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

[Lord Satori]

Still dodging though, eh?

...from a certain point of view.

You have admit this is hilarious.

"IN MY POINT OF VIEW THE JEDI ARE EVIL!"

[Wasserkopp]

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

Isn't it sad that you saw "slave owners can have some good character traits" as "slavery apologia", and can't admit your mistake?

[Wasserkopp]

Forgot the word "education" - congrats on the first valid grammer post

It's 'grammar' you idiot, with an "a".

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 2#p1152082
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/786739-grammar-nazi

So first you miss the obvious 300 joke, and now you actually thought I misspelled grammar as grammer - I'm slowly seeing a pattern here...








And you're still dodging.

[Lord Satori]

He didn't "think" so, it's literally right there in the quote followed by a ridiculous grin. -_-

[Wasserkopp]

He didn't "think" so, it's literally right there in the quote followed by a ridiculous grin. -_-

Do you think I meant
1) I didn't spell it with an "e", or
2) I didn't misspell it on accident?

If you answered 1), follow the KYM link provided.

[Despatche]

ftr you misspelled "about" in the post you linked

[Wasserkopp]

ftr you misspelled "about" in the post you linked

Weell, thaah' was just a bi' of Scohttish slangfera chehnj

[quash]

Star Wars fans are too easy. All I have to do is start a sentence with "JarJar's midichlorians".

[Mischief Maker]

"JarJar's midichlorians".

I KEEL YOU!!!

[Wasserkopp]

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

Can't believe I missed this part.

So let's sum up:
-BarNuckle doesn't understand what a "morally grey character" is, thinks if a character isn't a complete monster he's a moral paragon
-Mischief Maker thinks that "laymen don't know enough about evolution science to debate a wordy creationists" = support for Creationism.
Probably thinks that scientific education = believing authority figures in white robes I mean coats.
-Skykid has never heard the word "dishonest" even though it's constantly being used in debates such as evolution vs. creation and in fact every other debate in existence, and still wants to lecture people about proper use of language


This is very interesting.
My arguments are being challenged and evaluated by intelligent, wordly people.

[Skykid]

This is very interesting.
My arguments are being challenged and evaluated by intelligent, wordly people.

You're getting somewhere. Now you have something to aspire to.

Dishonest

Everyone understands what this means, you've just used it incorrectly on every occasion.

[Wasserkopp]

Everyone understands what this means, you've just used it incorrectly on every occasion.

So when I use it to describe your current behavior, I'm using it incorrectly?

[Skykid]

Everyone understands what this means, you've just used it incorrectly on every occasion.

So when I use it to describe your current behavior, I'm using it incorrectly?

Exactly.

[dan76]

Quick question, and this seems to be the best place: Are the despecialized versions worth watching? It seems there is upscaling used which scares me. The originals in 480p on a big flat screen though gotta be kinda ugly too though.

They are definitely worth watching, in fact it's the only way to watch them. Virtually all the footage is taken from the Blurays and then colour corrected audio mixed etc. You can sometimes notice a difference in picture quality - the original Jabba "song" from Jedi, as that had to come from the laserdisc - but mostly it's seamless. He's done amazing things with matting in original elements and keeping most of the image at 1080. I can't watch the special editions as every change takes me out if those films.

The MKV files are large and there are a few updates of Star Wars and Empire, so try and get the latest versions.

[Wasserkopp]

Everyone understands what this means, you've just used it incorrectly on every occasion.

So when I use it to describe your current behavior, I'm using it incorrectly?

Exactly.

So are you saying that failing to address that error of yours that I brought up, and then proceeded to remind you of dozens of times, is honest behavior on your part?

[Skykid]

So are you saying that failing to address that error of yours that I brought up, and then proceeded to remind you of dozens of times, is honest behavior on your part?

It's neither honest nor dishonest - the terminology is incorrect. I just ignored your request the same way you ignored all of mine, because I think you're talking out of your ass and I don't consider there to be an error.

[Wasserkopp]

because I think you're talking out of your ass and I don't consider there to be an error.

Well why don't you address that contention then, and we'll find out if there really isn't an error?

[Skykid]

Ok. Are you talking about this post? I'm not sure because you've been talking about an 'error' and 'dishonesty' for about four pages straight, so I needed to go back and dig. If this is the post:

Skykid, Skykid... Skykid.
You are acting dishonestly.

You see I'm not some kind of OCD maniac who'll respond to anything written without further consideration, I prefer some order in my debates... wait what

For it's quite a huge leap from "this is a failure on every conceivable level of filmmaking at the most basic level", to "not on par with an acclaimed super classic".

Premise 1, Premise 2.

You seem to be deluded into thinking that if you can [...], that will make them equal as films to the OT or other movies of value.

You are using a strawman argument now: claiming I'm arguing against Premise 2, while I'm arguing for Premise 1.


If you can't be intellectually honest at such a basic level, I won't be humouring your long-winded sermons.



PS:

Do you not understand that if you don't appraise the prequels as film first, and narrative second, there's no point in appraising them at all? You seem to be deluded into thinking that if you can explain away narrative deficiencies in a roundabout way

And there you go forgetting what "narrative" means all over again. I thought you'd just understood it?

All that stuff you wrote about "Jaws town as character" or whatnot... that's "narrative". 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.

The narrative thing you describe above is not narrative. I don't understand why it's a "universal concept that transcends all media", you're talking nonsense. Narrative is just the storyline. Throw the word into fucking Google and the first line you get is:

a spoken or written account of connected events; a story.

With that in mind:

You are using a strawman argument now: claiming I'm arguing against Premise 2, while I'm arguing for Premise 1.

There is no premise 1 or 2, weirdo. We're discussing three shit movies. I accused you of only debating the narrative, while I (and everyone else) is trying to explain to you that that's the least important aspect of why they fail so heinously. The movies fail because they are flawed fundamentally from a filmmaking aspect. You can't just waffle on about how the 'story makes sense because' and then say 'so they're good movies'. Reality doesn't work that way.

I actually explained this to you at length and suggested broadening your horizons when it comes to film. You either didn't read my post, couldn't digest it, or really can't fathom basic logic.

Either way the 'error' is not an error, never was an error, and I ask you not to bother me about it again.

[Wasserkopp]

Ok. Are you talking about this post? I'm not sure because you've been talking about an 'error' and 'dishonesty' for about four pages straight, so I needed to go back and dig.

That's very admirable of you, but of course you also could've used the help I was giving you along the way:
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p1151939

You either didn't read my post, couldn't digest it

That's very interesting, because:

There is no premise 1 or 2, weirdo.

So there isn't a premise 1 and 2?

What about this:

For it's quite a huge leap from "this is a failure on every conceivable level of filmmaking at the most basic level", to "not on par with an acclaimed super classic".

Premise 1, Premise 2.

Now did you miss that part intentionally (i.e. dishonesty) or by accident (i.e. error)?


I'll repeat the issue now:

You are using a strawman argument now: claiming I'm arguing against Premise 2, while I'm arguing for Premise 1.

[Giest118]

This is the most worthless discussion ever in the entire history of civilization.

[Wasserkopp]

This is the most worthless discussion ever in the entire history of civilization.

Evader McDodgerson up there tries to obfuscate / is confused about the basic premises of the main discussion (i.e. what whose position is), so I'm trying to clear things up a bit.

[EmperorIng]

Autism

[Skykid]

Autism

Jesus Christ, tell me about it.

[Lord Satori]

This is the most worthless discussion ever in the entire history of civilization.

Agreed. I'm usually a patient and lenient person but even I wouldn't feel any sympathy a ban were issued out.

[Wasserkopp]

This is the most worthless discussion ever in the entire history of civilization.

Agreed. I'm usually a patient and lenient person but even I wouldn't feel any sympathy a ban were issued out.

Hey, if you think the party who tries to (re)introduce clarity into a debate ought to be banned, while the party that obfuscates said debate should stay, I'd say your self-described patience, lenience and sympathies aren't of much relevance to anything.


So, is Skykid gonna continue the upwards spiral he just started and address my response, or just fall back on discussing autism again (while taking jokes at face value)?
Until that fundamental issue is cleared up, his status remains "disqualified", and mine "winner without lifting a finger".

[ RETROACTIVE MOD EDIT: User is now permanently banned for wasting both chances given to him to change behaviour and contribute to discussions. There won't be a third. (Also, thanks for locking the discussion, BM - I was in two minds on whether to do it. - ICR ]

[BulletMagnet]

Imminent banning or not, methinks at this point it's safe to say "this isn't the topic you're looking for."