HAhahhahah..... And you are a writer....? AHAHAHHAHAHHAH!!!!![/quote]
I did already know you couldn't comprehend why. I will not surely lose time to explain why to you in detail. Just a little hint: if you copy a painting does that mean that you are a "bad" painter for this? You can be a copier, but that doesn't mean that you are not good at painting (and on the contrary it can be just the opposite, in fact).
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
-Do you really need the Deux ex: HR story rehashed? Christ... its not like it hasnt been vomited all over this discussion board since realease? [/quote]
Again, this has nothing to do with bad writing per se, they are two separate concepts. A work can be plagiarized to hell and yet be written well, it's possible that you cannot understand this simple thing? Really, boy, if you want to talk of things you clearly don't comprehend at last do so with a little of humility.
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
-I think my background would surprise you. On the other hand you're omniscient, so maybe not...[/quote]
Sure, how not. You have not said anything that hints at it, and you always use hyperboles (as this "omniscent" as a sort of insult), the usual excuse of mediocrity, so I guess not.
[quote]
-Really? Name me some "motives"? and what the hell does motives have to do with this anyway? Are you suggesting somehow that if the motivativation was different that it would be ok to plagiate the material of another work... a pisspoor one at that?[/quote]
I already hinted at some motives for this above. Another one is that plagiarizing a work, while unacceptable for many reasons it's not "bad writing" in itself because it comes before the writing itself. You plagiarize an idea, you cannot plagiarize a way of writing in itself, no matter how much you can try.
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
-Erm... Trust me.[/quote]
Excuse me that, given the above and the other things, I simply cannot.
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
I know precisely what that means. I minored in Rhetoric. [/quote]
Sure, sure.
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
You however seem to have some problems with the concept. You are stating that for a work of plagerism to be "bad writing" the original work de facto has to be bad too. [/quote]
No, I never said that. I already did know that you would fail to comprehend what I wanted to imply, it was obvious (and in fact I said it plainly) that it would have happened given your current status.
[quote]Farbautisonn wrote...
Christ... what kind of educational background do you have since you have the balls to tote it, presume to lecture others on logical fallacies only to employ them ad nauseam? [/quote]
If instead of reading the thing just like you would have liked to, you would have at last made a minimum tentative in trying to go just a little under the surface, maybe (again, I doubt it anyway, but who knows?) you will have comprehended the particular and the connection I tried to imply. Obviously it's just easier to sprout the ennesimal insult and pretend you did understand something either if I warned you that the thing was more complicated than it could look at face value.
Good job on supporting my point on your inadequacy on debating about these things because you know nothing about them.
[quote]
-This is where I pick up the word you used falsely and employ it correctly. You implied it by using this defense when I attacked the endings.[/quote]
Of what the hell are you talking about? I never did a thing as that. I attacked you then on all another thing. It had nothing to do with the endings specifically.
[quote]
-Aside from the fact that I never stated any such thing and your the entire thing basically boils down to a strawman combined with an ad hominem, its a pisspoor defense of plagiarism and unoriginality. [/quote]
What do you do now, you return back because you didn't like the reply you did gave before? Something I said did hit your ego hard perhaps?
[quote]
-You started our entire discussion by employing strawman rhetoric, ad homienems, and a metric ****ton of other logical fallacies, and you presume to judge me? Thats grand. I have explained my position quite sufficiantly. [/quote]
No, you have not and you continue to not do it. You just run in circles saying nothing at all but insults and rethoric. I explained everything and motivated what I said. Where I have not done so (and just now because it is futile) it was just because I wanted to see your reaction before doing it to understand some things.
[quote]
-Great. Another pseudo artist who built his career on technique rather than passion and talent. [/quote]
????
Because someone that study art at the academy necessarily builds his/her career on technique instead of passion and talent? What kind of idiotic suppositon that is? And you have either the courage to tell me *I* use ad hominem statements?
[quote]
You try to structure passion and dumb it down for the masses, whilst trading your initial energy and drive for some feeble prison of technique. [/quote]
Techinique is a part of art as it is passion and talent. Apart this (that you obviously neither comprehend) from where did you get all this knowing about what I do or don't do is beyond me (and please, don't try to turn the thing around this time, want you?)
[quote]
I dont care if you are a well known writer, artist or sculptur in your nation. You are inane, unable to conduct a discussion without employing logical fallacies left right and center and you actively attribute false statements to anyone who does not agree with you. [/quote]
This is funny. You have done nothing but insulting me, saying nothing at all also if I tried to have a debate on some usueful ground given the thread and you either accuse me of being unable to conduct a discussion. Oh well....
[quote]
And you are either too stupid or too arrogant to admit to it. I would prefer to belive the latter, but given your hypocrisy Id say its the former. [/quote]
For now the only one doing the figure of both is you. You didn't say anything at all and you didn't comprehend anything at all. But you want to play the card of the expert and became offended because you obviously cannot fake it no matter what. However at the same time you cannot fake the fact that something I said must have hit you hard because elsewhere you would not react this way.
Can you see you are a little overreacting?
[quote]
-Sure is. Especially when people reveil more about themselves through discourse than they really should. [/quote]
Again turning around what I said to you already. Are you a parrot that you cannot find way to attack me but using already employed sentences by me? Let's talk about originality... (and btw, as you see, that doesn't meant that you are "bad" at writing per se, just that you are unoriginal).
[quote]
-This comming from the guy who employed defamation of character, (implied) ad hominems, fallacies galore and then have the phariseeic gall to presume to pass judgement on the discourse and rhetoric of others.[/quote]
Have I ever insulted you? Doesn't seem so. Have I ever backed up from debating a thing specifically? Doesn't seem so. Have I ever failed to explain what I meant by a thing (apart when it's futile, as in the case above)? Doesn't seem to me.
Now, since you are good at it, turn around the issue and ask the same questions to yourself.
[quote]
Christ you have zero Idea how inane you look, and that makes me fear for the people you supposedly write for...[/quote]
Yes, something I have said to you must have hit your ego really hard, child. Look at you, it is like you are about to jump at the screen and tear it apart.
Calm yourself, you are no better or worser than anbody's else and I never implied the contrary.
Modifié par Amioran, 07 avril 2012 - 06:21 .
Retour en haut
. 
. 
