word alone doesn't cut as proof. Whoom! Show me a 7 year-measurement on the subject and the worldwide statisitcs regarding it, and I'm ready to Believe you.
Your attempt at being clever falters because "irony" and "paragraph" are used a lot more frequently than "symbolic" is. I could have sworn "paragraph" is one of the first things taught in English class.
Don't worry, your need to continually reply to me will help you remember when you last cared about what I said. Knowing you can't refute me, you repeat yourself again.Funny, you keep pointing out my constant "need" too reply to you, yet you keep replying to me aswell.
True to your horrible logic, you think length applies to fanciness instead of how infrequently the word is used.Well, longer Words are usually used less frequently.
Good to see you agree you made a fallacious analogy.I am in an agreement that a fallicious analogy have been made. Haven't said that I agree that it's being made by me though.
You were calling people offended by Encyclopedia Dramatica stupid for looking up their articles in the first place. I'm giving you another way they could have come across the website.Well, then just don't send this whole conversation to a WWII vet, if you find it to be so "offensive".
You questioned why they would go to Encyclopedia Dramatica. You have no problem with ED writing an article on their daughter. So to you, they're the ones at fault.I never stated that I don't have a problem with the article, that's just Another one of your wild guesses.
Which undermines your argument because that means WWII vets are capable of seeing what you wrote.Capable, yes. Likely? Don't Think so.
You used them to make fun of One Direction.I still didn't made fun of them.
Try the posts where you fail to prove this and suddenly play the victim card while making ad hominem attacks and refusing to back down from your terrible logic.I could try, if you're willing to pull these posts out of your imagination.
ED hasn't been as popular as it once was due to its main domain being closed down and Chris Chan no longer making videos. This board will remain active as long as One Direction is popular.7 weeks, that is.
This is an active board and as long as you keep bumping this topic up, more people will see what you wrote. People who know or are related to WWII vets are also capable of seeing what you wrote and taking offense to it.The only persons I could imagine would take any real offense by it are fans of 1D and people who liked the Movie.
Yeah, the rating is suddenly "bogus" because you don't agree with it and it proves you wrong.That's not correct. It's Always been bogus.
Once again, the Metacritic score is based on the ratings critics gave the film, not whether or not the critics liked itLast time I checked, their ratings are based on their opinions of the film.
There's more liked it than hated it ratings for this movie on Metacritic. The only other thing I could see you bringing up to the judge the quality is the IMDb rating and that's unreliable due to it receiving ratings from people who haven't seen the film.You wouldn't have to Watch a film about super-engineered murder-pigs fighting futuristic, crossdressing cinnamonbuns to know it would be bad, same goes for this Movie.
What we have here is just a bunch of blanket statements. You will never be able to prove critics are bribed (and you're just mad because you can't refute their scores), the IMDb rating is meaningless because most of the votes came from people who didn't even see the movie (and most people don't take IMDb ratings seriously in the first place),Would you go on and prove that everyone who rated the Movie low haven't seen it? Or, is it just what you assume beacuse you disagree with the rating?
and you can't name a single newspaper review that rated it low.Tidningen Ångermanland, Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Aftonbladet, Sydsvenskan, ÖP.
That's the only thing that matters to you.Aswell as my comparison between this Movie and the war is the only things that matters to you.
You might want to reply to the entire sentence next time.I thought I did?
Denial. Thank you for confirming my theory.
You don't have a real opinion on the film since you didn't even see it.
The word of an individual who survived the Holocaust trumps the word of some guy on the internet who can't stop talking about a band he claims he can't stand.So what you're saying is, I first have to survive a holocaust, then I'm welcome to have an opinion? Alright then.
Tall and short only have one thing in common: height. Fat and thin only have one thing in common: weight. Smart and stupid only have one thing in common: intelligence level. Now it just so happens indifference and love do share a same aspect: they are related to how you feel about someone or something. So by your own logic, they're relevant to each otherIndifference opposites every feeling, not just love.
Love and hate have more than one thing in common. They both relate to your feelings for someone or something. They are both intense feelings. What you love and what you hate are constantly on your mind. You can't stop talking about what you love and what you hate. You have actual feelings for what you love and what you hate. As I mentioned above, the only similarity love and indifference share is they're related to your feelings for someone or something. Other than that, they are polar oppositesI said they had to share atleast one aspect. The more aspects they share, the better opposites they make.
You don't think about what you're indifferent to, you don't talk about what you're indifferent to, and you feel nothing for what you're indifferent to. That is why indifference is the opposite of love. You are not indifferent to One Direction. Your hatred for One Direction is just a cover for your love for them.So just by having an opinion on a band, I automatically love them? Wow, and you claim I have a horrible logic.
I'm sorry, I didn't get thatIt's ok.
By that phrase I referred to your use of phrases that's overused in general, but the phrase itself is only overused by me, which takes away the irony.
As did you.
Clearly, you didn't get the obvious sarcasm of it.
Yes, I find the two to be comparable thanks to certain aspects I Believe them to share. But you keep insist that I find the two to be on the same level and that I have no sympathy for the victims of the war.
A comparison, alright. By your logic, you find me to be on the same level as nazis.
I couldn't hear it.
I tend to do that when the Point is irrelevant and innacurate.
I said the quote belongs in a sentence so it won't sound missleading. You responded with some irrelevant jibber-jabber about the quoted being linked to the sentence.
You're dragging the conversation out just as much as me.
You know, trying to act psychologist and being able to Point out peoples predictabilities would be considered pretty cool in an argument. That is, if the person actually has a clue about what he's saying, instead of just throwing out first best theory.
6 is a number. That is all.
You swear, huh? Well, your Word alone doesn't cut as proof. Whoom! Show me a 7 year-measurement on the subject and the worldwide statisitcs regarding it, and I'm ready to Believe you.
Funny, you keep pointing out my constant "need" too reply to you, yet you keep replying to me aswell.
Well, longer Words are usually used less frequently.
I am in an agreement that a fallicious analogy have been made. Haven't said that I agree that it's being made by me though.
Well, then just don't send this whole conversation to a WWII vet, if you find it to be so "offensive".
I never stated that I don't have a problem with the article, that's just Another one of your wild guesses.
Capable, yes. Likely? Don't Think so.
I still didn't made fun of them.
I could try, if you're willing to pull these posts out of your imagination.
So now I'm Hitler, huh? Because I don't like their Music? I'm sorry, mein führer, please don't gas me.
7 weeks, that is.
The only persons I could imagine would take any real offense by it are fans of 1D and people who liked the Movie.
That's not correct. It's Always been bogus.
Last time I checked, their ratings are based on their opinions of the film.
You wouldn't have to Watch a film about super-engineered murder-pigs fighting futuristic, crossdressing cinnamonbuns to know it would be bad, same goes for this Movie.
Would you go on and prove that everyone who rated the Movie low haven't seen it? Or, is it just what you assume beacuse you disagree with the rating?
Tidningen Ångermanland, Dagens Nyheter, Expressen, Aftonbladet, Sydsvenskan, ÖP.
Aswell as my comparison between this Movie and the war is the only things that matters to you.
I thought I did?
Denial. Thank you for confirming my theory.
So what you're saying is, I first have to survive a holocaust, then I'm welcome to have an opinion? Alright then.
Indifference opposites every feeling, not just love.
I said they had to share atleast one aspect. The more aspects they share, the better opposites they make.
So just by having an opinion on a band, I automatically love them? Wow, and you claim I have a horrible logic.
It's ok.
Irony is applicable to what one person says or does. Overusing the very phrase you used to go after phrases I used that were apparently "overused" is ironic. Also, you previously claimed "overused phrase" was a statement, not a phrase. Way to go back on your own words.
And I don't justify it.Which makes you, if I dare use your logic, a remorseless sociopath.
The only thing that's obvious is you're using the "sarcasm" claim to justify your unflinchingly stupid remarks. It takes more than a blanket statement to prove you were being sarcastic.Just as it takes more than you simply disagreeing on what my original intentions were to prove the opposite.
If you didn't think they were on the same level, you wouldn't have compared them in the first place. They have to be on the same level to be comparable.According to who? You? Well sir, that's your opinion, and your opinion only. I don't share it, nor do I respect or care for it.
Thank you, my little echo. Spreading your hatred for something, using exaggerated lies to support your agenda, and making excuses to justify your actions- like the Nazis.Oh, yes! Ack! How dare I?! I made fun of a mediocre band, threw in some obviously false accusations and tried justify myself when you shoved tons of ridiculous claims at me. No, you're right, that clearly makes me just as bad as a nazi. (Sarcasm, in case you wanted to pull of the "prove it was sarcasm" tactic again.)
I know, you have a problem hearing the facts.
In your mind, "irrelevant and innacurate" translates to anything that proves you wrong. So you're just admitting that my point proved you wrong."In your mind", eh? In my mind? You seem to be quite an expert at Reading peoples minds, seeing as you constantly bring that Point up without any kind of arguments or proof to back it up whatsoever.
And that quote was a full sentence, so I don't know what you're even going on about.It was not.
Trying to change the subject? Check. What you proved is a normal person would not read my post the way you read it due to your odd previous actions.Changing the subject? By Calling you out for extreme hypocrisy? My, my, you've really lost your grip on what all the terms you bring up means. I haven't proved a damn thing, there's nothing in your reply that shows how you called me out for being "a literalist in general". The Words "says the guy who" are pretty much entirely applied to situations when you call someone out for doing something they just called you out for.
The fact that you can't write a refutation to my post said and hide behind excuses proves what I said. What did you back your claim up with? ZilchI'm ready to refute the claim when you bring up an argument to back it up. At the moment, I could refute it merely by saying "No, you're wrong", due to how utterly ridiculous and far fatched it is.
And you probably thought you were being clever, but your vague statements make you look clueless againA vague statement in response to Another vague statement about how I contradicted myself by sending a link to a Picture of the Words "I don't give a damn".
Don't know where the "whoom" came from, but most likely, it was gas escaping. The 102,000,000 Google results for "paragraph" and websites helping first graders write paragraphs is proof enough.Oh nice, start out with a fart joke, that's clever. I did not ask for what you Think is "proof enough", no matter how you put it, I refuse to acknowledge the amounts of google results a Word gets as factual evidence to the fanciness it displays.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=paragraph+1st+grade&o q=paragraph+1st+grade&gs_l=serp.3..0i22i30l10.813.3400.0.3573.10.1 0.0.0.0.0.102.835.9j1.10.0....0...1c.1.27.serp..0.10.832._GvxiCxwFNw
Also nice to see you're continuing to imitate me. I guess you want your love for me to be as obvious as your love for One Direction.
When I reply, I dismantle what you say. You only reply because you want the last word. When you can't refute me, you make a blanket statement and/or ignore me. Here, you didn't respond to my main point because you couldn't refute it.The only one who actually Believes you're dismantling what I say is you. How can I know that you're not guilty of your own accusations and reply merely to have the last Word? No amounts of undeserved arrogance from your part will ever be able to convince me to Believe otherwise.
"Paragraph" is longer than "symbolic" and yet that word is used more frequently.Yes...in Google results.
You made an analogy, I said it was fallacious, and you agreed. You were trying to be clever, but it backfired. Predictably, you're not naming the fallacious analogy.You said my analogy was fallacious and said it was "nothing new here". I agreed...on the part of not being new, merely to be able to make a joke. But as usual, you chose to Count jokes and sarcasm as actual arguments due to your High-Functioning autism.
Not worth it. You'll never admit to being wrong, even if a WWII vet tells you offAn event that will never occur, making all your arguing pointless.
Try your defense of Encyclopedia Dramatica in your previous posts and the fact that you questioned the McCanns for being offended, not ED for writing the article.I said they're both to blame, which they are. If the victim is attacked unwittingly, then the attacker is solely to blame. If the victim deliberately walks into its trap, they're both to blame for the outcome.
This is assuming anyone who at least knows someone who fought in WWII will not come to an active thread in an active board.On an IMDb board about a One Direction Movie.
You still used them for your joke and that's just as bad. It shows you don't think WWII was a big deal if you can joke about it. When Chris Chan made his Twin Falling Towers video, he was making fun of Clyde Cash, not 9/11, but he still got slammed for incorporating a tragedy into a joke.Well, he shouldn't have gotten slammed.
It was not meant as an ad hominem attack.
Playing the victim and making an ad hominem attack in the same post. Cue the excuses and justifications.
In 7 weeks this board will still be active, One Direction will still be popular, and you'll still be attempting to get the last word. It takes more than a few weeks for a band to lose mainstream interest, especially after the release of a movie about them.Oh really? 7 weeks after your prediction, the board wasn't Active, I didn't hear a thing about One Direction in any kind of media, and I was completely absent.
More or less, yes. Kudos for your never fading work on trying to up-play my alleged heartless-ness.
This means you can't imagine WWII veterans being offended at you using a war they experienced as a punchline that you refuse to back down from.
Blanket statement? Check. Have fun never proving the rating is bogus and keep despising it because it proves you wrong.No rating within Cinema has been accurate since the Death of Ebert anyway.
Their ratings can also be very high, very low, borderline positive, borderline negative, and more. These factors impact the rating. Right now, Prisoners has more positive reviews than Enough Said does on Metacritic, but Enough Said scores higher because it got better ratings in its positive reviews. You refuse to acknowledge that there's more positive than negative reviews of the film on MetacriticYou confuse positive with mediocre.
No you wouldn't. That could make an enjoyable movie. You think strangeness equals a bad movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN1za2V9wzs - This looks pretty awesome.
I said most of the votes came from people who didn't see the movie, not all the low ratings came from people who didn't see the movie. I know this because of the discrepancy between the critical scores and the IMDb score, the fact that you can rate movies without having seen them on the IMDb, the fact that you can vote on a movie more than once through sockpuppet accounts, the low scores other concert films have (despite critics thinking they were fine), the hatred One Direction gets from internet dwellers, and one simple question: if you hate the band, why would even watch the movie in the first place?
At least two of those newspapers are tabloids, so what they say in meaningless. I wasn't aware that tabloids even printed reviews. And there's no evidence of any of those newspapers reviewing this movie.Only one is a tabloid, and so what if it is? A review by a smaller newspaper is still a review. If you want evidence, try typing the name of the newspaper, the title of the Movie, and the Word "recension" behind.
Too bad this is contradicted by all the things I've explained here.Want me to shout "Too bad it is not!" as a reply? Seeing as merely Writing "No, you're wrong and I've proven that" is the kind of arguments we're going by right now?
No, you split it in half because you thought that would make you look good.No, I agreed to what you said. Clearly, the phenomena of being correct is too rare for you to recognize.
What we have here is you pulling out random phrases because you know you can't refute the truth. You've admitted you haven't seen the film, so you don't have a real opinion. Since your opinion doesn't exist, I can't agree or disagree with it.Oh, how swell, Another "what we have here" reply. This is just Another Classic case of you changing the subject. I asked a sincere question about wether you actually find the jokes tasteless, and you respond by picking on a minor detail while ignoring the question completely.
Try this: if you have an opinion on love and hate that goes against the opinion of a Holocaust survivor, then your opinion means less. The Holocaust survivor has experienced a lot more than you have.Well, perhaps there's Another holocaust survivor whose opinion also goes against hers, but who never bothered to publicly express it. "Means less", yeah ok, I still disagree with her.
That would still make it the opposite of love.No, not love in particular, but every major feeling there is.
And this is just another ridiculous statement that you'll never be able to back up. By that logic, a better opposite to Monty Python and the Holy Grail would not be Excalibur, but Monty Python's Life of BrianLet me try and clarify myself, it has to be different within the aspects it share. A fat, tall guy makes a better opposite to a thin, short guy than a guy who merely is fat.
I said you have a "hatred" for One Direction and you try to claim that's just an "opinion." Hatred is more than just an opinion, it's a highly passionate opinion. It's an opinion that brings out strong feelings. All you're doing is trying to dance around this subject because I found out you love One Direction.I called it an opinion and you flip out. Forgive me for not possessing the borderline-neurotic fixation for the litaral as you do. You can quit your analogies about how I apparently "love" One Direction because I bashed their Movie and their Music, I didn't came here to listen to a wanna be Psychologist.
Still talking to yourself. What I really like is you only reply on weekends. I guess your Special Ed classes take up too much of your time.Have a look at our posting history, it would tell you that I post on everyday, not particularly weekends. And to be far, they've abandoned most Special Ed programs since you graduated and the average student I.Q Went up by 40 procent.
You don't sound very intelligent. I would quit criticizing because you're coming across as an undereducated, biased reviewer. I'm not talking to the guy who started this thread. I'm talking to the guy who compared WW2 to a boyband.
shareOf course you Think so, you gave the Movie a 10.
shareYou didn't even watch the movie and you gave it a 1.
shareBy accident.
shareA phrase can be a stament, smartass. And the only reason I've overused it is because you kept giving me reasons, not my fault if you're going to persist on using overused phrases.
Which makes you, if I dare use your logic, a remorseless sociopath.
Just as it takes more than you simply disagreeing on what my original intentions were to prove the opposite.
According to who? You? Well sir, that's your opinion, and your opinion only. I don't share it, nor do I respect or care for it.
Oh, yes! Ack! How dare I?! I made fun of a mediocre band, threw in some obviously false accusations and tried justify myself when you shoved tons of ridiculous claims at me. No, you're right, that clearly makes me just as bad as a nazi. (Sarcasm, in case you wanted to pull of the "prove it was sarcasm" tactic again.)
Can't be much of a problem when arguing with you though.
"In your mind", eh? In my mind? You seem to be quite an expert at Reading peoples minds, seeing as you constantly bring that Point up without any kind of arguments or proof to back it up whatsoever.
It was not.
Changing the subject? By Calling you out for extreme hypocrisy? My, my, you've really lost your grip on what all the terms you bring up means. I haven't proved a damn thing, there's nothing in your reply that shows how you called me out for being "a literalist in general". The Words "says the guy who" are pretty much entirely applied to situations when you call someone out for doing something they just called you out for.
Well I did, but apparently, you gotta explain things about 7 times Before you get the Point. Tell me, please, how I am being a literalist because I claimed to not having used a Word in a post, and the sentence concerned was spawned from a previous post were I did use it? It also backfires your claims that I was being a literalist in Another way, i.e that I claimed not having used a Word but I did use a different version of it. Once I explained that, you immediately changed focus of your claims in order to not looking stupid. Doesn't matter how much I explain something, I am still guilty in one way or Another, thanks to your incredibly ability of making far fetched accusations that only makes sense to you.
I'm ready to refute the claim when you bring up an argument to back it up. At the moment, I could refute it merely by saying "No, you're wrong", due to how utterly ridiculous and far fatched it is.
A vague statement in response to Another vague statement about how I contradicted myself by sending a link to a Picture of the Words "I don't give a damn".
Oh nice, start out with a fart joke, that's clever.
I did not ask for what you Think is "proof enough", no matter how you put it, I refuse to acknowledge the amounts of google results a Word gets as factual evidence to the fanciness it displays.
The only one who actually Believes you're dismantling what I say is you. How can I know that you're not guilty of your own accusations and reply merely to have the last Word? No amounts of undeserved arrogance from your part will ever be able to convince me to Believe otherwise.
Yes...in Google results.
You said my analogy was fallacious and said it was "nothing new here". I agreed...on the part of not being new, merely to be able to make a joke. But as usual, you chose to Count jokes and sarcasm as actual arguments due to your High-Functioning autism.
An event that will never occur, making all your arguing pointless.
I said they're both to blame, which they are. If the victim is attacked unwittingly, then the attacker is solely to blame. If the victim deliberately walks into its trap, they're both to blame for the outcome.
On an IMDb board about a One Direction Movie.
Well, he shouldn't have gotten slammed.
It was not meant as an ad hominem attack.
Oh really? 7 weeks after your prediction, the board wasn't Active, I didn't hear a thing about One Direction in any kind of media, and I was completely absent.
More or less, yes. Kudos for your never fading work on trying to up-play my alleged heartless-ness.
No rating within Cinema has been accurate since the Death of Ebert anyway.
You confuse positive with mediocre.
In other Words, this whole argument is based on your opinion?
As for you first sentence, you're being what you constantly accuse me of being; a literalist.
As for you first sentence, you're being what you constantly accuse me of being; a literalist. Now, for your arguments:
*From the look of it, most of the critics are incredibly generous when giving scores, perhaps not everyone in the audience who disliked it goes by the same tactic.
* Yes, you can, doesn't mean everybody does.
* Doubt that people who disliked it would bother creating Another account merely to be able to downrate it even more. That strategy is more used by fans who want to raise the rating of their favorite Movies.
* Because Concert Movies are widely regarded to be unoriginal and uninspired crap made to make extra Money.
* People without internet hates them too.
* In order to try and see if you can be proven wrong about them?
Only one is a tabloid,
and so what if it is? A review by a smaller newspaper is still a review.
If you want evidence, try typing the name of the newspaper, the title of the Movie, and the Word "recension" behind.
Want me to shout "Too bad it is not!" as a reply? Seeing as merely Writing "No, you're wrong and I've proven that" is the kind of arguments we're going by right now?
No, I agreed to what you said. Clearly, the phenomena of being correct is too rare for you to recognize.
Oh, how swell, Another "what we have here" reply. This is just Another Classic case of you changing the subject. I asked a sincere question about wether you actually find the jokes tasteless, and you respond by picking on a minor detail while ignoring the question completely.
Well, perhaps there's Another holocaust survivor whose opinion also goes against hers, but who never bothered to publicly express it. "Means less", yeah ok, I still disagree with her.
No, not love in particular, but every major feeling there is.
Let me try and clarify myself, it has to be different within the aspects it share. A fat, tall guy makes a better opposite to a thin, short guy than a guy who merely is fat.
I called it an opinion and you flip out. Forgive me for not possessing the borderline-neurotic fixation for the litaral as you do. You can quit your analogies about how I apparently "love" One Direction because I bashed their Movie and their Music, I didn't came here to listen to a wanna be Psychologist.
Have a look at our posting history, it would tell you that I post on everyday, not particularly weekends. And to be far, they've abandoned most Special Ed programs since you graduated and the average student I.Q Went up by 40 procent.
No you didn't.
shareLadies and gentlemen, the typical ignorant moron on the internet.
Yippee Ki-Yay!
[deleted]
I think it's funny to see people rag on silly teenagers who like this sort of things, and then have those same people be immature enough to rate this movie a 1 without seeing it just because they don't like 1D.
I don't think the rating on imbd has ever been really accurate anyway, fanboys & fangirls are giving strange ratings (1 or 10) for many movies.
The under 18s don't participate on IMDB, so This is Ugh will never score high.
57.4% voted 1, that might be a new record. The only group voting over 5 is females under 30. Metacritic is only 48.
Three+½ More Years! Ha ha ha ha ha ha
I saw this yesterday and it's a fantastic movie; people on here are just being immature.
shareIt's a two hour movie to make girls from the age from 12 to 16 get their pants soaked.
MovieKid100's mom is a prostitute. One Direction sucks. You're Next failed. What else is new?
68% you say? Lord have mercy, lord have mercy on our souls. We should be making films about Miles Davis, James Brown, Curtis Mayfield, and John Lee Hooker. You know, musicians that actually changed the face of music forever, and could put up amazing shows?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]