Star Wars fans - Anyone have a link to the review rebuttal?

[Wasserkopp]

If we're being technical, they're all about him pretending people actually care about his opinions.

This, essentially.

So, you went from "I'm gonna embarass you with my epic beatdown" to "who even cares about opinions" pretty quick, eh?


Same pattern happening here as over at RLM:
-pretending you want a debate / have epic pwnage at the ready
-swift failure during the debate / inability to get away with dishonest tactics
-feign "disinterest" and complain how you "don't care about those obsessive opinions"

I've yet to meet anyone representing your position on this topic, who after a few exchanges doesn't
1) just stop posting
2) switch to "agree to disagree"
3) start lying.

Maybe there really isn't anything to your viewpoint, after all. Maybe it's lasted all these years merely due to a lack of challenge, not its ability to withstand said challenge... going through various forums right now to get proven wrong on this.
But I'm not having my hopes up...

[EmperorIng]

Perhaps people don't like wasting their time as much as you do.

going through various forums right now

Like this being a prime example.

[Squire Grooktook]

Yeah I seriously don't have time for this shit.

[Wasserkopp]

Yeah I seriously don't have time for this shit.

Great! I never asked anyone to partake


As for certain other individuals, here's a general piece of advice for... life:
If you want people to believe you when you say "I don't want to waste time on such trivial matters beneath me", don't announce epic pwnage-wreckage at first and then switch to "time economy" when said pwnage proves unsuccessful - it might be perceived as an excuse.


Anyway, let's see if Skykid decides to start acting honestly or not - a few more evasive reactions from him and then I'll stop wasting my time and go elsewhere.

[Mischief Maker]

Same pattern happening here as over at RLM:
-pretending you want a debate / have epic pwnage at the ready
-swift failure during the debate / inability to get away with dishonest tactics
-feign "disinterest" and complain how you "don't care about those obsessive opinions"

I've yet to meet anyone representing your position on this topic, who after a few exchanges doesn't
1) just stop posting
2) switch to "agree to disagree"
3) start lying.

Maybe there really isn't anything to your viewpoint, after all. Maybe it's lasted all these years merely due to a lack of challenge, not its ability to withstand said challenge... going through various forums right now to get proven wrong on this.
But I'm not having my hopes up...

On the hypothetical chance that you're not a troll...

You do realize that your posts are the common denominator across all these forums, right?

[Wasserkopp]

But of course.

[Squire Grooktook]

Yeah I seriously don't have time for this shit.

Great! I never asked anyone to partake

Thing is though, your...style of debate, makes this sort of thing excessively time consuming.

Like, it's not just a matter of responding to a paragraph with a paragraph...but having the first paragraph broken up into 10 quotations, each of which gets a paragraph response. So then the person responding has to respond to all of those, which involves painstakingly copy and pasting multiple blocks of text while managing a ton of quotation tags, and then you'll break up those into more...till you have this branching conversation that, if it really were to be "debated", would turn into this fractal clusterfuck where each post takes up several pages.

I think the way you "win" these debates is by simply outlasting the competitions patience to keep arguing in circles with someone who maintains a condescending attitude throughout. I could see having a brief conversation over the quality of the prequels, but I can't see taking 3 hours out of each day to respond to posts that are ultimately going to go in a circle of "your opinion is wrong". Inevitably, the opposition says "fuck it" and walks away, and you declare yourself the winner regardless of whether many of your points actually were valid or not.

[Wasserkopp]

I think the way you "win" these debates is by simply outlasting the competitions patience to keep arguing in circles with someone

And to counteract such a "pointlessness", I've decided to hold Skykid to a standard - if I let his dishonesty slide, it'll be "arguing in circles".

Inevitably, the opposition says "fuck it" and walks away, and you declare yourself the winner regardless of whether many of your points actually were valid or not.

Well, someone who says "fuck it", has no business declaring themselves the winner after bowing out - as long as they don't do that, no one will laugh at them, however:

1) the opposition's "last word", remains the last word and the "currently valid" one - that's a natural consequence of bowing out
2) making claims presumes an ability to back up those claims; if such an abiity is demonstrated in limited fashion, the validity of those claims made in the future will be just as limited.


I didn't make any of this up - that's just how things are.
If I get "overwhelmed" and can't keep up anymore, I can't then go on other forums and claim how I "still pwnt everybody" - I didn't, and nothing stops me from going back and trying again.

[Squire Grooktook]

See, two quotes.

[Wasserkopp]

and you had a fractal quote

[Mischief Maker]

I think the way you "win" these debates is by simply outlasting the competitions patience to keep arguing in circles with someone who maintains a condescending attitude throughout.

Aka. "Trolling."

[Wasserkopp]

I think the way you "win" these debates is by simply outlasting the competitions patience to keep arguing in circles with someone

And to counteract such a "pointlessness", I've decided to hold Skykid to a standard - if I let his dishonesty slide, it'll be "arguing in circles".

aka "not trolling"

[BareKnuckleRoo]

So, you went from "I'm gonna embarass you with my epic beatdown"

Honestly, there's no way anyone could possibly embarrass Wasserkopp more than he's already managed to embarrass himself.

[Wasserkopp]

So, you went from "I'm gonna embarass you with my epic beatdown"

Honestly, there's no way anyone could possibly embarrass Wasserkopp more than he's already managed to embarrass himself.

Coming from the guy who interpreted "slave owners can be grey characters" as "OMG SLAVERY APOLOGIA" and never retracted this blunder, any statements about others' embarassment are completely worthless.
You "bowed out of the debate" a few days ago, and instead of acknowledging that you're now going around and claiming victory and inserting little snark comments everywhere - not a respectable way of conduct, the same goes for Mischief.


_____________

Until Skykid addresses his error, which he won't, this entire discussion is now over.
Which means that it is over.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Isn't it sad that Wasserkopp's mother never taught him to treat people the way he wants to be treated?

[dan76]

Wasserkopp needs to get laid.

[Skykid]

Honestly, there's no way anyone could possibly embarrass Wasserkopp more than he's already managed to embarrass himself.

Yeah, but God loves a trier.


Good morning from China folks.

I decided to do a bit of an investigation just to cement a few assumptions. I identified while (not-really) conversing with Wasserkopp that his grasp of and use of the English language is very poor. He makes grammatical mistakes regularly and his sentence composition is often incorrect. This is why it's often difficult to understand what he's saying or the point he's trying to make.

A few recent examples:

I've yet to meet anyone representing your position on this topic, who after a few exchanges doesn't
...
3) start lying.

Maybe there really isn't anything to your viewpoint, after all. Maybe it's lasted all these years merely due to a lack of challenge, not its ability to withstand said challenge... going through various forums right now to get proven wrong on this.
But I'm not having my hopes up...

And to counteract such a "pointlessness", I've decided to hold Skykid to a standard - if I let his dishonesty slide, it'll be "arguing in circles".

if such an abiity is demonstrated in limited fashion, the validity of those claims made in the future will be just as limited.

You haven't demonstrated anything so far - including the supposed ignorance "about actual filmmaking" supposedly shown, well, anywhere..

You were reducing the word narrative to events in the plot, so I corrected you - a narrative only arises when there's a particular pattern to those events.

It's a universal concept that transcends media such as film, novel or vidya, while "filmmaking" is the tools and ideals specific to one medium.

It's almost complete gibberish. This kind of stuff occurs when you get a guy who wants to sound smart but can't think of the appropriate word to sound smart, so ends up using words or phrases that are either outright grammatically incorrect or just generally unsuitable.

Considering the pattern is pretty idiosyncratic, and that every time I asked "Are you the guy who actually wrote the 108 page rebuttal", I never got an answer, I went back to the rebuttal. Here's what I found... in the opening line of the first paragraph:

What's This All About?
Almost everyone reading this response of mine already knows what Red Letter Media is.

I'm writing this lengthy response to Stoklasa's review because it's massively overrated, and simply wrong and even dishonest on numerous points.

There are plenty of examples, but the one above - from page 1 no less - is the real giveaway. Heard this term being used before at all?:

admitting your error / dishonesty

dishonesty

intellectual dishonesty

relying on intellectual dishonesty

let's see if Skykid decides to start acting honestly or not

if I let his dishonesty slide

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say conclusively that the author of the 108 page RLM rebuttal on SW Ep1 is Wasserkopp. He spends his time trawling Google to see if anyone gives a fuck about it, and on stumbling on Edmond's thread decided it was time for a resurrection.

I commented on his rebuttal on the opening page:

Mother of god, what a waste of living tissue. Some nerds are smart and nerdy, some, like this, are simian-grade nerdy. It's obvious from the opening paragraphs he knows nothing about film, has no real critical understanding of film as a medium, and doesn't actually realise the review he's 'reviewing' is actually extraordinarily well-written and executed despite the thematic pretense of a psycho-ward patient tying people up in his basement.

Which begs the question, if you know nothing about anything except butthurt nerd whining, why write 108 pages utilising the foremost skill of ineptitude.

You wanted this drivel why, Dantes?

And it's accurate to pretty much everything he's posted in the thread so far.

Identifying the primary reasons why you can't have a debate with the guy:

- He doesn't understand that the RLM reviews were film criticism more than they were Star Wars criticism. This is pretty fucking hilarious when you consider he wrote 108 pages rebutting the work without actually understanding the core of the critique.

- He can't use language very well. 'Dishonesty' is not the right word: you can't accuse people offering an argument, whether it's me, Plinkett, or anyone else, of being 'liars', or worse, 'intellectual liars' when they're stating a case. Just retarded.

- He's not very bright. Ultimately it all boils down to this. Delusions of intellect, one awful and comprehensively worthless 108 page rebuttal later, years worth of forum trolling trying to defend the narrative aspects of three piss poor movies that are rightfully reviled, and the only thing you can be absolutely sure of: it's not worth it.

So it's not worth it.

Have fun chaps!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say conclusively that the author of the 108 page RLM rebuttal on SW Ep1 is Wasserkopp.

That's some nifty detective work. It'd definitely explain his motive and why he's so determined to protect his oh-so-precious writing. The word 'dishonest' shows up like nine times throughout the document, all used in inappropriate ways. I took a quick skim with that in mind (in spite of how much this idiotic document gives me a headache), and saw that the argument and response style is alarmingly similar to his shitposting we've seen here:

Plinkett: "So it seems like the Jedi Council reluctantly agrees to let Obi-Wan train
the boy for no real reason."

No reason? Let's hear the logic behind that statement...

or:

Plinkett: "At this point I realize who The Phantom Menace is. No, it's not [George Lucas]. It's Qui-Gon Jinn. His character is totally baffling to me, and I do not know why he's in this movie."

Funny, because his role as the kindly father figure to Anakin was pretty clear cut. But as shown all the way back in Part 1, Stoklasa is so clueless (or dishonest) that he doesn't even TRY to describe Qui-Gon, and pretends as if nothing can even be said of him. Oh yeah, except for that laughably incorrect label of "stern."

And then it goes on a long diatribe that doesn't address the point that Qui-Gon's personality is essentially a nonexistent blank slate who is utterly forgettable for the audience. He also makes inferences into character motivations to shore up situations that simply make no sense in terms of the plot:

Plinkett: "How exactly will it work to your advantage? The Galactic Senate doesn't even know what's happening here. What does it matter?"

Obviously, Sidious thought that it was advantageous with regards to the military situation on Naboo. The Gungan army came out in the open where it could be easily crushed.

or this:

Plinkett: "Yes, I said the other side of the planet, because..." Gungan Leader: "The speediest way to the Naboo is going through...(taking an ominous tone) the planet core."

Stoklasa takes what the Gungan leader says literally and runs with it, pointing out how the core would be far deeper, at the center of the planet under big molten layers. He also uses the Gungan submarine traveling through the "core" to question why the Trade Fed would have landed their troops on the other side of the planet. All that...over one word spoken by a fat idiot from a backward society. Who was explicitly shown to be weak minded by Qui-Gon's successful use of a Jedi Mind Trick in that same scene. Who sounded like he was using a spooky nickname for the region that they'd be traveling through, to ratchet up tension. Spoken words are not to be taken literally all the time, and even if they were it was just a momentary thing.

These are some pretty big assumptions. The audience hears the use of "the planet core" coming from the leader of a civilization that has the technology to live in an isolated, underwater civilization, and can easily mobilize an army when it's convenient, but because you want to defend the idiotic idea of landing on the other side of the fucking planet, suddenly he's "a fat idiot from a backward society". The audience is not given any reason to not take the statement of "the planet core" literally, and certainly the submarine scene goes on forever to match, so all of these bizarre excuses fall flat. We're clearly, as an audience, meant to take "the planet core" at face value.

Plinkett: "So anyways, when, when the guys told Palpatine that the Jedis were there, he should've said this:"
Stoklasa's Sidious Imitation: "Tell the Jedi that there will be no negotiations. Tell them that you plan to invade the planet next. And then send them back to Coruscant to inform the Senate."
Plinkett: "Instead he tells them to do the exact opposite of what will help his plan. Like he wanted [Queen Amidala] to sign the treaty, right?...He seemed really intent on having her sign the treaty to make the invasion legal. So what if she was like a total coward and then actually signed the treaty? Like right away? Then the crisis would be over and there would be no need for a vote of no confidence. See what I mean, this sounding like an eight-year-old wrote it?"

Stoklasa once again provides laughable analysis, that either ignores or fails to think of the straightforward answers to his own questions.

This guy seriously thinks that Sidious should've told the Trade Federation to admit their plans to the Jedi, and not even bother trying to cover their tracks...The whole point of the cover up and treaty was to shield the Trade Fed from the law so that they would be willing to go along with Sidious's plan and fight. Stoklasa seems to think that Sidious should've neglected these protective measures and told the Trade Federation to sacrifice themselves for nothing in return.

It's insane that he's complaining about the Trade Federation wouldn't want to sacrifice themselves for nothing in return when that's a gigantic fucking problem with the plot either way. As the plot stands in the movie, they literally don't seem to benefit from what they're doing. What the hell is their motivation? It's never explained why a group calling themselves the Trade Federation would benefit from invading a planet, let alone going to war with it. Even if we're running under the assumption that Palpatine is mind controlling everyone to get his way, the way he does it is one hell of a roundabout and stupid way to accomplish things. Why not just mind control everyone in the senate? The end. This is terrible script writing for something trying to have a semblance of political intrigue.

Plinkett: "Okay, so they free the Naboo air force, and they get on a silver jet thing, to run through a blockade. Which again, I remind you, the point of a blockade is to stop ships from getting through. So Qui-Gon Jinn could've very easily gotten everyone killed."

So hero characters in an action movie show courage and confidence when facing unfavorable odds...that's just unheard of.

He misses the point entirely, then goes on to complain when later Plinkett asks why the hell the Jedi didn't just fight off the droids and steal a ship and fly back to Coruscant to warn everyone there was a droid army. What he misses is that Plinkett points out that later in the movie they run through the blockade like it was no problem at all, so if it was an option then, it was clearly an option later on. Either way, the point still stands that it was a laughably inept blockade; you have a wall of battleships that couldn't even prevent one ship from leaving the planet, even when its shields are dropped completely (only so that R2D2 can save the day conveniently). What the fuck was the point of having the blockade at all if it was so ineffective? There weren't even any tactics or any kind of strategy when they flew through the blockade, they just sort of flew right at it! Why the hell does nothing in this movie make any logical sense?

And just look at this pretentious "conclusion":

Too many people have been swayed by his lousy arguments and deceptive tricks. I believe that the monstrous length of his review has protected it from criticism. At seventy minutes long, it at once appears daunting and authoritative. Any counterpoints to it appear selective and incomplete in comparison; RLM supporters can and have claimed that its detractors "haven't looked at the big picture" of what Stoklasa is saying. Well now, you have a rather complete "big picture" summary of the whole damn thing. Now, almost all of his points have been laid bare for everyone to see.

Writing this response took patience, as well as too much time. But it didn't take any special skills. Just a critical mindset that sought to verify any claims that were being made. If only more people took the time to check up on things that they read or hear.

I agree, it's a safe bet that Wasserkopp is sockpuppeting in an attempt to defend his drivel publicly, and is only digging himself into a deeper hole. Pathetic.

[GaijinPunch]

Wondering how the participants of this thread fend of all the pussy relentlessly throwing itself at them. All this Star Wars prowess...

[Giest118]

Wondering how the participants of this thread fend of all the pussy relentlessly throwing itself at them. All this Star Wars prowess...

You misspelled "off" you non-Star Wars heathen.

[mamboFoxtrot]

Wondering how the participants of this thread fend of all the pussy relentlessly throwing itself at them. All this Star Wars prowess...

They use their Force powers. Obviously. I mean, like, duh, man.


PS: I've never watched a single Star Wars movie. Ever. This thread has been somewhere between amusing and completely incomprehensible to me.

[Skykid]

Wondering how the participants of this thread fend of all the pussy relentlessly throwing itself at them. All this Star Wars prowess...

With our massive lightsabers of course.

I'm claiming film prowess btw, not the same thing.

[Wasserkopp]

Read the first few of those supposeduly "anti-grammatical gibberish quotes", and they were completely fine - if you were asked to explain how they don't make sense, you'd fail as usual.



I'm asked whether I'm 108 and respond once:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p1149988

I'm asked whether I created this account just to argue about Star Wars, and I provide this link:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p1150987
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... cc73fa280b
...rendering all these "are you 108 tho" questions laughably moot.


I'm also AronRa, Blackadder and Wikipedia, because we use the word dishonesty:
http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/view ... f=8&t=6201
http://blackadder.wikia.com/wiki/Dish_and_Dishonesty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty


Nifty detective work, *pat on the back*.



So are you gonna address your error now, or keep trying to distract from it?

[Blinge]

^Fucking WOW.

this thread = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpbtNfYejT8

aaand I'm out.

[Skykid]

Read the first few of those supposeduly "anti-grammatical gibberish quotes", and they were completely fine

They're not fine, they're borderline jargon.

Also what the fuck is "anti-grammatical"?

That sums it up perfectly.

I'm asked whether I created this account just to argue about Star Wars, and I provide this link:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 7#p1150987
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... cc73fa280b
...rendering all these "are you 108 tho" questions laughably moot.


I'm also AronRa, Blackadder and Wikipedia, because we use the word dishonesty:
http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/view ... f=8&t=6201
http://blackadder.wikia.com/wiki/Dish_and_Dishonesty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty


Nifty detective work, *pat on the back*.

Don't be such a bloody fool, we all know it's you.

[Mischief Maker]

Wondering how the participants of this thread fend of all the pussy relentlessly throwing itself at them. All this Star Wars prowess...

No need. All the pussy throwing itself at me for my shmup prowess chases the Star Wars pussy away!

[BareKnuckleRoo]

With our massive lightsabers of course.

I love lightsaber on lightsaber action.

[Wasserkopp]

http://z10.invisionfree.com/RedLetterMe ... ry22918289



So I see you now quoted my entire post, except for this bit:

So are you gonna address your error now, or keep trying to distract from it?

Mysterious... now why would you leave out exactly that one

[Skykid]

So I see you now quoted my entire post, except for this bit:

So are you gonna address your error now, or keep trying to distract from it?

Mysterious... now why would you leave out exactly that one

^ Stop unnecessarily sticking words into your sentences for bulk, that's why you keep dicking everything up and making your posts laborious to read. Just say 'Why would you leave out that one?" or "I wonder why you left out that part".

If you insist on using 'exactly', put it in the right place ffs: "Now why exactly would you leave out that one?"

In answer to your question, it isn't quoted because it's not being replied to, and no one knows what "error", "dishonesty" or "distraction" you keep babbling on about. It's all been on topic, you're just really dense and don't understand words.

[cave hermit]