Machines said:
Starke said:
Nope, there isn't. There are "opinions" that are factually inconsistent with reality. And, that, my dear friend isn't an opinion, it's being an idiot.
While an opinion may or may not be idiotic, that doesn't stop it from being subjective. Also, don't bother referring to me as your "friend" not when you are trying to accuse
me of immaturity and pretentiousness.
I'll admit, I've been condescending towards you.
Machines said:
Starke said:
Confusing? No. Poorly written and inconsistent with its own setting.
Most other people would disagree with you, although no doubt as you disagree with
them that probably makes them objectively wrong.
I've read some well thought out defenses of Mass Effect 2, and I've seen some very viable favorable opinions regarding the quality of it's story.
You have offered neither.
Machines said:
Starke said:
Only when you look at it from a certain perspective. Mass Effect takes a great many pains to create a plausible universe. Mass Effect 2 fucks a fair amount of that up.
In. Your. opinion.
Yes. Also. In other people's too. Sorry to burst that bubble for you.
Machines said:
Starke said:
Except it isn't. Quantifiably Mass Effect 2 isn't part two of a trilogy. It's a pointless filler episode that produces nothing.
This is starting to get repetitive. It expands on previous characters, introduces new allies, and motivations and sets up the final battle. The Geth, Quarians, Krogan and potentially the Rachni are all ready to fight the Reapers. The Reapers are personally trying to destroy Shepard for killing Sovereign and they attempted to absorb humanity like the Protheans but failed. It added a hell of a lot really.
In your (alleged) role as a professional writer, what narrative components are actually different at the end of Mass Effect 2, compared to the end of Mass Effect 1?
Machines said:
Starke said:
Nothing offended me. You just used a very shitty logical fallacy in your argument. I drew a big red circle around it.
Like I said, minus a few words, my sentiments were the same as Andrastes, if my points were so different then I don't think she would have quoted me stating "This", now would she?
My, well you've got me now. You see, in your original post, the one we've turned into ground chuck through quote splices. In that you rambled incoherently for a paragraph or so and then pointed to her post and said "THIS!"
Now, what she said, and what you said aren't the same thing, so, either, you don't know how to communicate through written text, or you misunderstood her point.
Machines said:
Starke said:
It's not "the way you write", it's your use of grammar, and your incorrect usage of a couple homonyms. Whatever you do for a living, I'd wager it doesn't involve writing, at all.
Uh-huh. I guess the fact that I am writing on a forum and not officially would have nothing to do with how I write, it's considerably better than a lot of peoples (more on this later).
Yeah... see... this is the counterpart to what you said earlier. In simple words, you say something that suggests you know how to write, I say, "no you don't, because of 'the way you write,'" and then you say, "I'm writing casual."
In reality, that doesn't happen. You see, writing is one of the few skills that you practice constantly if it's your job. You don't have a choice. Even when you're fuckin' around, you still understand how to write.
Put it this way, a race car driver knows how to operate a vehicle at unusually high speed. When he's driving on the city streets he doesn't use the same skills, but his proficiency still has an effect on his driving.
Writing operates the same way, if you're a professional writer, and you come onto a forum, you're not going to start posting like a non-writer. You'll start posting in a way that is more casual than you usually will write, but it doesn't result in the same thing. You, don't write like someone who's come off of work and started working off a more relaxed form of your job in here.
Machines said:
Starke said:
Clearly it isn't.
Because where's the fun in that?
Machines said:
Starke said:
Andraste is a writer, professionally, for this site. The difference between the way she writes and the way you do, reinforces my earlier assumption.
I already stated her point was worded in a better way than mine was. The way I write depends on how quickly I want to reply and for what purpose. You don't seriously think I'd write a real letter like this do you? (don't bother answering that Mr Presumptuous).
So, by your own admission. Someone else who is a, you know, professional writer, posting, to this thread, writes better than you, but it's all okay, because the way you write in here is worse than the way you write in here because you're really better than that? Right...
Machines said:
Starke said:
Civilized has a Z, not an S.
Not in the English used by people from England it isn't. That'd at least explain why you keep trying to insult my use of the language.
Your use of language? No, your spelling? Yeah, that's explained. On this single topic you have my apologies.
Machines said:
Starke said:
No, it's not confrontationalism. It was my tolerance for self-indulgent idiocy, like yours, deteriorating over the course of the day.
The pot calls the kettle black? "confrontationalism" isn't a real word either.
So, you're a, you know, "real writer," and that cliche is the best you've got? Riiight...
Machines said:
Starke said:
Culturally we've gotten to a point where we say, it's my opinion, it can't be wrong. You used that argument yourself, almost verbatim, in the post I'm responding to. The problem is, opinions should be backed by some kind of facts, or at least a logical underpinning. Otherwise, they're not really even opinions, they're "I wishes" or "I believe on faith". To your credit you did try to back your opinions with arguments. It's just that you did it very poorly.
That's what opinions are. That doesn't make them good ones and I never stated otherwise.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Someone fucked up the definition of opinion on here recently. I thought it was you, hence the infodump.
