See, what I really want is a girl who will dress up like High Inquisitor Whitemane for erotic bedroom roleplay with me.
I'll dress up as Scarlet Commander Mograine and she can kneel in front of me half-naked in a bright red chapeau and bid my cock to "Arise, my champion!"
I hope all of this "just because a girl has a boyfriend means shit" nonsense is pure nonsense of the trolling sort. I don't have the energy to scold people all night.
It's sometimes true, but it was terrible advice in the context of that thread.
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
See, what I really want is a girl who will dress up like High Inquisitor Whitemane for erotic bedroom roleplay with me.
I'll dress up as Scarlet Commander Mograine and she can kneel in front of me half-naked in a bright red chapeau and bid my cock to "Arise, my champion!"
Is that what she says?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
See, what I really want is a girl who will dress up like High Inquisitor Whitemane for erotic bedroom roleplay with me.
I'll dress up as Scarlet Commander Mograine and she can kneel in front of me half-naked in a bright red chapeau and bid my cock to "Arise, my champion!"
I hope all of this "just because a girl has a boyfriend means shit" nonsense is pure nonsense of the trolling sort. I don't have the energy to scold people all night.
It's sometimes true, but it was terrible advice in the context of that thread.
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
The chances that this girl is interested in him romantically are pretty low based on his description of the situation.
So the girl saying that she has a boyfriend is very relevant because she's trying to tell him, "Hey, this isn't about dating, this is about platonic friendship and studying."
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So my DK is at 60 (Pally is still back at 55, just having too much fun with the DK), so I guess I can do raids of the "old world" variety or whatever people call them.
See, what I really want is a girl who will dress up like High Inquisitor Whitemane for erotic bedroom roleplay with me.
I'll dress up as Scarlet Commander Mograine and she can kneel in front of me half-naked in a bright red chapeau and bid my cock to "Arise, my champion!"
Is that what she says?
that is, in fact, what she said
Well there you go.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So my DK is at 60 (Pally is still back at 55, just having too much fun with the DK), so I guess I can do raids of the "old world" variety or whatever people call them.
or head to outlands?
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I hope all of this "just because a girl has a boyfriend means shit" nonsense is pure nonsense of the trolling sort. I don't have the energy to scold people all night.
It's sometimes true, but it was terrible advice in the context of that thread.
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
They can also, if they choose, sleep with other people and/or start relationships with them. Not that this won't piss off the person they are with and probably destroy that relationship, but it's not like there are any laws here governing relationships which we are all forced to adhere to.
Her having a boyfriend has meaning, but that meaning isn't that forging a relationship with her is impossible or against the rules, it just all depends on the two people in question.
So why can't you just designate the separate continuities another way, rather than saying one is "right" and the other one isn't?
My ability to empathize with your perspective is failing completely. I don't get how you are failing to comprehend what we're talking about.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
So my DK is at 60 (Pally is still back at 55, just having too much fun with the DK), so I guess I can do raids of the "old world" variety or whatever people call them.
or head to outlands?
Well that's where I am right now, questing in Hellfire Peninsula.
Why is religion generally considered to be in a different category to other beliefs and opinions that people have? I'm not really interested in arguing about whether or not it should be. It's just a question I've been wondering about and never really gotten an answer for. I'm asking in [chat] because I trust here more than whatever religion threads are going on at the moment to just give me a simple answer.
I just finished reading Ender in Exile, the latest "Ender" book. It's like the tenth or so full book in the Ender series.
In it, he has to retcon some stuff in chapter 15 of Ender's Game.
So what he has done is actually rewrite chapter 15 ever-so-slightly to account for altered references he made in Ender in Exile.
I'm personally not a fan of this practice, but now the new version of Ender's Game is the canonical version because the motivations and histories that drive the explanation of events and characters in this latest book don't make sense, exactly, without those revisions, because we were specifically told something occurred over a certain span of time originally and now that span of time had to be modified.
Does it make sense now? The author owns the continuity of his intellectual property. So, yes, he defines what is "canon" and, yes, it is very important and relevant.
A good author never has to retcon his work, much less do it in such a poorly conceived manner.
A good author will always plan such things details in advance, and occasionally reinterpret the situation from the perspective of another character who had, perhaps, a better view of the events went on compared to the original narrator whose point of view was skewed by personal biases and mode of thought. This can often work as a good twist and the revelation of the full sequence of events can, and will make greater sense than the original narrative. Steven Erikson and George R.R. Martin employ such storytelling methods to great effect, sometimes even in a single book.
I hate to get all argumentum ad hominem, but I lost all respect for Orson Scott Card the moment he turned out to be a bigot. Reading any of his books filtered through the understanding of his bigotry reveals much more subversive texts and I can't agree with any of what he says.
So why can't you just designate the separate continuities another way, rather than saying one is "right" and the other one isn't?
My ability to empathize with your perspective is failing completely. I don't get how you are failing to comprehend what we're talking about.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
BECAUSE THE MOTHERFUCKING DIRECTOR/AUTHOR IS SAYING "THIS SIDE-STORY IS NOT ACTUALLY A PART OF WHAT MAKES SOLID SNAKE SOLID SNAKE." ALL THE STORIES THAT DESCRIBE A CHARACTER BECOME A CHARACTER. IT'S LIKE A JUDGE SAYING "STRIKE THIS FROM THE RECORD." THERE'S A GODDAMNED REAL-WORLD ANALOGY FOR YOU. SAYING SOMETHING "ISN'T CANON" IS LIKE STRIKING SOMETHING FROM THE RECORD. IT EXISTS, SURE, IT WAS HEARD AND ALL THAT BUT YOU ARE EXPECTED TO JUDGE THE WITNESS/DEFENDANT/WHOMEVER BASED ON THE OFFICIAL RECORD. SAME FUCKING THING.
Why is religion generally considered to be in a different category to other beliefs and opinions that people have? I'm not really interested in arguing about whether or not it should be. It's just a question I've been wondering about and never really gotten an answer for. I'm asking in [chat] because I trust here more than whatever religion threads are going on at the moment to just give me a simple answer.
Beliefs involving higher powers are beliefs regarding reality, life, and the universe in total. Aside from the fact that religious beliefs shape their followers' perspectives on reality in very fundamental ways, religion plays a large role in the social functions of those followers. Discussing religion, and particularly questioning religion, is to bring into question the basis of a lot of peoples lives. Compared to religious belief and support, most other beliefs just look like raggedy old opinion.
I just finished reading Ender in Exile, the latest "Ender" book. It's like the tenth or so full book in the Ender series.
In it, he has to retcon some stuff in chapter 15 of Ender's Game.
So what he has done is actually rewrite chapter 15 ever-so-slightly to account for altered references he made in Ender in Exile.
I'm personally not a fan of this practice, but now the new version of Ender's Game is the canonical version because the motivations and histories that drive the explanation of events and characters in this latest book don't make sense, exactly, without those revisions, because we were specifically told something occurred over a certain span of time originally and now that span of time had to be modified.
Does it make sense now? The author owns the continuity of his intellectual property. So, yes, he defines what is "canon" and, yes, it is very important and relevant.
A good author never has to retcon his work, much less do it in such a poorly conceived manner.
A good author will always plan such things details in advance, and occasionally reinterpret the situation from the perspective of another character who had, perhaps, a better view of the events went on compared to the original narrator whose point of view was skewed by personal biases and mode of thought. This can often work as a good twist and the revelation of the full sequence of events can, and will make greater sense than the original narrative. Steven Erikson and George R.R. Martin employ such storytelling methods to great effect, sometimes even in a single book.
I hate to get all argumentum ad hominem, but I lost all respect for Orson Scott Card the moment he turned out to be a bigot. Reading any of his books filtered through the understanding of his bigotry reveals much more subversive texts and I can't agree with any of what he says.
I lost all respect for him as a person when he turned out to be a bigot. As an author, though, I don't give a damn, and I subscribe to the Death of the Author philosophy as much as possible.
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
So why can't you just designate the separate continuities another way, rather than saying one is "right" and the other one isn't?
My ability to empathize with your perspective is failing completely. I don't get how you are failing to comprehend what we're talking about.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
'SPERGRAGE
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I hope all of this "just because a girl has a boyfriend means shit" nonsense is pure nonsense of the trolling sort. I don't have the energy to scold people all night.
It's sometimes true, but it was terrible advice in the context of that thread.
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
The chances that this girl is interested in him romantically are pretty low based on his description of the situation.
So the girl saying that she has a boyfriend is very relevant because she's trying to tell him, "Hey, this isn't about dating, this is about platonic friendship and studying."
And from his description of the situation it just sounds like he's lonely and confused about what he wants, and while he frames his request for advice as "do you think I'm going to get laid?" I've interpreted his actual needs a little differently, so I still do think it is wholly irrelevant that she has a boyfriend.
But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe you are. Or maybe we both are.
So why can't you just designate the separate continuities another way, rather than saying one is "right" and the other one isn't?
My ability to empathize with your perspective is failing completely. I don't get how you are failing to comprehend what we're talking about.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
'SPERGRAGE
I don't have Asperger's. What I have is contempt for blatant stupidity. Stupidity I suspect is affected. I have no tolerance for devil's advocacy in a fucking [chat] thread.
So why can't you just designate the separate continuities another way, rather than saying one is "right" and the other one isn't?
My ability to empathize with your perspective is failing completely. I don't get how you are failing to comprehend what we're talking about.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
'SPERGRAGE
I don't have Asperger's. What I have is contempt for blatant stupidity. Stupidity I suspect is affected. I have no tolerance for devil's advocacy in a fucking [chat] thread.
I 100% agree with you actually,
I just think spergrage is a funny word.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Why is religion generally considered to be in a different category to other beliefs and opinions that people have? I'm not really interested in arguing about whether or not it should be. It's just a question I've been wondering about and never really gotten an answer for. I'm asking in [chat] because I trust here more than whatever religion threads are going on at the moment to just give me a simple answer.
Beliefs involving higher powers are beliefs regarding reality, life, and the universe in total. Aside from the fact that religious beliefs shape their followers' perspectives on reality in very fundamental ways, religion plays a large role in the social functions of those followers. Discussing religion, and particularly questioning religion, is to bring into question the basis of a lot of peoples lives. Compared to religious belief and support, most other beliefs just look like raggedy old opinion.
So it's basically a matter of scale then?
evilbob on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
You still haven't explained what's so stupid about doubting the importance of something that is not real being dubbed official.
Edit: Compelling argument.
I have explained it. I've explained it thoroughly and I've explained it exhaustively. So re-read all of my posts, especially my most recent ones, in their entirety over and over until what "canon" means and why it is important sinks into your head.
What record? They still made a sequel to MGA even though it is apparently non-canon. The fact that it is non-canon did not deter it from being recorded in its own continuity. Both continuities now exist. What difference does it make which one is "official" and which is "non-official?"
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
I hope all of this "just because a girl has a boyfriend means shit" nonsense is pure nonsense of the trolling sort. I don't have the energy to scold people all night.
It's sometimes true, but it was terrible advice in the context of that thread.
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
The chances that this girl is interested in him romantically are pretty low based on his description of the situation.
So the girl saying that she has a boyfriend is very relevant because she's trying to tell him, "Hey, this isn't about dating, this is about platonic friendship and studying."
I've only ever had platonic friendships with girls I was completely uninterested in, and a cute lesbian girl. If I'm interested, I've found that shit just gets awkward (for me) if she's already with somebody else.
Why is religion generally considered to be in a different category to other beliefs and opinions that people have? I'm not really interested in arguing about whether or not it should be. It's just a question I've been wondering about and never really gotten an answer for. I'm asking in [chat] because I trust here more than whatever religion threads are going on at the moment to just give me a simple answer.
Beliefs involving higher powers are beliefs regarding reality, life, and the universe in total. Aside from the fact that religious beliefs shape their followers' perspectives on reality in very fundamental ways, religion plays a large role in the social functions of those followers. Discussing religion, and particularly questioning religion, is to bring into question the basis of a lot of peoples lives. Compared to religious belief and support, most other beliefs just look like raggedy old opinion.
So it's basically a matter of scale then?
I guess, sorta. Think of discussing beliefs as if it were tugging a loose thread on a shirt. Most beliefs, you're tugging on a thread that the more you tug the more thread you pull, but structurally you haven't done any noticeable damage to the shirt. Religious beliefs are threads that if you tug you're risking unraveling the whole shirt.
You still haven't explained what's so stupid about doubting the importance of something that is not real being dubbed official.
Edit: Compelling argument.
Because when you have a fictional world, like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or to a lesser degree Metal Gear, where multiple writers will be contributing over time, future writers will have to base their writings on the events established in prior writings. Most people tend to agree that continuity makes stories better, because then you can have real character and plot development over time. However, because they are works of fiction, anybody can write anything they want in those worlds and in addition to the legal power of the copyright holder to go after unauthorized derivative works there ideally needs to be a central authority (usually the original author himself) establishing which events future writers should incorporate into their backstory. Otherwise you have a branching incomprehensible hodgepodge of character history, aka Marvel Comics.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'll be nice and try to explain it one more, very simple way:
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
I guess, sorta. Think of discussing beliefs as if it were tugging a loose thread on a shirt.
Most beliefs, you're tugging on a thread that the more you tug the more thread you pull, but structurally you haven't done any noticeable damage to the shirt.
Religious beliefs are threads that if you tug you're risking unraveling the whole shirt.
Posts
Which advice? I think that part of my post in the H/A thread - that the girl saying she has a boyfriend is irrelevant - is entirely valid.
Ronaldo, people who have boyfriends have the freedom to make friends with other boys.
Is that what she says?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I could get behind that.
that is, in fact, what she said
The chances that this girl is interested in him romantically are pretty low based on his description of the situation.
So the girl saying that she has a boyfriend is very relevant because she's trying to tell him, "Hey, this isn't about dating, this is about platonic friendship and studying."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well there you go.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
or head to outlands?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They can also, if they choose, sleep with other people and/or start relationships with them. Not that this won't piss off the person they are with and probably destroy that relationship, but it's not like there are any laws here governing relationships which we are all forced to adhere to.
Her having a boyfriend has meaning, but that meaning isn't that forging a relationship with her is impossible or against the rules, it just all depends on the two people in question.
Metal Gear example again: MGA is non-canon. Solid Snake did not really fictionally get sent to the Moloni Republic to do spy stuff in 2016 because official canon says he didn't.
What difference does it make which is official? What if they had said that Metal Gear Acid is the official sequel to MGS2, and then went on to make MGS4 and called it non-canon?
Well that's where I am right now, questing in Hellfire Peninsula.
A good author never has to retcon his work, much less do it in such a poorly conceived manner.
A good author will always plan such things details in advance, and occasionally reinterpret the situation from the perspective of another character who had, perhaps, a better view of the events went on compared to the original narrator whose point of view was skewed by personal biases and mode of thought. This can often work as a good twist and the revelation of the full sequence of events can, and will make greater sense than the original narrative. Steven Erikson and George R.R. Martin employ such storytelling methods to great effect, sometimes even in a single book.
I hate to get all argumentum ad hominem, but I lost all respect for Orson Scott Card the moment he turned out to be a bigot. Reading any of his books filtered through the understanding of his bigotry reveals much more subversive texts and I can't agree with any of what he says.
BECAUSE THE MOTHERFUCKING DIRECTOR/AUTHOR IS SAYING "THIS SIDE-STORY IS NOT ACTUALLY A PART OF WHAT MAKES SOLID SNAKE SOLID SNAKE." ALL THE STORIES THAT DESCRIBE A CHARACTER BECOME A CHARACTER. IT'S LIKE A JUDGE SAYING "STRIKE THIS FROM THE RECORD." THERE'S A GODDAMNED REAL-WORLD ANALOGY FOR YOU. SAYING SOMETHING "ISN'T CANON" IS LIKE STRIKING SOMETHING FROM THE RECORD. IT EXISTS, SURE, IT WAS HEARD AND ALL THAT BUT YOU ARE EXPECTED TO JUDGE THE WITNESS/DEFENDANT/WHOMEVER BASED ON THE OFFICIAL RECORD. SAME FUCKING THING.
WHAT IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU?
Beliefs involving higher powers are beliefs regarding reality, life, and the universe in total. Aside from the fact that religious beliefs shape their followers' perspectives on reality in very fundamental ways, religion plays a large role in the social functions of those followers. Discussing religion, and particularly questioning religion, is to bring into question the basis of a lot of peoples lives. Compared to religious belief and support, most other beliefs just look like raggedy old opinion.
I lost all respect for him as a person when he turned out to be a bigot. As an author, though, I don't give a damn, and I subscribe to the Death of the Author philosophy as much as possible.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And from his description of the situation it just sounds like he's lonely and confused about what he wants, and while he frames his request for advice as "do you think I'm going to get laid?" I've interpreted his actual needs a little differently, so I still do think it is wholly irrelevant that she has a boyfriend.
But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe you are. Or maybe we both are.
I don't have Asperger's. What I have is contempt for blatant stupidity. Stupidity I suspect is affected. I have no tolerance for devil's advocacy in a fucking [chat] thread.
I 100% agree with you actually,
I just think spergrage is a funny word.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Go away and die.
Edit: Compelling argument.
So it's basically a matter of scale then?
Well, the author is dead...
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I have explained it. I've explained it thoroughly and I've explained it exhaustively. So re-read all of my posts, especially my most recent ones, in their entirety over and over until what "canon" means and why it is important sinks into your head.
Non-canon has as much authority as fan-fiction. You mention it having its own separate continuity? Think of it as being a separate entity. It is based on something, but as it is not part of the original story's universe - or of the author's creation - it carries no validity. It is not the same thing, but a copy.
See, this demonstrates my point rather well. I don't see what is so difficult, or rather, controversial, about it.
OH GODS.
Brilliant
I've only ever had platonic friendships with girls I was completely uninterested in, and a cute lesbian girl. If I'm interested, I've found that shit just gets awkward (for me) if she's already with somebody else.
I guess, sorta. Think of discussing beliefs as if it were tugging a loose thread on a shirt. Most beliefs, you're tugging on a thread that the more you tug the more thread you pull, but structurally you haven't done any noticeable damage to the shirt. Religious beliefs are threads that if you tug you're risking unraveling the whole shirt.
Because when you have a fictional world, like Star Wars, or Star Trek, or to a lesser degree Metal Gear, where multiple writers will be contributing over time, future writers will have to base their writings on the events established in prior writings. Most people tend to agree that continuity makes stories better, because then you can have real character and plot development over time. However, because they are works of fiction, anybody can write anything they want in those worlds and in addition to the legal power of the copyright holder to go after unauthorized derivative works there ideally needs to be a central authority (usually the original author himself) establishing which events future writers should incorporate into their backstory. Otherwise you have a branching incomprehensible hodgepodge of character history, aka Marvel Comics.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Let's say I'm an accomplished author. Let's say I write five books developing a character named Herfy Porters, a teenage magician. Let's say a colleague writes a book called "Herfy Porters Goes To The Gym!" which is a book using my character and it discusses Herfy Porters going to the gym and I allow it to be published because it's a good book. However now I want to write a sixth book and in that sixth book it is absolutely crucial, for some reason, that my character - Herfy Porters - has never been to a gym in his entire life. So I declare that this other work is non-canon. And thus it should not be considered as a part of developing Herfy Porters and should not be consulted in understanding Herfy Porters as an evolving character. The gym part should not be considered a part of Herfy Porters's history.
If you don't understand why this matters to an author AND his readers, I cannot help you any further.
True...
Alternatively:
Exactly!
If you want to destroy my sweater...