Page 63 of 70 FirstFirst ... 1353596061626364656667 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 945 of 1042
  1. #931
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Kent View Post
    No, it's not. Saying something isn't capable of reaching a certain level due to a characteristic is pretentious. So much that the man himself admited he was wrong.
    Key word being "wrong." He didn't admit that he was "pretentious."

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Kent View Post
    No. Sorry, but the fact that you don't understand the meaning of a word is not an argument. If you want to pretende you didn't make a fool of yourself while insisting on something that you didn't knew, go ahead. But I'll just ignore you.
    For someone who pretends to have good diction, you might want to spell the words correctly while you're at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Kent View Post
    Of course it's not. You were caught saying something that was wrong and your ego doesn't allow you to admit that. So you keep this silly discussion going without having a real argument. Because, for some reason, admiting you were wrong in an online forum hurts for you.
    If you actually believed we were having a silly discussion, you would've never engaged in it. And you're the one who is hurt. I simply dislike the incorrect usage of "pretentious."
    Last edited by jesse_custer; 01-16-2013 at 07:33 AM.

  2. #932
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    Key word being "wrong." He didn't admit that he was "pretentious."
    lol

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    For someone who pretends to have good diction, you might want to spell the words correctly while you're at it.
    Don't care enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    If you actually believed we were having a silly discussion, you would've never engaged in it. And you're the one who is hurt. I simply dislike the incorrect usage of "pretentious."
    It's silly because you've been proven wrong and keep insisting because you have a childish complex that stops you from admiting to being wrong.
    The usage is not incorrect. Your definition is.

  3. #933

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    Now you need a reading lesson so you can understand what a dictionary says. He wasn't making claim to distinction or importance; if anything, he was doing the opposite.
    So now when the definition isn't to your liking, you're going to argue with that? :D Please let me know how what he said wasn't giving more importance to non-super hero comics and clearly making a distinction. Not because your explanation will be valid, I just want to see how far you're willing to go to stretch the definition in any willy way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Darrell D. View Post
    And than was for the benefit of the few posters in this thread whose opinions I actually value.
    Funny how you only 'clarified' it after people called you on it. But then we both know how much you value my opinion, no need to put up this front. I'm surprised the dictionary-police didn't let you know that you are using 'clarify' wrongly, saying something opposite from what was earlier said is more like 'contradicting' yourself. Let me know if you think I'm wrong jesse, because that would confirm that I am right.

  4. #934
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    So now when the definition isn't to your liking, you're going to argue with that? :D Please let me know how what he said wasn't giving more importance to non-super hero comics and clearly making a distinction. Not because your explanation will be valid, I just want to see how far you're willing to go to stretch the definition in any willy way.
    You're stretching the definition. If clearly making a distinction about something is pretentious, too many things could be called pretentious. The fact that I clearly make a distinction between birds and fish would have to be labeled pretentious by your logic. Or what if I think cats are more important than dogs? Does that make me pretentious? Or does it make me someone who prefers cats or dislikes dogs?

    To give an example that is closer to what was said, if someone says that westerns are automatically better than operas, that's not pretentious; it's dismissive, perhaps, maybe even myopic, but not pretentious. It's an honest opinion that could be called into question. The statement might be coming from someone who doesn't find opera that important. It could be coming from someone who simply likes gun fights over singing. Is this person pretentious or merely honest?

    And like I pointed out earlier, if the statement were truly pretentious, it wouldn't be followed by a statement that points out that the person in question likes and reads superhero comic books.

    The real issue here is that you have a love affair with superhero comic books and are extremely sensitive when people say something negative about them. If someone made the westerns/operas comment in this very thread, you wouldn't care, and you certainly wouldn't start butchering the English language due to hurt feelings.
    Last edited by jesse_custer; 01-16-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  5. #935

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    You're stretching the definition. If clearly making a distinction about something is pretentious, too many things could be called pretentious. The fact that I clearly make a distinction between birds and fish would have to be labeled pretentious by your logic. Or what if I think cats are more important than dogs? Does that make me pretentious? Or does it make me someone who prefers cats or dislikes dogs?
    To be honest I don't care wether you like cats or dogs. He automatically belittled all superhero comics, until he contradicted himself later on, solely because of the genre without taking any consideration for the quality. In other words non-superhero can never be as good for anybody because he doesn't have that opinion. He places his opinion and non-superhero work higher than everybody's elses. Look at the definition again. Use your head. Voilá.

    I hope you're not too old, because the thought of me having to explain this to a grown person. Well, you get the gist.

    if the statement were truly pretentious, it wouldn't be followed by a statement that points out that the person in question likes and reads superhero comic books.
    Please show me in the dictionary where it says this would be the case? It sounds made up.......oh it is. :D

    The real issue here is that you have a love affair with superhero comic books and are extremely sensitive when people say something negative about them.
    If it helps you in any way I can pretend to be somebody with a love affair for superhero comics, as opposed to somebody who saw complete nonsense being written and simply calling said persons on it. I'm nice like that. :) Let me know.

  6. #936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Kent View Post
    Thanks, OmegaKey, for answering to this charming guys for me :)

  7. #937
    Elder Member The Batman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Otisburg, USA.
    Posts
    10,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    Please show me in the dictionary where it says this would be the case? It sounds made up.......oh it is. :D
    If Michael P's post were pretentious, if it were about him trying to claim "unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature," he'd have not claimed to be a fan of superhero comics. Enjoying something for what it is, loving something for what it is, isn't pretentious, it's just honest and self-aware.

    Most superhero comics aren't great art not because they're superhero stories but because most weren't ever meant to be great art and most really don't need to be great art. That doesn't mean I can't or won't love them all the same.

  8. #938

    Default

    How exactly is claiming that a superhero comic by default can never attain the quality that non-superhero work can, not unwarranted or exaggerated? He even backtracked a couple of posts earlier because it was exactly that.

    Even in the link you give the only thing missing from definition A is a link to that guy's post as an example.

  9. #939
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    How exactly is claiming that a superhero comic by default can never attain the quality that non-superhero work can, not unwarranted or exaggerated?
    It's not unwarranted or exaggerated if you believe it is true. It's also not unwarranted or exaggerated if you don't care. (By the way, unwarranted and exaggerated do not mean the same thing as pretentious, but they make your case clearer than your improper usage of pretentious.)

    You have to face reality: there is nothing objectively true about what you believe (that superhero comics can attain the quality that non-superhero work can) versus the opposite of your belief. If there is nothing objectively true about the subject, then how can there be pretense, which by default involves objective truth?

  10. #940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    It's not unwarranted or exaggerated if you believe it is true. It's also not unwarranted or exaggerated if you don't care. (By the way, unwarranted and exaggerated do not mean the same thing as pretentious.)
    By the way it wasn't me who came the "unwarranted and exaggerated" line, that was the other guy who was quoting directly from Webster exactly what "pretentious" means. For some strange reason I'll go with Webster's definition of the word instead of yours. Crazy, I know.

    You have to face reality: there is nothing objectively true about what you believe (that superhero comics can attain the quality that non-superhero work can) versus the opposite of your belief. If there is nothing objectively true about the subject, then how can there be pretense, which by default involves objective truth?
    Reality is that he judged an entire genre, if you want to call superhero a genre, not on it's quality but merely on it's association. That's not objective at all. Or are you now going to argue what that word means as well?

  11. #941
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    Reality is that he judged an entire genre, if you want to call superhero a genre, not on it's quality but merely on it's association.
    Its association with what?

    Seriously, so now you're arguing that he WASN'T talking about the quality of superhero books he has read?

  12. #942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    Its association with what?
    It being part of the superhero genre.

    Seriously, so now you're arguing that he WASN'T talking about the quality of superhero books he has read?
    Not bad, but even the best corporate super-hero story is just a super-hero story, at the end of the day

    Yes, seriously.

  13. #943
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    It being part of the superhero genre.
    So he was judging the superhero genre based on its association with the superhero genre? That makes no sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    Not bad, but even the best corporate super-hero story is just a super-hero story, at the end of the day

    Yes, seriously.
    And by quoting him here, you kill your entire butthurt argument. Notice that the statement has a qualifier before "super-hero story": corporate. Not all superhero stories are corporate, so he wasn't talking about ALL superhero stories, as you inaccurately implied earlier. And his statement on corporate superheroes is based on the corporate stuff he has read.

  14. #944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jesse_custer View Post
    So he was judging the superhero genre based on its association with the superhero genre? That makes no sense.
    Considering you're the expert on not making sense, I'll take your word for it.

    And by quoting him here, you kill your entire butthurt argument. Notice that the statement has a qualifier before "super-hero story": corporate. Not all superhero stories are corporate, so he wasn't talking about ALL superhero stories, as you inaccurately implied earlier. And his statement on corporate superheroes is based on the corporate stuff he has read.
    I think it's funny you actually think you found a loophole in your struggle. :D As if making a blanket statement of the quality of Marvel/DC/etc.published superhero stories is any better. You're still not basing it on the quality but on it's association.

    At least you're not disputing Webster anymore, we're making some progress.

  15. #945
    Elder Member jesse_custer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    20,646

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    Considering you're the expert on not making sense, I'll take your word for it.
    Instead of defending your statement, you give up sarcastically. That says a lot. Again, please tell me how this makes sense: he was judging the superhero genre based on its association with the superhero genre.

    I'll give you a hint as to why I'm asking for clarification: isn't a genre always associated with itself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omega Key View Post
    I think it's funny you actually think you found a loophole in your struggle. :D As if making a blanket statement of the quality of Marvel/DC/etc.published superhero stories is any better. You're still not basing it on the quality but on it's association.

    At least you're not disputing Webster anymore, we're making some progress.
    Well, you're moving the goalposts now. You originally said your problem with the statement was that he was saying all superhero books could never achieve what a non-superhero book could achieve; now you're saying you wish he hadn't said anything about Marvel and DC superhero comic books. Nevermind that not all of the superhero stories from either company could be classified as corporate, either.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •