Tate, the guy who plays the male lead may be the worse actor I have ever seen in a major network show. Almost unwatchable. Good story but miscast lead will lead this show to the gutter. The little girl is best actor on show, with delroy
sharesolutionpw (Sun Mar 30 2014 18:05:24)If the show gets canceled, it will be because NBC, in their messed up 'wisdom', put it on Sunday nights at 9PM, which is a TERRIBLE time slot for a network with poor ratings to put a show at when wanting to get good ratings.
Tate, the guy who plays the male lead may be the worse actor I have ever seen in a major network show. Almost unwatchable. Good story but miscast lead will lead this show to the gutter. The little girl is best actor on show, with delroy
Sorry fangs. I forgot about all those golden globes and Oscars you haven. You don't know my background and it doesn't matter. He is a terrible actor.
shareJust because you don't know how to spell properly, it doesn't mean you know who is or isn't a bad actor. Also, I didn't make any claim to knowing the business. When someone puts something down that doesn't deserve to be put down, that's when using a persons background can come into play. I believe he's a rather good actor and look forward to more. You're the one putting down his acting. So tell me, how many shows have you been the lead in?
shareFangsMcWolf - you're either a troll or a moron. First off it does not require training nor work experience as an actor to recognize poor acting - and the male lead of this show couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Secondly; the only reason I feel comfortable pointing out you're a moron (see, I don't think you're a troll) is because you opened the door by confusing "background" with personal attacks in your previous post.
shareleif-beaton (Sun Jul 27 2014 18:11:17)Understand something, I am only replying to your post to point out your inaccuracies. First, he can indeed act well and his performance in the show proves it. Secondly, I'm neither a troll nor a moron (though you are one of them, just have to decide which). Thirdly, so many people are quick to claim "bad acting" among other things, oblivious to the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about. Take you, for example, you're saying that he couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. You are obviously oblivious to the fact that you are so wrong that even complete imbeciles are like, "Geez dude, even *I* know better than that!"
FangsMcWolf - you're either a troll or a moron. First off it does not require training nor work experience as an actor to recognize poor acting - and the male lead of this show couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. Secondly; the only reason I feel comfortable pointing out you're a moron (see, I don't think you're a troll) is because you opened the door by confusing "background" with personal attacks in your previous post.
This will be the last I say about this, you will no doubt have some prepubescent response - which I preemptively find uninteresting. I maintain my initial observation regarding yourself, with the caveat that you seem to indeed be a troll as well. Add to the list a pompous attitude rivaling the best of them. Allow me point out a couple of facts for you. If any of them are difficult to comprehend please ask an adult for assistance.
1) The first three episodes, which is all I could endure of this show, was so poorly acted on his part that he should consider returning his paycheck. There are clearly plenty of us that has registered this fact, but I guess all of us have no idea what acting is. Strange, considering that we care enough about the craft to actively partake in this forum...
2) I am at liberty to "claim bad acting" whenever and wherever I feel like it - and in this case there is empiric evidence. The rest of the community is equally free to do the same, much the same as you are free to perpetuate your delusions. You might want to choose a slightly more civil approach in the future though; it would go a long way towards avoiding me pointing out what you make yourself out to be. Thanks for playing.
3) I have in my 38 years of existence cleverly avoided watching a single episode of reality TV, but I am starting to suspect you're a recurring cast member of a variety of them. To each one his or her own, I concede.
It seems clear that your libido runs hot for this actor, and for that I am truly sorry for you. Try to find solace in the knowledge that I have come across worse actors on occasion, so there might be hope for him yet.
Ultimately; you really would want to avoid a pissing contest with me. I have a large bladder of which I am in full control. I finally note that only one of us has the balls to post here using their full name. Anonymity is a fine thing to hide behind when being a [insert favorite expletive here].
+1
shareleif-beaton (Mon Jul 28 2014 12:48:30)This is as far as I read. With no due respect to you, you are a waste of time. You are welcome to maintain anything you want, it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. The sad and unfortunate reality here is that ignorant people, such as yourself, are allowed to post online as though they have intelligence or have a clue on what they are talking about. Now, assuming you can show enough intelligence to actually not respond again, we can let this discussion die out with the fact remaining that this show was great but was given the shaft by NBC, which is the real reason why it got canceled. Anyone with a brain knows it's the truth, so denying it won't convince smart people of anything different. share
This will be the last I say about this, you will no doubt have some prepubescent response - which I preemptively find uninteresting. I maintain my initial observation regarding yourself, with the caveat that you seem to indeed be a troll as well. Add to the list a pompous attitude rivaling the best of them. Allow me point out a couple of facts for you.
[deleted]
Bumping 11 month old post to swear at someone, hmmmmm nice..........
Stand Free - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVohcfCmsg
chrisbedford (Fri Jun 5 2015 15:46:49)You incorrectly regarding me in such a manner doesn't change the fact you're the @ssh0le here, not me.
Likewise you are welcome to post anything you like but it doesn'tchange the fact that you are an @ssh0le
Thirdly, so many people are quick to claim "bad acting" among other things, oblivious to the fact that they have no idea what they are talking about.amen. thank you. share
Nah, the acting's fine. You don't know what you're talking about.
~I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong~
[deleted]
http://www.fosterspage.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=393&fullsi ze=1
Just in the off chance you actually believe what you just said...
trolling is annoying but not a crime and is still protected under free speech and first amendment rights.
there's a LOT worse being said on this board (mainly toward Johnny) than people complaining about the acting. Hell, even Johnny's TWITTER feed has trolls.
Just in the off chance you actually believe what you just said...
I agree the kid is the best, a real find, but I think the guy playing her father is doing just fine. They work well together.
I have doubts about the show lasting, but not on account of the cast. It just hasn't been getting great numbers. It's a familiar plot in a tough time slot.
Nobody exists on purpose; nobody belongs anywhere; everybody's gonna die. Come watch TV?
ToHelenBackAgain (Sun Mar 30 2014 21:01:49)I keep thinking of something Kelly Bundy (Married With Children) said to Bud one time. "You have caviar taste and a pizza face." Meaning, expectations beyond the grasp.
I have doubts about the show lasting, but not on account of the cast. It just hasn't been getting great numbers. It's a familiar plot in a tough time slot.
Fangs,
The problem is that NBC has done this before.
Remember Harry's Law? This show was actually #1 in it's time slot, but NBC cancelled it because it skewed older audiences.
Some of the other posters have pointed out that there's too much competition on that night.
artcurus-1 (Mon Mar 31 2014 03:16:49)Yeah I suppose the fact that the ratings during the second season tanked something fierce had nothing to do with it.
Remember Harry's Law? This show was actually #1 in it's time slot, but NBC cancelled it because it skewed older audiences.
Agreed about the changes. The second season was a real WTF moment. The ironic thing is that the storytelling got stronger during the second season.
But it was still going strong. However, I do wonder how much of the cancellation actually had to do with Kathy Bate's health issues.
Even Harry made a snide remark about the real problem was, something like "I wish I was 49 again" in one of the episodes. It was a barb pointed directly at NBC.
artcurus-1 (Mon Mar 31 2014 14:32:24)The plots don't matter if they changed the dynamics of it all. If they wanted to 'expand' to another floor, fine. But why not make it so that the second floor overlooks the first floor so it's mostly open, but with a few rooms that provide privacy when necessary?
Agreed about the changes. The second season was a real WTF moment. The ironic thing is that the storytelling got stronger during the second season.
artcurus-1 (Mon Mar 31 2014 14:32:24)If it had any bearing on it, I'm sure something would have been said to make it clear that even if the ratings had remained as strong (or stronger) than the first season, it still would have faced cancellation.
But it was still going strong. However, I do wonder how much of the cancellation actually had to do with Kathy Bate's health issues.
artcurus-1 (Mon Mar 31 2014 14:32:24)How do you know it was that, vs just the character wishing to be younger in general?
Even Harry made a snide remark about the real problem was, something like "I wish I was 49 again" in one of the episodes. It was a barb pointed directly at NBC.
The plots don't matter if they changed the dynamics of it all. If they wanted to 'expand' to another floor, fine. But why not make it so that the second floor overlooks the first floor so it's mostly open, but with a few rooms that provide privacy when necessary?
How do you know it was that, vs just the character wishing to be younger in general?
Completely agree with you Fangs on both counts...Believe will fail because NBC doesn't know where to put this show on it's schedule to make it succeed (it will be a shame if they don't bring it back and reschedule it with a talent like Johnny Sequoyah) and I liked Harry's Law the first season just fine and the changes they made in season 2 killed it.
shareFangs,
The problem is that NBC has done this before.
Remember Harry's Law? This show was actually #1 in it's time slot, but NBC cancelled it because it skewed older audiences.
The thing with ratings is that it's a crap shoot. Do you know HOW they determine the age groups watching the show? It's from monitoring the activity of select people. Those people represent large groups of people. So to use your example of 20 million people watching a show, in the correct context for how a show could fail, it could be that the true number of people watching a show is 20 million, but those representing us reflect only half a million of worse.
There are obvious problems with ratings systems that use that method of monitoring viewing habits but somehow it's still a successful method. I think it would be interesting if it were discovered that the ratings for the past few years were unreliable in many instances, where some shows that had high ratings really had low viewership and shows that were canceled were actually quite popular. It needs to happen, because there are times when I believe that a show is doing quite well despite low numbers. Can't think of any examples off the top of my head (and can't really use this show as an example, since there are factors that would support difficult ratings at this point). None the less, if it were to happen, as it needs to, it would be interesting to see what new concepts are developed to make ratings more reliable.
The networks willingly participate in the current ratings system. Perhaps the advertisers have too much power and the networks are afraid to challenge them by insisting on adopting a new system, I do think the networks want to use DVR+7 and the advertisers only want to pay for DVR+3 as long as viewers are watching some of the commercials.
shareThe networks willingly participate in the current ratings system. Perhaps the advertisers have too much power and the networks are afraid to challenge them by insisting on adopting a new system, I do think the networks want to use DVR+7 and the advertisers only want to pay for DVR+3 as long as viewers are watching some of the commercials.
You just proved my point.
From my first link.
Here are the two take -aways from my Enquirer story today about “Harry’s Law” cancellation because of its old audience:
–“Harry’s Law” drew 7.6 million viewers at 8 p.m. Sunday – but only 1.2 million in the 18-49 demographic. In other words, 6.4 million viewers were over age 50. By contrast, NBC renewed all of its Thursday comedies, led last week by “The Office” with only 4.4 million viewers – but with 2.9 million in the prized younger demo, and 1.5 million over 50.
–When advertisers buy commercials on shows with a big 18-49 audience, they also reach a big number of viewers 50-plus. So advertisers can reach older viewers without specifically supporting an older-skewing show. Or as one analyst told me: Advertisers logically see no reason to pay for something they’re already getting for free.
I found Harry's Law to be horrible. I'm an avid Kathy Bates fan and was excited to see her in a series but the premise and the writing at least the little I saw of it was just not my cup of tea. I felt the writing for the Kathy Bates character to be an insult to her as an actress.
And she's one of those actresses that can have a bad script but still pull it off and it still be good ... but not that one.
Maybe HL got better, I didn't make it back for more than one episode and I'm thinking that I didn't even finish watching that one.
...
As for as Believe, I think the acting is fine. I like the Tate character and I like his acting. I like the chemistry he has with Bo and I really haven't seen any "bad" acting. I never was in a play and didn't go to drama school or anything, but I don't see where any of the main cast being wooden or unbelievable in their role. Well, maybe except that FBI/detective woman (yeah, she's bad, imho)... her acting as well as her character bugs me. Pretty much dislike every scene she is in. Yeah, she would be the one I would say who could use some more lessons or get killed off.
And ditto, it really needs to be put in another time slot and not against a fantasy or sci-fi. I suggested in another thread to put on the day and time of that horrible hollywood game night. There is a vacancy there ... that I actually now use to watch Believe online.
I'm sure it fare well against any of the top rated reality shows.
I think his acting fits the role. He comes off as a rough, every-man kind of guy which is what the character Will Tate is suppose to be. If they had some never-been-anything-but an actor kind in the role it would come off as fake.
shareI agree, this guy is horrible. It's a shame because I think the show could've been good. Maybe it's the way he's being directed but its bad. I've seen better acting in a high school play
shareI agree that the show will be cancelled due to bad acting, but it just isn't the father, there are only two really good actors, Johnny (Bo) and Delroy (Winter). The rest are either just good, fair or bad.... no real stand outs, and too many fair/bad actors. I just watched ep 4 and it occurred to me that it will not make it through the rest of the season.
Even the extras can't act. Production quality seems low. The pilot was engaging, as was episode 2, but wow... it's like they ran out of steam for the storytelling. There are plenty of shows with one or two bad actors that survive, but not this many. Sadly there is no chance for this... and this is coming from someone who really liked the premise and especially the little girl's acting.
I'll continue to watch and hope they prove me wrong.
movielover2011 (Tue Apr 1 2014 21:55:45)
I agree that the show will be cancelled due to bad acting, but it just isn't the father, there are only two really good actors, Johnny (Bo) and Delroy (Winter).
movielover2011 (Tue Apr 1 2014 21:55:45)
I'll continue to watch and hope they prove me wrong.
People like you are why message boards are so annoying.
You do realise that I wrote MY OPINION, right? Well you're opinion is different. It is clear that I have a higher standard than you.
If I had made a statement that was FACTUAL then you could say I was wrong. Now go #$%@ yourself.
movielover2011 (Sun Apr 6 2014 23:16:51)Okay you've made a few mistakes in this quoted post of yours...
People like you are why message boards are so annoying.
You do realise that I wrote MY OPINION, right? Well you're opinion is different. It is clear that I have a higher standard than you.
If I had made a statement that was FACTUAL then you could say I was wrong. Now go #$%@ yourself.
Um, no Fangs, just no.
It was not a matter of movielover being upset that his/her opinions were not being respected. It was the attitude of your response. All across these boards you have had a nauseating sense of infallibility, expressing your opinions as the gospel truth. When you disagree with people you do not do it in the sense of "I have a different opinion, let's discuss our unique perspectives" but rather in a very rude "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are dumb for being so" sort of way.
Clearly you have a higher opinion of this show than many of the other people here. You're fine to do so, just understand it is also fine for other people to disagree. It is fine for you to discuss the differences that you have in perspective, just understand that when you do so by insulting others you will alienate yourself as an irrational fanboy/fangirl.
caseinpoint1 (Mon Apr 7 2014 08:14:25)Let me make sure I understand this correctly. Other people are allowed to say what they want and I should respect it, but I'm not allowed to say what I want or to not have it respected. Gotcha. share
Um, no Fangs, just no.
It was not a matter of movielover being upset that his/her opinions were not being respected. It was the attitude of your response. All across these boards you have had a nauseating sense of infallibility, expressing your opinions as the gospel truth. When you disagree with people you do not do it in the sense of "I have a different opinion, let's discuss our unique perspectives" but rather in a very rude "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are dumb for being so" sort of way.
Clearly you have a higher opinion of this show than many of the other people here. You're fine to do so, just understand it is also fine for other people to disagree. It is fine for you to discuss the differences that you have in perspective, just understand that when you do so by insulting others you will alienate yourself as an irrational fanboy/fangirl.
That is called putting words in my mouth.
I consider it juvenile when people express opinions through name-calling and criticism, no matter who is doing it. You might well ask why I singled you out when you aren't the only one who has said rude things here. The reason is that you have been far and above the major instigator of such petty arguments.
And no, I do not claim to dictate what you can and can not say. You are welcome to be rude and demeaning, that is your right. But like I said in my first post, when you do so you "alienate yourself as an irrational fanboy/fangirl". If you have strong opinions you would be wise to recognize that you only weaken them by losing your calm rationale. In a civil society respect is never given to one who just shouts over the opposition.
caseinpoint1 (Tue Apr 8 2014 10:55:08)Paraphrasing what you said into a simpler form isn't exactly putting words in your mouth, it's translating it into a direct meaning.
That is called putting words in my mouth.
caseinpoint1 (Tue Apr 8 2014 10:55:08)Mommy, mommy, the internet police are acting like judge and jury now!
I consider it juvenile when people express opinions through name-calling and criticism, no matter who is doing it. You might well ask why I singled you out when you aren't the only one who has said rude things here. The reason is that you have been far and above the major instigator of such petty arguments.
caseinpoint1 (Tue Apr 8 2014 10:55:08)You might not claim it, but you certainly act like it.
And no, I do not claim to dictate what you can and can not say. You are welcome to be rude and demeaning, that is your right. But like I said in my first post, when you do so you "alienate yourself as an irrational fanboy/fangirl". If you have strong opinions you would be wise to recognize that you only weaken them by losing your calm rationale.
caseinpoint1 (Tue Apr 8 2014 10:55:08)Apparently you've never heard of the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Respect is imagined, results are real.
In a civil society respect is never given to one who just shouts over the opposition.
...Well, it's been fun, I'm not dumb enough to get roped into a childish sniping match. So I bid you goodbye!
sharecaseinpoint1 (Tue Apr 8 2014 16:10:32)Translation: You're not smart enough to WIN a battle of wits and so you're trying to exit out but you don't want to look bad so you're making a false claim.
...Well, it's been fun, I'm not dumb enough to get roped into a childish sniping match. So I bid you goodbye!
What's sad is you really believe that!
shareWillows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 20:35:57)No, what's sad is that I'm right and you obviously believe I'm not. share
What's sad is you really believe that!
You argue with everyone over the most minute bullsh!t. Do you really think because people get bored with your nit picking, that you "win" No one wins when all anyone is expressing is an opinion. You're like a dog with a bone. I've never seen someone sooooooooooooooo out to prove how smart they are as you. Whatever floats your boat, dude but most of the time you just sound like an ass hole and a bully.
shareWillows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 21:32:57)So calling someone out on their hypocritical crap is minute? You must really be screwed up in the head if you believe that.
You argue with everyone over the most minute bullsh!t.
Whatever floats your boat, dude but most of the time you just sound like an ass hole and a bully.
shareWillows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 21:48:18)You sound like a troll.
Whatever floats your boat, dude but most of the time you just sound like an ass hole and a bully.
Where did I ever say anything close to that? That would be nowhere, so you need to comprehend better if you're going to be so critical of others You just sound like a spoiled brat who wants to take his toys and go home. Post any opinion you want and never have I said anything different. But the way you berate people who disagree with you is troll behavior. They have a right to their opinion as well.
Somewhere you got the idea that you own these boards and want to control what is said, just like you're complaining of others doing. I don't expect you to comprehend this any better than you comprehend anything else, but that's not my problem.
Keep being an ass hole and a bully and people will keep responding to you the way they do. It's that simple.
Willows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 22:18:49)You are in support of the person who said it, thus, you are in agreement with it. If you aren't, then you must have replied to the wrong person. share
Where did I ever say anything close to that?
No, I'm telling you that in every post I've seen of yours on this board, you sound like an ass hole and are arguing about minutia.
Simple concept.
Willows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 22:38:25)If being smart, sensible and confident makes me an *beep* then so be it. Still doesn't change the fact that endorsing the idea of it being okay for people to trash a show but not okay for people to disagree is pure hypocritical stupidity. share
No, I'm telling you that in every post I've seen of yours on this board, you sound like an ass hole and are arguing about minutia.
Simple concept.
No one said that. Not me and not the person you were arguing with. You twisted their statements to justify your need to rip on them because they didn't agree with you.
Textbook definition of and ass hole and a bully.
Willows2 (Tue Apr 8 2014 22:45:14)Either you have a problem with proper comprehension or you're a liar. Which is it? Only way it can be 'neither' is if it's both.
No one said that. Not me and not the person you were arguing with. You twisted their statements to justify your need to rip on them because they didn't agree with you.
Textbook definition of and ass hole and a bully.
Nevermind, you're already on ignore now. You showed your true trolling colors in another discussion. You got busted and I wasn't even trying. Next time try practicing what you preach.
shareYou put anyone who calls you out on your bullsh!t on ignore, so I am happy to be on that list. Since my posts are not for your benefit it has no effect
Keep up your self righteous crap. It gives the rest of us a good laugh.
case: In a civil society respect is never given to one who just shouts over the opposition.
fangs: Apparently you've never heard of the saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Respect is imagined, results are real.
darrenagyen (Thu Apr 10 2014 08:39:41)Aww look at you, trying to think and then call it logic. You obviously are very new to it, so try working on your skills before trying to use it against someone.
Thus by your logic there is nothing we can say about the nature of KKK being disrespected by modern society, i.e. we cannot make any conclusions based on their ideals and methods.
Because though their actions led to some result that was good, the KKK is also good.
darrenagyen (Thu Apr 10 2014 08:39:41)You are sadistic, I hope you know that. share
Sorry to hear you feel that way fangsmcwolf. Do you really feel that any method can be justified if the outcome is in some way positive? Do you believe there isn't any value to getting good results FROM good actions? Personally I don't agree. I believe we can get good from this world without having to rely on institutions like the KKK. But that's just my opinion
Point #1: "I am obviously very new to it?" Please enlighten me. You do understand, don't you, that logic (TRUE logic) is not subjective, right? It is based on mathematical proofs and is one of the few branches of study that can rightfully claim absolute truth. The beauty of it is that there is nothing magical or personal about it, any claim in it can be unequivocally shown as true or false. My statements were made not from my personal opinion, but by creating the natural predicates of your statements and using these as our "knowledge corpus". Then I applied the logical rules of inference to derive knew statements of truth based on your predicates. The result was something that we both know to be false. Thus proving that your original statements were also false. And that is a perfectly valid process. It is called "Proof by Contradiction". Here's some more research for you if you want to know about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction. But wait, what am I saying? You're an expert in this, aren't you? You must be if you can tell me that I need to "work on my skills before trying to use it against someone". Well if that's the case show me where I was wrong. And I don't mean show me by just saying "you're wrong and I'm right because I want to be", I mean use LOGIC to show me where I messed up. You cannot call someone inferior at a craft if you cannot show them in that same craft where they have erred. As to your claim that I am new to this, this is my life study. It is this branch of science and academia that I am dedicated to. How many years have you been studying the principles of predicate logic? Or propositional logic? Or discrete mathematics? Or finite automata? Or regular expressions? Or grammars and languages (those are technical grammars and languages, mind, not natural)? You come with such an air of smug superiority? Do you really think that you're intelligent?
Point #2: "The very true saying about the squeaky wheel getting the grease has been around for a long time and has been proven true many times." Been proven...where? Where is there any mathematical proof on that saying? Come on now, you were just criticizing my proofs in my last statement, show me a proper proof here. Oh wait, never mind, the very idea is absurd. A proof of an idiom?! Where do you get this stuff?
Point #3: Yeah, I really don't care about what people are saying about this show and what you are saying in response to them...except for when you make statements about how civility is a waste.
Point #4: I'm a sadist?! I think you didn't read my post correctly, which is kind of ironic given that you just recently told Willows2 "you have a problem with proper comprehension". Here, let me restate my sentence with some of the words emphasized: "...Personally I DON'T agree. I believe we CAN get good from this world WITHOUT having to rely on institutions like the KKK." Now I know this is going deep here, but the word "without" in this context means that I actually DON'T think we need the KKK. I'm sorry for the confusion, I know reading can be hard for you because this isn't the first time you've interpreted a post by a user as being the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they actually wrote. If you request it, I'll be happy to provide you another example...Actually I'm pretty sure you only skim comments and then make random criticisms. Which means you'll probably fail to comprehend this one too. So here:
TL;DR-If you say I'm bad at logic, show me how with LOGIC. Also, you failed ridiculously to comprehend what I actually wrote, try harder next time.
darrenagyen (Thu Apr 10 2014 21:59:41)You do realize that twisting something to be about the KKK isn't logical right? You took a reality and tried to twist it into something different to suit your needs. I pity you because you seem to seriously think that you're right when you're not.
Point #1: "I am obviously very new to it?" Please enlighten me. You do understand, don't you, that logic (TRUE logic) is not subjective, right?
darrenagyen (Thu Apr 10 2014 21:59:41)Do you seriously lead that sheltered of a life? Ever seen a demonstration that turned into a riot? Who gets the focus of the attention, the people gathering or the person leading it? Give you a hint, it's the person making the most 'noise' there. Ever watched the news where a company is put on the spot for mistreating a consumer and the company 'breaks policy' to make things right with them? The idiom is proven constantly to be true. So while it may not make sense to you, it is a logical deduction based on true to life instances of it being the case.
Point #2: "The very true saying about the squeaky wheel getting the grease has been around for a long time and has been proven true many times." Been proven...where? Where is there any mathematical proof on that saying? Come on now, you were just criticizing my proofs in my last statement, show me a proper proof here. Oh wait, never mind, the very idea is absurd. A proof of an idiom?! Where do you get this stuff?
darrenagyen (Thu Apr 10 2014 21:59:41)I believe in civility, but I also believe in not being a doormat. I say what's on my mind and if someone doesn't like it, then that's their problem, not mine. I already tried being "the nice guy" and trying to kiss up to others. That crap didn't work and so, screw it. I've pointed out many times that someone just giving generic claims for putting down a movie/show is lame and I'll call them out for it. If someone goes into details, and I mean legitimate details, then even if I don't like it, I see no choice but to respect it. I find it amusing though, that if someone says "the (writing/acting/directing/cgi/etc) sucks" and anyone disagrees, people pipe in to say that the person is entitled to their opinion (while indirectly saying that those responding AREN'T entitled to theirs). Yet if someone says that they think the show is great and people disagree, those same defenders of opinions don't jump in. That sends the undeniable message of "only negative opinions against the show are allowed and are protected."
Point #3: Yeah, I really don't care about what people are saying about this show and what you are saying in response to them...except for when you make statements about how civility is a waste.
Nothing was twisted. All you did was give a principle: that respect is imagined, results are real. That principle, if it is true, is true for ALL iterations of it. Thus while it might be an escalated example it is logically valid. Being able to show that something is true includes showing it is always true. You can see it in something as basic in numbers. 10000000000000 and 1 might be far apart, but they are both valid numbers because they both operate by the same principles. If your statement was valid, it would be scalable too. You provided the framework, if you will, and we can assign values to it as necessary. Or are you trying to say that only sometimes respect is imagined and results are real? If so, that's pathetic and illogical. When people say "this principle is true some of the time but not others" it is not only an unsound argument, it is often just a weak example for them to excuse their behavior as conveniently being one of those time that the principle is true for. Shallow.
I'm not hear to argue idioms. All I'll say though is that select examples are not a proof.
So you tried to be "the nice guy" and it didn't work out for you? I totally get that people are jerks around here. I think it's just sad that you had a higher ideal then and then sunk down to their level. I mean you kind of condoned everything those jerks said to you then by adopting their own behavior.
And about whether people can criticize/defend a show, once again I don't care. I'm not arguing that with you. Sorry, I know you would like me to because that's the point you constantly come back to, but I just really don't care. I was solely making a critique about the suggestion that any method is acceptable as long as it gets results.
darrenagyen (Fri Apr 11 2014 16:31:07)Take people who work for a boss that is a major pain in the rear. They get work done but not out of respect, more because it's their job and there could be the fear of termination. However, results are accomplished.
All you did was give a principle: that respect is imagined, results are real.
Alright, so now you've taken your principle and applied it to another iteration. That's well and fine. But as I said before, a few select examples where something is true is not a proof that the principle itself is true. I will admit the greater burden is on you.
To prove a principle is false, all I have to do is show one example where it is false, which I already have. If something were true 99 times and false once, it is still not a true principle.
To prove a principle is true, you have to prove that it is true literally 100% of the time. But remember what I said about induction? That would be your friend, it is the only way you could prove something to ALWAYS be true. But you won't be able to, because I've already shown that there is no way that your principle is a true one.
Now as for your example, I cannot PROVE that it is false, so I won't try. I'll openly admit that this is just an opinion...but having worked for both good and bad bosses there is a real difference. Not only in the feelings of the employees but in how productive they are at work. Even if all we cared about was getting results, treating people right is the better way to get them. Google is famous for its perks but also famous for getting amazing results.
In any case, it's nice to know you feel that way. Human emotion takes a sideline when it comes to results for you. I guess you're a big fan of sweatshops. I mean there's no denying we get lots of product from that, so that's just great results, right? Sure people work themselves to the bone and die young, but that's only of secondary importance. I wouldn't be so brash as to label you, but that lack of human sympathy is a symptom of all sorts of social disorders (aspergers, antisocial personality disorder, schizoid personality disorder, the list goes on and on). Whether you have an actual problem or are just a straight-up jerk, I sure would never want to work for you.
darrenagyen (Sat Apr 12 2014 09:56:39)Where have you proven that results are not real? More importantly, where have you proven that respect is real and results aren't? You obviously don't know what respect really is, as it's not something that you can just 'have', it has to be earned. Results can be achieved without respect, but having respect (which is imagined, as it's a human trait) doesn't always yield results.
To prove a principle is false, all I have to do is show one example where it is false, which I already have.
Ah, let me clarify. When you first said "respect is imagined, results are real", you did it as if to say all that matters then is to have results, that it is the only thing of real value.
Thus with my examples of the KKK and sweatshops was to show that results are not all that matter. The methods by which we get our results is important, and the best methods are those which are respected by civil society. Things like operating with ethics, legal, non-discriminatory, etc. So yes, sure, results can be achieved without respect, but that doesn't mean that that is all we should aspire to.
You say "based on my way of thinking" as if I'm presenting my own slant here. This is basic logic, fangsmcwolf. And in basic logic a rule is true ALL of the time. For examples the laws of friction are based on rules. If you go out in space and don't have friction, that doesn't make the rules any less real. Speaking of space, "space missions are possible" cannot be considered a rule because by its very nature that statement is incomplete. The phrase "space missions are possible" implies that there is also the possibility that "space missions are not possible". To be a complete rule your statement needs to make a decision about ALL space missions. Thus we could say "All space missions are possible or impossible". This is valid because it accounts for ALL cases and the statement will hold true for every one of those accounts. If we tried to say "All space missions are possible" or "All space missions are not possible" then we would have a fallacy.
But if you are trying to throw out the notion that one contradiction to a statement does not show that that statement cannot be a truth, then you need to go back to school. If we were to discover one instance where the laws of gravity were broken then we would throw out all the rules we have written by gravity, no matter how many times it has functioned as we expect it to (or at least alter them).
To say every rule has an exception is illogical, as you so kindly pointed out by showing that that is a contradiction of itself.
darrenagyen (Sat Apr 12 2014 23:16:56)In other words, you assumed what I meant, instead of taking it for what it said. If one thing is imagined and another is real, how does that become "real value?" It doesn't. You goofed.
Ah, let me clarify. When you first said "respect is imagined, results are real", you did it as if to say all that matters then is to have results, that it is the only thing of real value.
darrenagyen (Sat Apr 12 2014 23:16:56)Logic requires facts, not assumptions, unless trying to come to a conclusion with something made known to be an assumption, ie, the conclusion is on the condition that the assumption is indeed the case. If the assumption turns out to be wrong, then the end result is wrong. My point? I said the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I didn't include something to explicitly imply all/always or anything else of the kind. If you are pushing a cart around and a wheel is squeaking, are you going to put oil on all but the one that is squeaking? No, it's common sense to apply it to the one making the noise. You might also apply some to the others as a preventive measure, but that isn't the point. Applying it to other things in life, it simply means that for someone/something to get attention, it needs to make itself noticed. Being the loudest or more noticeable doesn't guarantee being first or even chosen at all, but it certain can help.
You say "based on my way of thinking" as if I'm presenting my own slant here. This is basic logic, fangsmcwolf. And in basic logic a rule is true ALL of the time. For examples the laws of friction are based on rules. If you go out in space and don't have friction, that doesn't make the rules any less real. Speaking of space, "space missions are possible" cannot be considered a rule because by its very nature that statement is incomplete. The phrase "space missions are possible" implies that there is also the possibility that "space missions are not possible". To be a complete rule your statement needs to make a decision about ALL space missions. Thus we could say "All space missions are possible or impossible". This is valid because it accounts for ALL cases and the statement will hold true for every one of those accounts. If we tried to say "All space missions are possible" or "All space missions are not possible" then we would have a fallacy.
Don't say "in other words" and then create an entirely new meaning that was never given. I wasn't assuming anything. I mean sure, the statement "Respect is imagined, results are real" could have many various interpretations based on the context. But I was referring a specific context where there was this exchange:
"In a civil society respect is never given to one who just shouts over the opposition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently you've never heard of the saying, 'the squeaky wheel gets the grease.' Respect is imagined, results are real."
In that your meaning is clearly to say that you are fine with sidelining civility because you don't care for the respect it might bring, that you only care for the results because they are all that is real. The "value" is the value you are putting on results over respect.
If you meant something else, then you would have done well to clarify your meaning when I put up my first post. Since you didn't, please feel free to do so now so that we aren't on different pages. Because really your meaning seems pretty clear as it stands in that context, and it is that meaning that I take issue with.
"...unless trying to come to a conclusion with something made known to be an assumption, ie, the conclusion is on the condition that the assumption is indeed the case. If the assumption turns out to be wrong, then the end result is wrong." Actually I just wanted to commend you on this. This is a nice description of a logical equivalence called a biconditional.
And about the squeaking wheel. From the very beginning I have had no interest in arguing the logical validity of idioms (because that makes no sense to argue about) and said so in my earlier posts. So please understand that all of my comments have not been directed towards that idiom (except for two brief cases where I explicitly said that's what I was doing), they were instead all directed solely towards the idea of valuing results over respect.
darrenagyen (Sun Apr 13 2014 20:28:54)You have a problem with comprehension then. If I say, "Charlie is cold, Cathy is hot," then are you going to assume that I'm saying Cathy is attractive instead of being overheated and needing to cool down? That's essentially what you're doing, where you are ignoring the obvious. One thing is imagined, the other is real. With the word 'imagined' in the sentence and the use of the word 'real,' there is only one obvious meaning to it. You should just give up, you can't even admit to being wrong correctly. share
Don't say "in other words" and then create an entirely new meaning that was never given. I wasn't assuming anything. I mean sure, the statement "Respect is imagined, results are real" could have many various interpretations based on the context.
You still have yet to give another explicit meaning that can fit the context where you originally used your expression. Instead you are deflecting by being insulting and saying I am just wrong, while giving nothing to back that up. You've been deflecting at every possible turn on this exchange, so I don't expect any different now.
shareYou ignoring what I have said time and again is your issue, not mine.
shareDeflection
shareI actually really like him. I feel like he has a lot of charisma. I find him gorgeous. The little girl is perfectly cast. It could have been cheesy, but it just isn't. Aside from the female detective, but most of the time they're cheesy anyways. Kyle is amazing. I overall enjoyed it. I do believe it will be canceled though. It is too much of a niche group that will like the characters and the Firestarter theme, as evidenced by the many negative reviews and comments. I didn't like Touch and a few other shows like this but I never enjoyed the characters.
Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.
[deleted]
The show has potential, episode 5 was a little disappointing in production value, that scene in the train station, I was expecting something to blow me away, and it didn't.
~*~
http://www.jmberman.com
[deleted]
David vs 3 Goliaths, and in this instance, David ain't much to root for.
~*~
http://www.jmberman.com
Quick summary of the thread
FangsMcWolf: Um, the acting has been wonderful. So they proved you wrong from episode one. You're welcome.
Some other people: But we disagree, and that is our opinion that we don't like it.
FangsMcWolf: You are saying it like it is a fact. You know nothing about TV obviously and since I do mine is a fact. Only I am right. Anything you say is wrong.
These boards crack me up sometimes.
Would I rather be feared or loved? Easy, both. I want people to be afraid of how much they love me.
superlisaj, I so agree with you! I completely ignored Page 2 of this thread.
I really like Believe, even more than Resurrection. Most of the actors are quite good. Johnny Sequoyah is outstanding and I see a movie career ahead for her. I couldn't believe Winter told Tate that Bo was his daughter. I yelled, "Finally!" There is so much potential for this show if they would just tweak certain aspects and give it a better time slot. In the meantime, I'll just enjoy the show, actors and all.