*Membership spots not really limited!
Punchy wrote:Is it to do with my 'lack of understanding of a medium I claim to love'?
Now that's disrespect.
ding ding ding, we have a winner.
*Membership spots not really limited!
thefourthman wrote:ding ding ding, we have a winner.
Punchy wrote:You thinking I don't understand comics is completely baseless and wrong, I understand comics, hell, I have a copy of 'Understanding Comics' sitting next to me as I type. I'm writing my dissertation on comics. I understand them just as much as you.
Getting so het up about the pulps or whatever, when I've acknowledged the close relationship they have with comics, and have used them to support my argument... it doesn't make sense.
thefourthman wrote:you fail to understand the very definitions of the terms, or truly grasp the history. You twisted the information to fit your own viewpoints instead of looking at the history objectively and when facts were presented you dismissed them as the mismemories of an old and obviously inferior mind and furthermore, even admitted to having much the same conversation previously with others.
I'm not saying you can't comprehend what might be happening on a page of a comic book but that you could have such a limited view of what the medium is and its roots as to actually infer that characters who were used as templates for which Superheroes became were actually super heroes and to miss the subtle nuances of the characters and how they are presented.
What was disrespectful was your inability to take any information that was being given to you and digest it, to let it settle and to realize that the people you were discussing things with might be more educated than you on a particular aspect. And that they couldn't possibly be right, because it didn't fit into your preconceived notion of what things were and how they came to be.
And you still can't remove yourself from the argument... it becomes a personal insult instead of a simple statement. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term pulp means and its relationship to the medium that you say you love. Yes the statement was given in a provocative manner, because to that point and even long after, seemingly and astonishingly to this very moment, you were too stubborn to be swayed by facts and claimed that any interpretation of what they were could only be opinion or supposition, when indeed they could be verifiable and demonstrable.
Sometimes love is changing and yielding, not bullheaded and stubborn. The way you chose to behave in the argument and project your own attitude onto others was shocking and appalling and to be honest, I think less of you now.
To be clear, I certainly joked and kidded before, but you do the same, we all do. But I think I see what others have complained about your techniques and arguments now. Between your inability to allow any one to yield in an argument and your own ability to yield as well, you can be abrasive. Your youthful vigor and passion is commendable, you inability to waiver even in the face of facts is something I truly hope you grow out of.
Punchy wrote:It seems like we're on the other side of the argument we had over whether Bendis' writing is forced into trade-length stories, even when I proved my argument with facts, you didn't listen. Why should I grow out of something when you yourself haven't?
I never dismissed your age or said you were inferior minded, I just said that Doc Savage is a proto-superhero.
thefourthman wrote:Go look at that thread, my friend. I conceeded your point about Bendis eventually even though you continued to needle me with it. So what exactly have I not grown out of? You won't let a point die when it is conceded or concede the point, ever.
I believe you said that I misremembered a book I have read several times.
Punchy wrote:I don't think you misremembered, I apologise for that.
I do think your interpretation was wrong.
And I don't remember you admitting you were wrong about Bendis, at least not for a while after, you even made fun of me for using facts.
thefourthman wrote:I was never discussing an intrepretation of Cooke you were and after you did, I said, wow what now? and showed you the error of your ways.
I would never live it down on the interwebz if I didn't make fun of you, but I did stop arguing the point, because you had beat me. I am big enough to admit it. Always have been, when I am wrong, i am wrong. I might make a joke, but I still acknowledge it.
I kept saying He didn't he didn't. You kept saying he did and accused me of remembering incorrectly....