Mask Squinting 2: The Legend Continues

[SSJmole]

You're better than that.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[Dancanread]

Two words.

Spirit. gum.

Problem solved.

 

[robje]

What about Bruce Banner's magic pants when he turns into the Hulk? That doesn't make any sense either.

Loeb has shown us the alternative in the Ultimate Hulk Anual. I'll take the unexplained magical pants, thank you.

 

[Bass]

And you are as as smart and right as them because you agree with them.

Come on. That's just about the lowest retort you can make in an argument. That's just a level above "I know you are but what am I". You're better than that.

Yes. But anything I say is apparently "missing the point" in some fashion, and your "they're all wrong" is just as 'low'.

I may be better than that, you may be better than that, but this discussion certainly isn't.

 

[Iceshadow]

This thread bores me.

 

[Ice]

This thread bores me.

I was promised hott mudsex fight. I am disappointed.

 

[E]

"they're all wrong" is just as 'low'.

Hardly. All I said was that within the parameters of my side of the argument, anyone who uses the technique is wrong. It doesn't matter who else or how many other people do it. You had a valid rebuttal but then you ruined it by saying "this person and this person and this person do it so you're wrong." That doesn't make any sense and it's a poor argument. Sorry.

 

[Bass]

...

So, let me get this right. You can, on your own, just decide that anyone who uses mask-squinting is wrong based on your knowledge of how storytelling principles work. This is considered by you, to be a valid and good argument.

However, if I say that you are wrong for decrying mask-squinting and I base this position on its ubiquitous use across the globe in comics and animation by professional, award-winning storytellers, I have somehow presented a "poor" argument that doesn't make sense.

If I present example and reference, use your own terminology as you have defined it to show you that your position is flawed at its concept, it isn't "Valid" or it's "Missing the point". If I question your argumentative technique or credentials in this matter, I'm just "Low" and making a "Poor argument".

It is impossible for anyone to have this discussion with you.

You quote yourself in such a fashion it makes me wonder if you're even reading your own posts, let alone anyone else's.

 

[E]

...

So, let me get this right. You can, on your own, just decide that anyone who uses mask-squinting is wrong based on your knowledge of how storytelling principles work. This is considered by you, to be a valid and good argument.

However, if I say that you are wrong for decrying mask-squinting and I base this position on its ubiquitous use across the globe in comics and animation by professional, award-winning storytellers, I have somehow presented a "poor" argument that doesn't make sense.

Your rebuttal to my posting Pixar using mask-squinting is, "They're wrong". This is valid. Me saying, "You're wrong" is totally invalid.

You're just being a hypocrite. "If I say it, I am right." Anyone who disagrees, no matter what they say or base their opinion on, is "Wrong" or "Irrelevant" or "Not valid" or "Nonsense" or some other damn thing.

I have repeatedly shown you example and reference, used your own terminology as you have defined it to show you that your position is flawed at its concept. Your only response is either "They're still wrong" or "You're not getting it".

You quote yourself in such a fashion it makes me wonder if you're even reading your own posts, let alone anyone else's.

I don't know what references you think you are showing using terminology as I've defined it. All you're doing is giving my examples of people doing it. I'm not saying "nobody is doing this". Yet that's what you keep rebutting. If I clearly define the framework and parameters for my argument by saying "this is why this shouldn't work", the logical retort is not "so and so and so and so and so and so do it". It's also not to say "no, I think THIS is the correct terminology." At that point, you aren't doing anything but offering up your own opinion. That's fine and dandy, and you're welcome to have and post whatever opinion you want. But you aren't presenting a proper rebuttal within the parameters that I set. Yeah, I set it, and I started the argument. You have a problem with that, too? You have to start somewhere.

Actually, I can't continue this with you. You're getting way too offended about a simple opinion and turning things into personal insults.

It's not that important.

 

[Bass]

I don't know what references you think you are showing using terminology as I've defined it.

Just read the thread. Every post I make uses terminology as you have defined it within the original parameters of your argument.

This is all I have been doing.

All you're doing is giving my examples of people doing it. I'm not saying "nobody is doing this". Yet that's what you keep rebutting. If I clearly define the framework and parameters for my argument by saying "this is why this shouldn't work", the logical retort is not "so and so and so and so and so and so do it".

I have given two examples of mask-squinting, and only the latest was an example of its widespread use by all manner of artists. Every other example has been of storytelling techniques that you claim are valid, and comparing them, using your terminology, with each other and mask-squinting to show that mask-squinting possess all the same traits as other tools that you claim are valid.

It's also not to say "no, I think THIS is the correct terminology."

Your entire argument is that "Mask-squinting physically changes the character's fundamental appearance and therefore, is happening within the confines of the story. This does not make sense and is wrong."

My entire response has been that "mask-squinting is not happening within the confines of the story."

Your rebuttal is that all physical changes to the character's fundamental appearance denote it as happening within the confines of the story.

I have posted example of techniques that are not mask-squinting that show that this is a prejudicial assumption.

At that point, you aren't doing anything but offering up your own opinion. That's fine and dandy, and you're welcome to have and post whatever opinion you want. But you aren't presenting a proper rebuttal within the parameters that I set. Yeah, I set it, and I started the argument. You have a problem with that, too? You have to start somewhere.

That's right. I started pointing out mask-squinting isn't happening.

You claimed that it should be. I explained why it shouldn't.

I have not changed the parameters of the argument. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

Actually, I can't continue this with you. You're getting way too offended about a simple opinion and turning things into personal insults.

It's not that important.

Actually, you can't continue this with anyone but me. Because I'm the only one who'll discuss it on the terms you demand. Everyone else does the smart thing and walks away because your argument is fallacious at its conceptual premise, and you refuse to acknowledge any discussion that doesn't revolve around the preposterous notion that the cloth of the mask is squinting.

Here's a tip: If you're going to lay down a logical statement and if someone who knows a lot more about the subject than you do bothers to take the time and effort and consideration to meticulously post, through reference and example, how that statement is illogical and the principled basis leading up to it are inaccurate and based on an ignorance of storytelling techniques and how they work, remember to give that someone the same time and consideration in return. It's probably best to not just dismiss the points as irrelevant or respond with unfounded, sweeping proclamations of right and wrong while simultaneously asking for considered debate and criticizing that someone for responding with unfounded, sweeping proclamations of right and wrong. And then, when you've finally driven everyone away with your hidebound argumentative approach that refuses to listen to anyone, you probably shouldn't claim that someone is too easily offended and that, after all, this is just an opinion not that important.

That someone, just might get offended.

 

[E]

You simply do not know what you're talking about.

Nail in the coffin. KTHXBYE.

 

[Bass]

That's all you have to say? You accuse me of being too easily offended and then you post this as a response?

Perhaps if you'd bothered reading the rest of the post you might have seen why your attitude would cause offense.

I was going to come back and delete this thread because it occurred to me that if any other posters had been acting like this, a mod would've deleted the posts and infracted the posters. But because we're mods, everyone just let it slide into this pathetic debasement.

I can't express just how incredibly disappointed I am in all of us moderators, and especially you. Your last remark is unbelievably childish.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

I have to agree with Bass here E. You are being childish with the whole argument. And I can't tell if you are joking or not.

 

[Ice]

Whoa, whoa. Don't start dragging anyone else into the debate b/w you and E. Neither of you did anything wrong that warranted a thread closing nor what would have been an infraction on anyone else. Both of you could have simply just stopped posting and left the thread, and you even said you stopped once Bass, but you both continued to debate each other. As a moderator yourself, you should know when to let something drop. Do not blame anyone else because you didn't.

 

[Bass]

And E said he'd stop too.

If we'd been anyone else someone would've stepped in.

I just looked at it and it occurred to me that if we weren't mods, this situation wouldn't have arised. We've deleted less. It's not your fault it happened, but it was partly your responsibility to help stop it.

 

[Ice]

Regardless, no one is to blame. Everyone's had their word to say right? Then I'm closing this thread and we can go back to everything else. I believe we crowned a new greatest member today.

 

[E]

I have to say I'm really surprised at this. I don't see anything by anyone in here that would warrant closing the thread or taking disciplinary action in any way. It's nothing more than a debate that got more pathetic than usual, and reached an impasse. We've let a whole lot worse than this go.

Seriously. The high and mighty thing is ridiculous.

And Ice is right - if it was too much you could have stopped. I was going to stop, but against my better judgement (I say this only because I got to the point where I was only repeating myself over and over) I responded each time. Not out of arrogance or malice. I was just debating.

I'm totally bewildered at this. Bass, you act like this thread is one huge and terrible transgression against mankind. It was nothing.

ETA: I just noticed Ice had closed this. Sorry.