| Got The Pigeon by Patrick Süskind. Pretty short, almost half way through in 2 hours of reading. It's pretty good, I guess. We'll see how it goes. Eeyore said: Also about a quarter of the way through Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman. It's amusing. So far it reads the same way that I'd imagine an old grandpa tells stories of his past. "Back in my day", "One time when I was young", etc... (it doesn't say that outright, but the almost conversational/casual writing can make it feel that way-- I also think it makes the book really approachable). I like it none the less. Finally, picked up Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Haven't started yet, but it's probably what I'll move onto next. I've read good things about it. Funny enough, I've had these two on my to-read list for long enough. When you do finish them, please do let me know. I'd like to know your opinion and maybe it would motivate me to pick them up right away. |
| Reading David Copperfield and enjoying it! |
 |
| Wild Cards by George R. R. Martin and I'm also rereading Harry Potter. |
| Making my way through The Rithmatist by Brandon Sanderson. It is probably the least compelling of his works I've read, but its pretty easy to jump back into. Once I'm done with this I'm planning on reading Oathbringer, which I'm pretty excited for. |
| Finally got around to reading all of the Lord of the Rings books, right now I'm on chapter 7 or 8 of Return of the King. |
 |
    I've read McLuhan before but was told the mentioned title is great, and while I've read the notable first chapter of Mimesis, the rest of Auerbach's analysis has been left unread. 2017 was a pretty great year. A lot of good books read, looking forward to some great titles next year as well. |
YudinaDec 29, 2017 10:34 AM
| I finished Rithmatist, which had the classic brandon sanderson twist ending. I'm making my way through Oathbringer, Kaladin reuniting with his family is nice and the murder mystery thats going on has me interested. |
| Mysterious Benedict Society - it reminds of Liar Game |
| The light novel and manga of Overlord |
| I ship @Cewkie and @DarkZeroCalibur  |
| Finished The Wind Up Bird Chronicle by Haruki Murakami few weeks ago. Probably the first ever book to leave such a big impact on me - first few days after finishing it I struggled with getting myself to do anything and only yesterday I was able to start reading another one - my mind was pretty much blank and refused any other story all this time. I don't think it's fair to try to describe the book as it was a very magical and extraordinary experience, but I'd totally understand if the surrealism of the novel was too much for some people. It's a work of art, but definitely not for everyone. And now I'm into the first pages of The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. Too early to say anything about it, but it certaintly has it's own very unique aura. |
| recently got myself into books on journalism! i think it started while i was reading the last juror by john grisham lol. i'm currently reading tell me no lies: investigative journalism and its triumphs, which is a collection of journalistic pieces which the author believes shook the globe at the time they were published. it's a very eye-opening book that wants to tell you how greatly journalists, especially audacious, bold, fearless journalists, can change the way people think about controversial issues and see historical events. i'm currently on the article written about the hiroshima bombing by one of the first foreign correspondents to be allowed entry into hiroshima. it kind of makes you hate the americans tbh. although the book is very western-centric, such that some of the articles chosen (although probably not intended) give off the white man's burden kind of feeling which is irksome to me at the very least, i applaud it for shedding some spotlight on the people who have risked their lives in various situations so that people could, at the very least, start talking about the important, and controversial local and global issues. |
| don't save her, she don't wanna be saved. |
| Gary Hart's autobiography is next on my "to read" list. Gary Hart was a wrestler and a booker, who was active during the territory days of wrestling from the 60's to the 80's. Primary got the book for the info pertaining to Fritz Von Erich's World Class Champion Wrestling out of Dallas. They were one of the few remaining promotions left doing business once Hulkamania exploded in the WWE in '84, while most of the remaining NWA territories were absorbed into JCP/WCW. |
| The Aeronauts Windlass by Jim Butcher -- Off to a good start. It's a bit different than most fantasy books I read, which is a nice change of pace. The Princess Bride by William Goldman -- I love it. Up next I'm reading The Beautiful and Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Yarub said: Eeyore said: Also about a quarter of the way through Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman. It's amusing. So far it reads the same way that I'd imagine an old grandpa tells stories of his past. "Back in my day", "One time when I was young", etc... (it doesn't say that outright, but the almost conversational/casual writing can make it feel that way-- I also think it makes the book really approachable). I like it none the less. Finally, picked up Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Haven't started yet, but it's probably what I'll move onto next. I've read good things about it. Funny enough, I've had these two on my to-read list for long enough. When you do finish them, please do let me know. I'd like to know your opinion and maybe it would motivate me to pick them up right away. If I were to recommend one it would definitely be Meditations. While the book on Feynman is enjoyable (and sometimes funny), it's really just a book of the zany misadventures of Feynman. And having finished the book, I'm not sure I'll come back to it or re-read it. Meditations can be a little repetitive. It's somewhat of a journal, and he remakes/rewords the same points several times. But I found it to be a much more rewarding read, and will most likely re-read the book in the future. I have a bunch of parts in my book which I highlighted specifically come to back to read-- more than I usually have at least. If you're looking to read it just for the philosophy of Stoicism, however, there are probably other books that would provide more insight than this one. Both are worth reading I think. It's just that I wouldn't put a rush on reading Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!. Hope that helps |
EeyoreJan 19, 2018 1:14 AM
| After 10 years of its possession, I'm finally reading the 3rd book of Eragon. Although, I am not as excited as back then, it's been a long time since I read a fantasy book so it is really nice. The book isn't the greatest of course, but it is enjoyable enough :D |
   |
| I'm currently reading two books: The Angel of Darkness by Caleb Carr, and Come Back To Me by Edmond Manning. |
"Wonder is always difficult until you forgive whoever destroyed your love of surprises" — Edmond Manning  |
| Started reading "La Joie de vivre" by Émile Zola, and i'm pondering on buying "Kafka on the shore". Maffy said: After 10 years of its possession, I'm finally reading the 3rd book of Eragon. Although, I am not as excited as back then, it's been a long time since I read a fantasy book so it is really nice. The book isn't the greatest of course, but it is enjoyable enough :D Soon you'll be one of us, you're in for a treat. Feel free to check the following spoiler once you're done with the 4th book :> |
  |
| @Aemnesias Woah, I clicked the spoiler absentmindedly before reading the warning... Great that you had a second spoiler, that made me focus again haha. I just found out a few days ago that the 4th book has a 2nd version with added and changed events and that put me off so much, because I bought the 4th just as it had come out and I'm annoyed that I'll be kind of reading the "beta" version. Who does that >:c I accidentally got spoiled a bit as I was reading that post to see if the changes or additions were important enough or just something extra... T^T |
|
| Fire and Fury by Michael Wolff Not a fan of Trump and his policies, but I do think this book doesn't live up to its hype. Many of its contents aren't exactly eye-opening for a news junkie like me, and the writing style feels too casual for such an important political publication; on top of that, the numerous typos and grammatical errors make me believe that releasing this book ahead of time wasn't the smartest idea. Still, it's worth reading for the interviews alone since many of them can be unintentionally hilarious. 'The Devil's Bargain' was a much better Trump-related book, even if the topics it covered weren't as interesting. |
 |
| Currently trying to read through The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck and American Psycho. |
| 1Q84- Haurki Murakami |
| Website:https://misanakuya.wordpress.com/ Web Novel, Orange and Blue:https://misanakuya.wordpress.com/orange-and-blue/ YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3bpSHEV1__0Amma9M_WqZg Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/misan_akuya/  |
| I've just finished the Silmarillion (prequel to Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit) and now I'm reading Children of Hurin which is a side-story to the Silmarillion. I'm starting to become a hardcore Tolkien fan now. |
|
Lost_Viking said: I've just finished the Silmarillion (prequel to Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit) and now I'm reading Children of Hurin which is a side-story to the Silmarillion. I'm starting to become a hardcore Tolkien fan now. All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost. From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless again shall be king. LOTR was only half decent if you neglect the snail pacing. Movies are better, fight me. |
| People only think this because they can't into high fantasy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's very common for people who can't appreciate great sci-fi or fantasy to like the movie variations of them more. The Peter Jackson original trilogy was great for what it was, but it is no Tolkien landmark work of fantasy. |
Yudina said: People only think this because they can't into high fantasy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's very common for people who can't appreciate great sci-fi or fantasy to like the movie variations of them more. The Peter Jackson original trilogy was great for what it was, but it is no Tolkien landmark work of fantasy. It's not the dilemma of whether I can get into it or not, It's whether it is good and worthwhile or not. Mind elaborating the great scifi and fantasy books? Examples, please. Cinema is a much better medium to portray information. The visuals, the audio, any person can get into it. Let's be real. Not everyone can read 3 pages of a writer describing bushes, trees and marshes. The books are just tedious, the battles are short, creating this effect that Tolkien is more about character development and interaction than wars, but the wars and battles are the only thing I wanted to read Tolkien for. The movies *made* me read them in hopes of detailed paragraphs on paragraphs of the battle scene. Nothing. The books would never have come this far to become classics without the movies. |
Yarub said: That's just an anachronistic explanation of history. Tolkien was already heralded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, fantasy writer of all time before the movies. That's why they were viewed with such great expectation. Actors like Viggo Mortensen were absolutely in love and incredibly deep in LOTR lore, hence his enthusiasm for playing Aragorn, but his withdrawal from participating in The Hobbit movies.Yudina said: People only think this because they can't into high fantasy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's very common for people who can't appreciate great sci-fi or fantasy to like the movie variations of them more. The Peter Jackson original trilogy was great for what it was, but it is no Tolkien landmark work of fantasy. It's not the dilemma of whether I can get into it or not, It's whether it is good and worthwhile or not. Mind elaborating the great scifi and fantasy books? Examples, please. Cinema is a much better medium to portray information. The visuals, the audio, any person can get into it. Let's be real. Not everyone can read 3 pages of a writer describing bushes, trees and marshes. The books are just tedious, the battles are short, creating this effect that Tolkien is more about character development and interaction than wars, but the wars and battles are the only thing I wanted to read Tolkien for. The movies *made* me read them in hopes of detailed paragraphs on paragraphs of the battle scene. Nothing. The books would never have come this far to become classics without the movies. The other part of your post essentially just tells me that you don't actually like good fantasy or science fiction. You care more about things happening than the actual act of creating good fantasy. Put people who love fantasy are incredibly passionate just about battles and wars, of which there is no dearth in LoTR, but also history, culture, and even minute details that just aren't as evident on screen. How much flora and fauna can you name from the LoTR universe? I guarantee you the fans of just the movies can name precisely zero. It just sounds to me that you've never read the books in any real capacity. And no, cinema is not a "much better medium to portray information." That just sounds like what people who have no attention span would say. Reading about something can be just as captivating, just seeing things on screen doesn't mean anything insofar as the conveyor of information, and if you can't handle reading three pages of anything, that just sounds like you're not really meant to be a good reader. So, sure, stick with films. In addition, if cinema was a better medium for portraying information, why do you think there's never been a good adaptation of Dune? Hyperion? Ender's Game? Speaker for the Dead. Three Body Problem? Shadow & Claw? I can tell you; it's that they can't do it. It's not just the technology. We could ostensibly have visually stunning science fiction now, but Ender's Game was a disaster. Arrival was an aesthetic film, but lacked the actual substance of the *short story*, so not even a novel, that it was adapted from. Why do you think the Blade Runner dealt more with cyberpunk aesthetics rather than the depth of Philip K. Dick's landmark novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Why do you think Tarkovsky sucked out the science fiction elements of A Roadside Picnic or Solaris? There's nothing wrong with not being able to appreciate good science fiction or fantasy. Some people just aren't interested. But the best science fiction and fantasy have always been in books. There's really no competition. Books provide the structure and substantive capacity for explication and world building that sci-fi and fantasy need and has a much greater capacity for narrative force. |
Yudina said: Yarub said: That's just an anachronistic explanation of history. Tolkien was already heralded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, fantasy writer of all time before the movies. That's why they were viewed with such great expectation. Actors like Viggo Mortensen were absolutely in love and incredibly deep in LOTR lore, hence his enthusiasm for playing Aragorn, but his withdrawal from participating in The Hobbit movies.It's not the dilemma of whether I can get into it or not, It's whether it is good and worthwhile or not. Mind elaborating the great scifi and fantasy books? Examples, please. Cinema is a much better medium to portray information. The visuals, the audio, any person can get into it. Let's be real. Not everyone can read 3 pages of a writer describing bushes, trees and marshes. The books are just tedious, the battles are short, creating this effect that Tolkien is more about character development and interaction than wars, but the wars and battles are the only thing I wanted to read Tolkien for. The movies *made* me read them in hopes of detailed paragraphs on paragraphs of the battle scene. Nothing. The books would never have come this far to become classics without the movies. The other part of your post essentially just tells me that you don't actually like good fantasy or science fiction. You care more about things happening than the actual act of creating good fantasy. Put people who love fantasy are incredibly passionate just about battles and wars, of which there is no dearth in LoTR, but also history, culture, and even minute details that just aren't as evident on screen. How much flora and fauna can you name from the LoTR universe? I guarantee you the fans of just the movies can name precisely zero. It just sounds to me that you've never read the books in any real capacity. And no, cinema is not a "much better medium to portray information." That just sounds like what people who have no attention span would say. Reading about something can be just as captivating, just seeing things on screen doesn't mean anything insofar as the conveyor of information, and if you can't handle reading three pages of anything, that just sounds like you're not really meant to be a good reader. So, sure, stick with films. In addition, if cinema was a better medium for portraying information, why do you think there's never been a good adaptation of Dune? Hyperion? Ender's Game? Speaker for the Dead. Three Body Problem? Shadow & Claw? I can tell you; it's that they can't do it. It's not just the technology. We could ostensibly have visually stunning science fiction now, but Ender's Game was a disaster. Arrival was an aesthetic film, but lacked the actual substance of the *short story*, so not even a novel, that it was adapted from. Why do you think the Blade Runner dealt more with cyberpunk aesthetics rather than the depth of Philip K. Dick's landmark novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Why do you think Tarkovsky sucked out the science fiction elements of A Roadside Picnic or Solaris? There's nothing wrong with not being able to appreciate good science fiction or fantasy. Some people just aren't interested. But the best science fiction and fantasy have always been in books. There's really no competition. Books provide the structure and substantive capacity for explication and world building that sci-fi and fantasy need and has a much greater capacity for narrative force. I never claimed that Tolkien would be unknown to people if it were not for the movies, I'm saying that Tolkien's fanbase was made of basement dwellers as a majority. The movies brought it into the mainstream. The books were a classic because there weren't any books that rivaled it in it's time. Half of the approved 'classics' from the 17th - 20th century are pretty trashy, yet still considered classics. Wait, why did he withdraw from playing in The Hobbit? Pretty sure Aragorn wasn't a character there anyway. As I said previously, it's not the case of whether I like it or not, it's the case of whether it's good or not. No scarcity in battles? Dude, that battle in The Two Towers (I forgot the name, was it the Rohan battle with the orcs?) was like barely 10 pages. And guess what? Frodo's banal banter with Faramir in the same book lasted for way more than that - 20 pages iirc. The movies presented the battle with alot more justice. This disproportionality is what ticks me off. I can confidently say, from watching the movies countless times, and from reading the Fellowship and The Two Towers, I can't name any sort of flora or fauna. Wait, aren't Orcs fauna? Pretty sure they are a constantly appearing element in the lore. I do have a comparatively short attention span, but that does not qualify me as a 'inadequate reader'. The way books are structured, you have to have imagination to relate to what ever is written. Surely enough, it is much easier for 90% of the human population to relate events and scenes through their senses (sight, hearing etc..) rather than imagine them through printed words on paper. I'm not devaluing books or any of the sort. It's simply easier and more efficient. I can handle reading 3 pages of anything, I've read Paulo Coelho and lasted through 2 of his books, I can read anything with a hint of sensibility for 3 pages. There's a question of the cost of such a film and the environment of the cinema industry. It's a fact that most sci-fi movies don't show much box office profits as other action oriented movies. Obviously I'm excluding massive franchises like Star Wars and the such, because they have already built their own fingerprint in the industry. The other books, even popular, simply don't have. Hmm, I actually liked The Arrival. I don't really know. I haven't invested in either watching or reading Blade Runner. But I have read Dick's book recently, it was good but I expected more of a 'expansive' story, but it was mainly simple and saturated in certain characters. Haven't read Tarkovsky. I agree. But will that matter when only select people actually can appreciate and comprehend this 'substantive capacity'? I certainly don't and I present my argument thus. |
| Paulo Coelho fucking blows lmfao. Literally zero aesthetic or literary sensibility. Anybody can read him because he's shlock As I said previously, it's not the case of whether I like it or not, it's the case of whether it's good or not. No scarcity in battles? Dude, that battle in The Two Towers (I forgot the name, was it the Rohan battle with the orcs?) was like barely 10 pages. And guess what? Frodo's banal banter with Faramir in the same book lasted for way more than that - 20 pages iirc. The movies presented the battle with alot more justice. This disproportionality is what ticks me off. I can confidently say, from watching the movies countless times, and from reading the Fellowship and The Two Towers, I can't name any sort of flora or fauna. Wait, aren't Orcs fauna? Pretty sure they are a constantly appearing element in the lore. The movies didn't provide "justice" in this capacity. It merely transcribed what it felt the viewers wanted onto the big screen. And they were great at that. But they missed Tom Bombadil. They missed the fact that between Gandalf journeying to Minas Tirith to find out about the ring, literally something like 15-30 years had passed, much of which was Aragorn tracking and losing Gollum in the Dead Marshes. But you don't see those decades because it's not fit for the screen. But if you had read the books, you'd know that the book is largely focused on these kinds of thing and wouldn't be unfairly expecting for them to appease something you were unreasonably asking for. There's a question of the cost of such a film and the environment of the cinema industry. It's a fact that most sci-fi movies don't show much box office profits as other action oriented movies. Obviously I'm excluding massive franchises like Star Wars and the such, because they have already built their own fingerprint in the industry. The other books, even popular, simply don't have Yea but I don't really care about what has fingerprints in the industry. Sounds banal. |
Yudina said: Paulo Coelho fucking blows lmfao. Literally zero aesthetic or literary sensibility. Anybody can read him because he's shlock As I said previously, it's not the case of whether I like it or not, it's the case of whether it's good or not. No scarcity in battles? Dude, that battle in The Two Towers (I forgot the name, was it the Rohan battle with the orcs?) was like barely 10 pages. And guess what? Frodo's banal banter with Faramir in the same book lasted for way more than that - 20 pages iirc. The movies presented the battle with alot more justice. This disproportionality is what ticks me off. I can confidently say, from watching the movies countless times, and from reading the Fellowship and The Two Towers, I can't name any sort of flora or fauna. Wait, aren't Orcs fauna? Pretty sure they are a constantly appearing element in the lore. The movies didn't provide "justice" in this capacity. It merely transcribed what it felt the viewers wanted onto the big screen. And they were great at that. But they missed Tom Bombadil. They missed the fact that between Gandalf journeying to Minas Tirith to find out about the ring, literally something like 15-30 years had passed, much of which was Aragorn tracking and losing Gollum in the Dead Marshes. But you don't see those decades because it's not fit for the screen. But if you had read the books, you'd know that the book is largely focused on these kinds of thing and wouldn't be unfairly expecting for them to appease something you were unreasonably asking for. There's a question of the cost of such a film and the environment of the cinema industry. It's a fact that most sci-fi movies don't show much box office profits as other action oriented movies. Obviously I'm excluding massive franchises like Star Wars and the such, because they have already built their own fingerprint in the industry. The other books, even popular, simply don't have Yea but I don't really care about what has fingerprints in the industry. Sounds banal.If you had a shred of the comprehensibility that you claim to have, you'd also know that I meant that Paulo is actually trash too.... Just because it's named The Lord of The Rings doesn't make it an excuse to make the books boring as fuck. Well, GOT does have boobs there, so I might consider that offer And that is what made the movies infinitely better than the books. They did give justice to the battle scenes, they comprise a chunk of the movie and I'd wager more than half the budget. I've read the books except The Return of The King, again with the comprehension statement. Who the fuck is Tom Bombadil? I can remember his name but I also remember his story was boring as fuck. Was he the guy that was with Gandalf in that birthday party? Again, rather unnecessary occurrences. I'll elaborate later in the post. If the supposed 'fan' don't really care, then how do you want the movie industry to care to make movies for your fantasy books? I'm reading this as "I don't have anything to say so I'll just ignore the whole point and comment about how I don't really care, even though I did careand made of point out of it a post ago, oh and let use a word he's used just to make it seem provocative". Finally, you're just approaching this as what a 'fan' of the genre should be doing or appreciating. Trust me, not everybody who reads LOTR wants to invest time in it's lore, they just want the story. You don't buy a car to examine every inch of it and learn how it works, you just want to drive it. I'm not a fan so don't treat me like one. This is too easy. |
Ever_Onward said: Psyches said: Why is that? Also, you mean BS as in boring or as in something that is full of unnecessary stuff. People pack pretty much everything with their agenda and I almost always disagree with their agenda. Then maybe it's time to review and doubt your bullshit agenda. |
Logically, if you proclaim that everyone else's agenda is bullshit, I can only assume so for your own agenda too. Do you always ramble nonsense? or are you a few IQ points behind today? |
Ever_Onward said: Yarub said: Logically, if you proclaim that everyone else's agenda is bullshit, I can only assume so for your own agenda too. "Everyone else's" is incorrect. I used the words "almost always." Even I find things I like. It's just a matter of separating the wheat from the chaff, which is a tiresome endeavor, no? In our premise, it still is valid. "Everyone else's" and "almost always" are only minuscule differences. the fact still holds that you would think that "most" agendas are bullshit, which is still enough reason for any rational person to also think that your agenda (for saying that) is also even more bullshit. Walking to work instead of using a vehicle is not something to be proud of. You're just needlessly tiring yourself with the monotony of whatever you do - walking - while you have a vehicle at your disposal. Ever_Onward said: Insulting my intelligence in the same sentence as you display an obvious lack of reading comprehension is.. uh.. interesting? I didn't insult your intelligence, I gave you a choice whether you would want to insult it or not. Rambling nonsense doesn't portray lack of intellect, it's a choice of action. |
| The exorcist by William Platty, surprisingly good. It's not really scary but sometimes it gives me the chills |
 |
The image is still broken dude, lmao. |
| i know mate,i just f**k myself up |
| 吃屁股 |
StazBoss said: The exorcist by William Platty, surprisingly good. It's not really scary but sometimes it gives me the chills That one is amazing! Far better than the movie |
 |
Ever_Onward said: Yarub said: In our premise, it still is valid. "Everyone else's" and "almost always" are only minuscule differences. the fact still holds that you would think that "most" agendas are bullshit, which is still enough reason for any rational person to also think that your agenda (for saying that) is also even more bullshit. Walking to work instead of using a vehicle is not something to be proud of. You're just needlessly tiring yourself with the monotony of whatever you do - walking - while you have a vehicle at your disposal. I can see that your agenda is bullshit. Wink, wink. Is that your anus talking? oh okay. Wink wink |
| f**k it i deleted it, the joke is already ruined anyway |
| 吃屁股 |
Ever_Onward said: I've seen that you disregard obvious truth when that obvious truth is inconvenient to your position. That's exactly what the writers I'm talking about do. There's no appreciation for truth. It's just.. endless self-flattery. I don't see any of that. Fucking use examples, can't you do one thing properly? And you're the conveyor of truth. Being in an anime forums sure does illustrate that. |
| @Ever_Onward wow just an hour ago you introduce yourself now you're already getting in a drama. you grow up so fast |
| 吃屁股 |
Ever_Onward said: im so proud of you.Oriionx said: @Ever_Onward wow just an hour ago you introduce yourself now you're already getting in a drama. you grow up so fast Lmao. I didn't want this, but arrogant know-it-alls are hard to avoid. |
| 吃屁股 |
Ever_Onward said: Yarub said: I don't see any of that. Fucking use examples, can't you do one thing properly? And you're the conveyor of truth. Being in an anime forums sure does illustrate that. Just a minute ago you were trying to argue that 0 is the same as 1, essentially. It's obviously not, but that didn't stop you from flattering yourself by trying. I was hoping you had a little self-awareness and could see your mistake, but that's a lot to hope for in someone who enjoys flattering himself by arguing on an anime forum, I guess. lmao, you really are something. Let's have a comparison shall we? Since you seem abit slow. 0 is (in this case) 'nobody has a bullshit agenda' and 1 is 'everybody has bullshit agenda'. Keep in mind that I never said 0 = 1, now, let's see to something else. 0.9 is 'almost everyone has bullshit agenda'. Mathematically, you can easily round up 0.9 to 1, it's not a big of an issue, you'd get some minor discrepancies but the truth is still, maybe not wholly, there. Do you get my comparison and why I considered 'almost' and 'all' as the same, we aren't looking for exactness, we are just looking for truth and this is enough to pin point it. |
Ever_Onward said: Yarub said: lmao, you really are something. Let's have a comparison shall we? Since you seem abit slow. 0 is (in this case) 'nobody has a bullshit agenda' and 1 is 'everybody has bullshit agenda'. Keep in mind that I never said 0 = 1, now, let's see to something else. 0.9 is 'almost everyone has bullshit agenda'. Mathematically, you can easily round up 0.9 to 1, it's not a big of an issue, you'd get some minor discrepancies but the truth is still, maybe not wholly, there. Do you get my comparison and why I considered 'almost' and 'all' as the same, we aren't looking for exactness, we are just looking for truth and this is enough to pin point it. There's a big, fat fucking difference between "everyone's agenda is bullshit" and "almost everyone's agenda is bullshit." You're trying to argue that that difference doesn't exist because.. why exactly? Flattering yourself? Afraid to admit you made a mistake? I mean, that, or you can't see that big, fat fucking difference because you're about as sharp as a century-old butter knife. Stop trying to argue shit that you're obviously wrong about and I might have a little respect for you. There's not much really, read my post again. I've explained it for any half-brained person to understand. The difference does exist, but its significance can be heavily doubted. I don't have time to spoon feed you every piece of information to make you understand, atleast, I still have faith in your brain. How am I flattering myself with mathematically proven arguments? Oh hi Ever_Onward's anus, nice to meet you again. |
Ever_Onward said: The latter does not acknowledge that others are correct, since you're so exact about things, don't start nitpicking on me man. The latter acknowledges that some are correct while most are wrong. And since you've been talking broadly about it, a person thinking that most of his views, opinions, and thoughts as worthwhile while most other are wrong in whatever they think is retarded (This is broadly speaking, since you've never specified about any topic/subject, I'd only assume that you're simply too high up your ass in general).Yarub said: There's not much really, read my post again. I've explained it for any half-brained person to understand. The difference does exist, but it's significance can be heavily doubted. How am I flattering myself with mathematically proven arguments? Oh hi Ever_Onward's anus, nice to meet you again. Think about it a little. A person who says EVERYONE ELSE is wrong is likely wrong himself. A person who says ALMOST EVERYONE is wrong acknowledges that others are correct. That's the big difference. I hope you don't need my help with anything else. |
Ever_Onward said: Yarub said: The latter does not acknowledge that others are correct, since you're so exact about things, don't start nitpicking on me man. The latter acknowledges that some are correct while most are wrong. And since you've been talking broadly about it, a person thinking that most of his views, opinions, and thoughts as worthwhile while most other are wrong in whatever they think is retarded (This is broadly speaking, since you've never specified about any topic/subject, I'd only assume that you're simply too high up your ass in general). If I acknowledge that 100 people out of 5,000 are correct, it can be said that I acknowledge that others are correct. It's those crazy bastards who think they're the only right one.. Those are the ones you want to watch out for! *sips choco milk* Sure, half truths, I can work with that (since I employed it, unlike you I'm consistent) but wouldn't that also make my previous point (about 0, 1 and .9) also valid? usually, a human life time cannot incorporate anyone to realistically be 'always right' or even be 'almost always right' in everything. Einstein was a prodigy, yet he died wishing he knew more about mathematics. The fact that you think you've grown enough opinions and experiences to think (without anything to back it up) that most people around you are simply wrong, while you and your 'almost always right' goons circle jerk around each other is disgusting. I tried conversing mathematically, but I think it's too advanced for you now, so, I hope this clears it up. *sips previous post* |
More topics from this board
» Post songs that you are addicted to right now ( 1 2 )tsukareru - Apr 26 |
86 |
by scarydragon
»»
1 hour ago |
|
» Mal spotify collaborative playlist ( 1 2 )tsukareru - Jan 6 |
67 |
by Zedlin
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» American Cartoons with Plot (excluding adult shows)???TheSunLife - Jun 6 |
4 |
by ryan77999
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Currently listening to ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )tsukareru - Mar 29, 2021 |
7824 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» J-Music recommendations.pludel2 - 6 hours ago |
0 |
by pludel2
»»
6 hours ago |