The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:47 pm

skywatcher wrote:Bollocks. You made a mistake, I called you on it and now you want to argue over it rather than just accept constructive criticism.
Anything posted in a public forum is a legitimate target for criticism. I don't have to be a reviewer myself in order to point out that you were wrong. Anyway, when did you suddenly become so sensitive? I know you're having a hard time getting your first job, but....

It's not a mistake, I clearly know that the insemination was artificial, I refer to it as such later in the review. I referred to it as 'forced incest' in sentence highlighting the over-the-top crazy elements of the series, and as such referred to it in as snappy and over-the-top crazy way I could think of. It was a bit of creative license.

I'm not sensitive, all you seem to do is nitpick other posters, not just me, you come in and pick up on one little error and criticise them for not being spot on all the time. And now you bring in personal remarks about my job situation? Stop being such a smug pedant.

by **skywatcher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:50 pm

Punchy wrote:I'm not sensitive, all you seem to do is nitpick other posters, not just me, you come in and pick up on one little error and criticise them for not being spot on all the time. And now you bring in personal remarks about my job situation? Stop being such a smug pedant.

I've seen you personally attacked over and over on this forum by numerous posters. I've never seen you react like this. I wondered what had changed and assumed it was your current lack of employment. No offence meant.

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:51 pm

skywatcher wrote:I've seen you personally attacked over and over on this forum by numerous posters. I've never seen you react like this. I wondered what had changed and assumed it was your current lack of employment. No offence meant.

Don't presume about my life.

by **Stephen Day** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:51 pm

Punchy wrote:

Hooray for Franken-Castle!

I'm thinking my budget might allow me to get this next week, but I'm not sure that my local comic book shop gets it in. If I can, I'll participate with that review.

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:53 pm

Ugh, arguing with you is not how I imagined my 2000th post happening.

by **skywatcher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:54 pm

Punchy wrote:Don't presume about my life.

Good luck with your next interview...

by **Victorian Squid** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:58 pm

Punchy wrote:Ugh, arguing with you is not how I imagined my 2000th post happening.

You were arguing with Sky all the way back then too?

by **skywatcher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:03 pm

Victorian Squid wrote:
You were arguing with Sky all the way back then too?

Well, I wasn't about to be the first to post about that missing zero or he might attempt to smite me in his righteous wrath!

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:05 pm

Victorian Squid wrote:
You were arguing with Sky all the way back then too?

Ooops, 20000. See that was actually a mistake.

by **skywatcher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:08 pm

Punchy wrote: See that was actually a mistake.

Really? Are you still trying to claim that "Forced Incest" wasn't one?

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:12 pm

skywatcher wrote:Really? Are you still trying to claim that "Forced Incest" wasn't one?

It wasn't a mistake. I clearly refer to the actual mechanics of what Nemesis did later on. I was painting out the concept in broad strokes at first, phrased in a shocking way as part of a sentence focussed on the shocking elements of the story, and then filling in the full details.

And either way, the result is basically incest, the child that is born will be the result of the exchange of sexual fluids between siblings, the result of incest.

You're just being a pedant, as I said.

by **skywatcher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:22 pm

Punchy wrote: the result is basically incest, the child that is born will be the result of the exchange of sexual fluids between siblings, the result of incest.

As I've already said (and I'm not wrong) incest involves sexual congress between siblings. Since no sexual encounter took place, there was no incest! My original point was that you underlined this error by repeating it in the next sentence. Now I think you are arguing for the sake of it.
As you say, nothing you write will ever appear in the New York Review of books, so I'll just leave it at that.

by **Punchy** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 6:25 pm

skywatcher wrote:As I've already said (and I'm not wrong) incest involves sexual congress between siblings. Since no sexual encounter took place, there was no incest! My original point was that you underlined this error by repeating it in the next sentence. Now I think you are arguing for the sake of it.
As you say, nothing you write will ever appear in the New York Review of books, so I'll just leave it at that.

What happened basically amounted to incest, you can nitpick all you want, but it's true.

And I never said I'd never be in the New York Review Of Books, just that this thread wouldn't! :twisted: