Forum Settings
Forums

Hearing character's thoughts is bad storytelling!

This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (11) « First ... « 8 9 [10] 11 »
 
Apr 29, 2:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 281
Peaceful_Critic said:
hairu said:

Not all facial expressions can show a characters feelings on an entire opinion.
No, there would need to e more than just facial expressions, but with context, you will know their opinion.

Yes and inner monologues can be used to express their opinion, use of multiple mediums is good storytelling.
su#4790
 
Apr 29, 2:27 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
CallMeHoot said:

The real question is, why shouldn't you? You should, by the way. Because this is a fundamental aspect of story. Unless you're a sociopath. Or just not an actual human being. Or there is something wrong with the part of you that lets you feel empathy. Otherwise, every character becomes a cardboard cutout that's just carrying out actions for no reason.

I swear, man. It's questions like this that people have a problem with because they are so basic and shouldn't even need to be asked. In that respect they tread the line very close to "baiting". It's also questions like this that make me believe you're very young and very naive and likely just starting out in some form of higher education.

Safeanew said:
One way to avoid heat is to just ask peoples opinions, but that often does not lead to discussion, because they just try to answer ones question, they don't want to discuss it.
The reason people discuss is because they don't agree with each other, most people don't want to discuss, they just want to share their opinions without being questioned.


You claim to want to illicit polite discussion but you don't know how to debate. Bandying opinions and questions back and forth ultimately leads nowhere. Without specific evidence and examples what you've got is a "pub conversation", not a discussion or a debate, and without evidence and examples the discussion is ultimately doomed to go nowhere. Also, you engage with an undeserved air of superciliousness about you that people find unpleasant. Here's how a debate works :-

  • You make a statement. People respond. You question their responses. They reply with evidence (as I have done many, many times in this thread). You evaluate the evidence (which you have failed to do many, many times in this thread). You put the evidence against your claim and either refute it, by providing evidence of your own, or accept that the evidence is valid and potentially change your viewpoint (or at least, disseminate the evidence).


What you're doing is the following :-

  • Make a statement. People respond. Question their response. They reply with evidence. You ignore the evidence and repeat your initial claim without providing any evidence of your own to back it up. They ask for some evidence to prove what you're saying. You change the core of the question and move to another, distinctly different point.

This point is the most important of all though :- The fundamental basis of any discussion is the willingness to change your opinion and your viewpoint in light of new information/evidence. If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless).

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've engaged in many debates in my life, with learned people no less. I've studied a lot. I've obtained a first class degree. I've honed my language ability to a fairly fine edge, at least for a guy who grew up working class in a mining village.

That being said, let me ask you a couple direct questions, if you don't mind answering, and maybe I can understand your position a little more :-

Are you a native English speaker? I've got the idea in my head that you aren't but I could be wrong.

How old are you? Age bracket? 15-18? 18-25? 25-30? 30+?

What is your level of formal education? High school? College? University? Post-grad?

(And please, if you're going to reply to this post, don't cherry pick and be lazy. Reply to it POINT BY POINT. Show me you're willing to engage on my level.)

"The real question is, why shouldn't you?" Because having empathy for characters just allows telling about characters' people can relate to.
Empathy does not work, because clearly you don't have empathy with me.
Empathy works only through the clash of words, when people question themselves by saying what they believe to be true and not holding it in ones head.

"It's questions like this that people have a problem with because they are so basic and shouldn't even need to be asked"
It is because they are basic that makes them interesting, because I am trying to challenge peoples biases and beliefs.

"Without specific evidence and examples what you've got is a pub conversation"
I want what you call a pub discussion, where anyone can join in and say what they think without having to be proven science.

"You make a statement. People respond. You question their responses. They reply with evidence (as I have done many, many times in this thread)"
You say evidence with quite the authorative tone, in what way have I failed to evaluate the evidence?

"You change the core of the question and move to another, distinctly different point."
I am trying to specify what I mean, I am not trying to change the core of the question.
On the other hand I don't want to just agree with appeals to popularity or authority.
I want to get more into the discussion.

"The fundamental basis of any discussion is the willingness to change your opinion and your viewpoint in light of new information/evidence. If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless)."

I am willing to change my opinion in when I am convinced by the arguments people make.
But othervise I should stick to my guns until the discussion is over or they change their minds.
But I listen on what people says and have added formulations to make my point more clear.
If they want more information, they can ask for it.

"I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've engaged in many debates in my life, with learned people no less. I've studied a lot. I've obtained a first class degree. I've honed my language ability to a fairly fine edge, at least for a guy who grew up working class in a mining village."

You are a nice person, but you don't seem to see me as your equal.
I agree that you probably have more experience than me, but that does not mean automatically that you are right and I am wrong.

"Are you a native English speaker? I've got the idea in my head that you aren't but I could be wrong.

How old are you? Age bracket? 15-18? 18-25? 25-30? 30+?

What is your level of formal education? High school? College? University? Post-grad?"

I don't want to answer these questions, because they should not matter between equals.
 
Apr 29, 2:29 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
hairu said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
No, there would need to e more than just facial expressions, but with context, you will know their opinion.

Yes and inner monologues can be used to express their opinion, use of multiple mediums is good storytelling.
You wouldn't need both though, that'll just be repetitive. In that case, it would be about which one you'll prefer.

 
Apr 29, 2:46 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:
"The real question is, why shouldn't you?" Because having empathy for characters just allows telling about characters' people can relate to.
Empathy does not work, because clearly you don't have empathy with me.
Empathy works only through the clash of words, when people question themselves by saying what they believe to be true and not holding it in ones head.


I do have empathy for you. In fact, if this were a TV show, my inner thoughts would reveal just how much empathy I actually do have for you. I see you struggling to prove a point that is both contrarian and fundamentally incorrect. And I feel for you, man.

Empathy does not only work through the clash of words. If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss. I have empathy for her. Not a word spoken. Merely two people in the same place at the same time.

Do you honestly believe that people cannot question themselves and have inner dichotomy without speaking it aloud?

Safeanew said:

"It's questions like this that people have a problem with because they are so basic and shouldn't even need to be asked"
It is because they are basic that makes them interesting, because I am trying to challenge peoples biases and beliefs.


Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?

Safeanew said:

"Without specific evidence and examples what you've got is a pub conversation"
I want what you call a pub discussion, where anyone can join in and say what they think without having to be proven science.


OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims.

Safeanew said:

"You make a statement. People respond. You question their responses. They reply with evidence (as I have done many, many times in this thread)"
You say evidence with quite the authorative tone, in what way have I failed to evaluate the evidence?


I mentioned the novel Dune earlier. Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story. You've not commented on these beyond pure contrary opinion.

I've written examples to show how inner dialogue (and character feeling and emotion besides, which you also claim hinders story) can IMPROVE a story and give clarity.

I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story.

Safeanew said:

"You change the core of the question and move to another, distinctly different point."
I am trying to specify what I mean, I am not trying to change the core of the question.
On the other hand I don't want to just agree with appeals to popularity or authority.
I want to get more into the discussion.


I admire your tenacity, I'll give you that, but your attempts at specificity haven't worked. I think you've confused your own argument a fair bit.

I've seen over the last couple of pages (and in your initial edit) that you've tried to clarify what you mean but maybe make your statements clearer from the outset.

It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man.

Safeanew said:

"The fundamental basis of any discussion is the willingness to change your opinion and your viewpoint in light of new information/evidence. If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless)."

I am willing to change my opinion in when I am convinced by the arguments people make.
But othervise I should stick to my guns until the discussion is over or they change their minds.
But I listen on what people says and have added formulations to make my point more clear.
If they want more information, they can ask for it.


They have asked, and what you've provided so far has been circumspect and minimal.

You're essentially taking what is a preference to you, and claiming it is fact. Your opinion also goes against pretty much any literally tenet ever written, which is why people have fairly justified claims against it.

Most people find insight illuminating and entertaining. Watching/reading something where everything is vague and ambiguous and you're constantly questioning things isn't an experience most people seek out a lot of the time.

I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet.

Safeanew said:

"I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've engaged in many debates in my life, with learned people no less. I've studied a lot. I've obtained a first class degree. I've honed my language ability to a fairly fine edge, at least for a guy who grew up working class in a mining village."

You are a nice person, but you don't seem to see me as your equal.
I agree that you probably have more experience than me, but that does not mean automatically that you are right and I am wrong.


Are you my equal as a human being? Damn right you are. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine and we can both be free to state it however we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone.

Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet.

And no, experience does not automatically equal superiority or correctness, but in this case, to most people reading and the replies and private messages I've received about this thread and my contributions to it, my counterpoints seem more compelling than your argument.

Safeanew said:

"Are you a native English speaker? I've got the idea in my head that you aren't but I could be wrong.

How old are you? Age bracket? 15-18? 18-25? 25-30? 30+?

What is your level of formal education? High school? College? University? Post-grad?"

I don't want to answer these questions, because they should not matter between equals.


It's a shame you won't answer these. Without the answers I can't gauge our equality of intellect or experience. Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field.

I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like.

P.S Thanks for replying point by point. If you're gonna reply again, please follow that same format :) One sentence replies get us nowhere
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 29, 3:05 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 3:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
ThereArentNames said:
Safeanew said:


I define story as dialogue, dialogue is hindered by hearing a character's thoughts because hearing a character's thoughts is used to avoid dialogue.


See, here's the thing. Stories are not defined as dialogue. No matter what you try to think of them as. There are numerous stories that take place without a singular word being said. Discrediting them based on a shower thought is highly disingenuous and extremely narcissistic.

Hearing the thoughts of a character does not hinder dialogue. The story is independent of your input. Therefore you hearing the thoughts of the character doesn't take away from dialogue. The characters interact as they would with or without our knowledge of said thoughts.

safeanew said:


"I will save this world, he thought and slayed the monster." instead of
"he slayed the monster" is a distraction from his action of slaying the monster.
"he slayed the monster" on the other hand invites the question of "why did he do it?".

The evidence you provide here is circumstantial, I asked you to provide me definitive evidence. that being said, I completely disagree. The inclusion of thought doesn't distract anyone, absolutely anyone, from the fact that said person slayed the monster. Even more so, begging unnecessary questions is in fact quite boring and detrimental. Regardless, you give us a lack of context.

safeanew said:

Letting characters speak and act for themselves makes them real in the sense that we can't read their mind and therefor adds to the story a sense of that we are actually watching people and not some abstraction.
I am not against hearing character's thoughts, they are just not part of what actually happens in the story.

But we are watching some abstraction. We always are not watching real people. Since we aren't in their world, they can never interact with us; and nor can we, them. We will never be able to ask of them to enunciate their thoughts or emotions. Which is why we can hear said thoughts and emotions. I am completely in awe that you can suspend your disbelief for completely absurd ideas but disregard the very notion of story telling.

I know you wont directly respond to anything I say. I know you will continue to argue in circles. I'm going to lay this out before going to the next part just so that you know exactly what to respond to.
The primary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: why?
your response: because dialogue is the story
My response: how is it the story? In what way is it the story?

The definition of a story: "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment".

The secondary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
My response: Real life and fiction are not the same. We learn things in real life about the people we interact with which we simply can't in fiction.

I've yet to receive a receive a response.

The tertiary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
your justification: it's not realistic.
My response: Why is that a bad thing? It's beyond easy to suspend your disbelief in unrealistic scenarios. In fact, the very nature of fiction is that it is unrealistic.

The Quaternary argument:
your claim: hearing a character's thoughts is detrimental to the story
my response: Where is your evidence? Non circumstantial evidence, I mean.


"My response: how is it the story? In what way is it the story?"
I define the dialogue as the story because the goal of storytelling is to depict how people speak.
If the author only depict how they speak, I call it poetry.

"My response: Real life and fiction are not the same. We learn things in real life about the people we interact with which we simply can't in fiction"
I claim the opposite, that we learn things in fiction that we can't learn in real life.
I want fiction that dares to show how people talk in real life.

"My response: Why is that a bad thing? It's beyond easy to suspend your disbelief in unrealistic scenarios. In fact, the very nature of fiction is that it is unrealistic."
It is bad to make characters that one can read their mind, because it neutralizes the characters potential to be a character, rather than being an exposition and poetic peice for the audience.
I want unrealistic characters in the other sense, unbelievable characters that do things that are either impossible to do in reality or is seen as unrelatable in reality.

"my response: Where is your evidence? Non circumstantial evidence, I mean."
I have no evidence, the thing you call "Non circumstantial evidence" is general case examples to try to show what I mean.
I am making claims that I want to discuss, I don't need to prove them because that is what the discussion is for, to decide if what I am saying is true for myself or if others can convince me otherwise.
 
Apr 29, 3:47 AM

Online
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 1086
This IS bait right....? Sure seems like it to me
 
Apr 29, 4:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
CallMeHoot said:


1) Show me, by example, how the inner thoughts of Jack in Fight Club hinder the story and decrease our understanding of the character.

2) In order for me increase my own understanding of your viewpoint here, clearly define what "story" is, what it means to you and the key elements of it.


1)My point about Fight club is a few points made into one.

The first is related to my claim, when we hear Jacks inner thoughts it gives the illusion that we understand him, this is ofcourse subverted by the movie by the ending.

So then that asks the question why do I still think one could do without hearing his thought?

It is because I don't think that is a good ending, it was a good try in showing the contradictions of the mind, but it avoids making him unrelatable for the audience.
I liked that they tackled a very hard topic with Fight Club, but it has too much poetry as I call it.

Because without hearing his thoughts people would more easily just call him a psycho rather than think he was relatable.
That the character is relatable specifically by hearing his thoughts hides in a poetic way the fact that he is seen as a psycho.

2) The story is everything except poetry, poetry is 'monologic' as in one type of logic.

To cite Mikhail Bakhtin in his criticism of poetry in Dostoevsky from the english wikipedia article: "Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still in the future and will always be in the future".

This is his idea of 'unfinalizability' that means that a person cannot be objectively understood and we can never hold the whole truth.
One still need 'external finalization' (definition, description, causal or genetic explanation etc) and one can't avoid it.

Monologic use of language on the other hand works similar to "opposites come together, look at one another, are reflected in one another, know and understand one another.", this means that people magically understand what they do not understand, their antagonist or opposite.
 
Apr 29, 5:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
CallMeHoot said:
Safeanew said:
"The real question is, why shouldn't you?" Because having empathy for characters just allows telling about characters' people can relate to.
Empathy does not work, because clearly you don't have empathy with me.
Empathy works only through the clash of words, when people question themselves by saying what they believe to be true and not holding it in ones head.


I do have empathy for you. In fact, if this were a TV show, my inner thoughts would reveal just how much empathy I actually do have for you. I see you struggling to prove a point that is both contrarian and fundamentally incorrect. And I feel for you, man.

Empathy does not only work through the clash of words. If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss. I have empathy for her. Not a word spoken. Merely two people in the same place at the same time.

Do you honestly believe that people cannot question themselves and have inner dichotomy without speaking it aloud?

Safeanew said:

"It's questions like this that people have a problem with because they are so basic and shouldn't even need to be asked"
It is because they are basic that makes them interesting, because I am trying to challenge peoples biases and beliefs.


Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?

Safeanew said:

"Without specific evidence and examples what you've got is a pub conversation"
I want what you call a pub discussion, where anyone can join in and say what they think without having to be proven science.


OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims.

Safeanew said:

"You make a statement. People respond. You question their responses. They reply with evidence (as I have done many, many times in this thread)"
You say evidence with quite the authorative tone, in what way have I failed to evaluate the evidence?


I mentioned the novel Dune earlier. Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story. You've not commented on these beyond pure contrary opinion.

I've written examples to show how inner dialogue (and character feeling and emotion besides, which you also claim hinders story) can IMPROVE a story and give clarity.

I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story.

Safeanew said:

"You change the core of the question and move to another, distinctly different point."
I am trying to specify what I mean, I am not trying to change the core of the question.
On the other hand I don't want to just agree with appeals to popularity or authority.
I want to get more into the discussion.


I admire your tenacity, I'll give you that, but your attempts at specificity haven't worked. I think you've confused your own argument a fair bit.

I've seen over the last couple of pages (and in your initial edit) that you've tried to clarify what you mean but maybe make your statements clearer from the outset.

It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man.

Safeanew said:

"The fundamental basis of any discussion is the willingness to change your opinion and your viewpoint in light of new information/evidence. If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless)."

I am willing to change my opinion in when I am convinced by the arguments people make.
But othervise I should stick to my guns until the discussion is over or they change their minds.
But I listen on what people says and have added formulations to make my point more clear.
If they want more information, they can ask for it.


They have asked, and what you've provided so far has been circumspect and minimal.

You're essentially taking what is a preference to you, and claiming it is fact. Your opinion also goes against pretty much any literally tenet ever written, which is why people have fairly justified claims against it.

Most people find insight illuminating and entertaining. Watching/reading something where everything is vague and ambiguous and you're constantly questioning things isn't an experience most people seek out a lot of the time.

I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet.

Safeanew said:

"I'm not trying to be a dick, but I've engaged in many debates in my life, with learned people no less. I've studied a lot. I've obtained a first class degree. I've honed my language ability to a fairly fine edge, at least for a guy who grew up working class in a mining village."

You are a nice person, but you don't seem to see me as your equal.
I agree that you probably have more experience than me, but that does not mean automatically that you are right and I am wrong.


Are you my equal as a human being? Damn right you are. You can have your opinion, and I can have mine and we can both be free to state it however we like as long as we aren't hurting anyone.

Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet.

And no, experience does not automatically equal superiority or correctness, but in this case, to most people reading and the replies and private messages I've received about this thread and my contributions to it, my counterpoints seem more compelling than your argument.

Safeanew said:

"Are you a native English speaker? I've got the idea in my head that you aren't but I could be wrong.

How old are you? Age bracket? 15-18? 18-25? 25-30? 30+?

What is your level of formal education? High school? College? University? Post-grad?"

I don't want to answer these questions, because they should not matter between equals.


It's a shame you won't answer these. Without the answers I can't gauge our equality of intellect or experience. Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field.

I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like.

P.S Thanks for replying point by point. If you're gonna reply again, please follow that same format :) One sentence replies get us nowhere


"If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss."

She is just so happy finally being free from that person, the flowers are just a gesture to celebrate her happiness.
An example of "feeling for her loss" misses the point.

"Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?"

I only discuss to change my own mind, I have no control over other minds.

"OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims."

I can provide examples and try to make others understand, but to prove my point I would probably have to write a whole book about it.
I am not against writing a book about it, but right now I want to discuss without having to prove things, but try to explain things so that people understand and can ask questions about what they want to know more about.

"Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story"

I have answered this in my other comment, Dune I can't comment on.

"I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story."

This is my main point, "In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling"
The character don't need to be more compelling, the story suffers by it exactly because it makes the character compelling.

"make your statements clearer from the outset."
That is actually impossible, I could have made an example like Peaceful_Critic said, but actually answering questions I don't know I need to answer is impossible.

"It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man."

Yes you have read me correctly, now tell me why that is wrong.
What is important with "knowing a characters feelings" rather than making a judgement yourself about the characters feelings.

"I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet."

Thanks for the recommendation, I think someone else recommended him to me too.

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet."

That is what appeal to authority is, I am arrogant in the way that I don't care about peoples lofty titles.
I care about what people actually says.
I hold respect for those that have shown that they know more than the average person, often by how they speak and their arguments.

"Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field."
People are all equal in intelligence, I have argued for this on another topic I created.(maybe is not related to what you are saying)
I agree People don't have equal knowledge on a topic, but that should not exclude or hinder anyone from stating their opinions and arguing for them.

"I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like."

I don't think that information will help you one bit.
Because it is a fallacy that one can judge someone clearly only based on their profile.
 
Apr 29, 6:07 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:
CallMeHoot said:


1) Show me, by example, how the inner thoughts of Jack in Fight Club hinder the story and decrease our understanding of the character.

2) In order for me increase my own understanding of your viewpoint here, clearly define what "story" is, what it means to you and the key elements of it.


1)My point about Fight club is a few points made into one.

The first is related to my claim, when we hear Jacks inner thoughts it gives the illusion that we understand him, this is ofcourse subverted by the movie by the ending.

So then that asks the question why do I still think one could do without hearing his thought?

It is because I don't think that is a good ending, it was a good try in showing the contradictions of the mind, but it avoids making him unrelatable for the audience.
I liked that they tackled a very hard topic with Fight Club, but it has too much poetry as I call it.

Because without hearing his thoughts people would more easily just call him a psycho rather than think he was relatable.
That the character is relatable specifically by hearing his thoughts hides in a poetic way the fact that he is seen as a psycho.


Our understanding of ourselves is subverted all the time in real life. We often think one thing, only to have it disproven by events, encounters, other people, conversations, etc, etc.

The ending is actually really, really well done, given the central conceit of the story which I think you have missed and that is "we all have a different side to ourselves, and desire escape from the monotony of life's routines".

The entire point is that he isn't a psycho, at least not at the start. He's just a man that knows there's something wrong with his life, and he wants to change it. He just doesn't know how. His decent into almost madness, and the dual personality split, is only possible due to the effective use of inner monologue. By your own words, if that was gone, we'd just see a psycho. A man doing random things, for who knows what reason. The fact that we would be wondering what he was doing for the entire movie doesn't make the story better at all. It just adds obfuscation where it isn't necessary.

You cannot apply random philosophical principles to fiction and declare them as absolutes. Which brings me to your next point...dear God...where do I begin. Who has been teaching you, man?

Safeanew said:
2) The story is everything except poetry, poetry is 'monologic' as in one type of logic.

To cite Mikhail Bakhtin in his criticism of poetry in Dostoevsky from the english wikipedia article: "Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still in the future and will always be in the future".

This is his idea of 'unfinalizability' that means that a person cannot be objectively understood and we can never hold the whole truth.
One still need 'external finalization' (definition, description, causal or genetic explanation etc) and one can't avoid it.

Monologic use of language on the other hand works similar to "opposites come together, look at one another, are reflected in one another, know and understand one another.", this means that people magically understand what they do not understand, their antagonist or opposite.


Firstly, you've read monologic wrong there. He isn't referring to one type of logic, he's referring to language that makes use of monologue, hence "monologic". You've got to understand that first and see your error here. One type of logic? That makes no sense.

You've mentioned this chap before, Mikhail Bahktin. And as such, I've done some research. Your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. We aren't talking about conclusivity. We're taking about effective use of monologue and how story is more than just spoken dialogue.

Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing.
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 6:14 AM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 8
Safeanew said:
AmMar-Sama said:
What about situations that require no dialogue (e.g. Chimera Ant Arc invasion), or where it would be weird to include it? You could go for a narrator instead of making everyone in the scene into long-ass monologues, but people will still complain.

Can't please everyone, I guess.


Yeah the Chimera Ant Arc invasion would be better if it was completely silent.
All those thoughts distract from what is actually happening.


Try to understand everything that goes on in the first minutes of the chimera ant palace invasion without narration or inner dialogue.
 
Apr 29, 6:17 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:

"If I see a woman stood at a grave, head down, laying flowers. I feel for her loss."

She is just so happy finally being free from that person, the flowers are just a gesture to celebrate her happiness.
An example of "feeling for her loss" misses the point.

"Whilst being completely closed to having your own biases changed?"

I only discuss to change my own mind, I have no control over other minds.

"OK, I understand the desire for an open conversation where anyone can participate, but when you're asked to provide evidenced examples, is that a bad thing? How can you make your point or change peoples opinions by force of word alone? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Show me examples to back up your claims."

I can provide examples and try to make others understand, but to prove my point I would probably have to write a whole book about it.
I am not against writing a book about it, but right now I want to discuss without having to prove things, but try to explain things so that people understand and can ask questions about what they want to know more about.

"Several people have mentioned Fight Club as a great example of why inner monologue can be essential to a story"

I have answered this in my other comment, Dune I can't comment on.

"I can see you've tried to write a couple of examples yourself but they haven't actually proved your point. The one about slaying the monster. In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling. If we witnessed her just slaying it, with no context, then she's just a cardboard cut out and it's merely an event taking place that we witness. Sure, we ask ourselves "why has she slayed the monster?" And it's open to interpretation, but it doesn't inherently make for a better story."

This is my main point, "In fact in that instance your example directly countered your point by giving us insight into the motivation of the character for slaying the monster, thereby making the character more compelling"
The character don't need to be more compelling, the story suffers by it exactly because it makes the character compelling.

"make your statements clearer from the outset."
That is actually impossible, I could have made an example like Peaceful_Critic said, but actually answering questions I don't know I need to answer is impossible.

"It reads as though you're trying to say "knowing a characters feelings without the spoken word is always bad and hinders story". I mean, any author in the world, guys who make their living writing, will tell you this is totally false, man."

Yes you have read me correctly, now tell me why that is wrong.
What is important with "knowing a characters feelings" rather than making a judgement yourself about the characters feelings.

"I love David Lynch movies, but I don't wanna see a David Lynch movie more than once in a while. I bet you're a David Lynch fan, though. If you aren't, you should be. His movies are written for someone specifically like you :) I think you'd enjoy them. Try Mulholland Drive first, then Blue Velvet."

Thanks for the recommendation, I think someone else recommended him to me too.

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. Again, I don't mean this in a nasty way. It's just a fact. In the same way I can't say I'm the equal of a bestselling author, a university professor on literature or a published poet."

That is what appeal to authority is, I am arrogant in the way that I don't care about peoples lofty titles.
I care about what people actually says.
I hold respect for those that have shown that they know more than the average person, often by how they speak and their arguments.

"Equality of rights and being is one thing, but it's a fallacy that every human on the planet is either intellectually equal or can have an equal understanding of a topic despite having vastly different experience levels within that particular field."
People are all equal in intelligence, I have argued for this on another topic I created.(maybe is not related to what you are saying)
I agree People don't have equal knowledge on a topic, but that should not exclude or hinder anyone from stating their opinions and arguing for them.

"I won't look down on you for having less experience, or being younger, or being in a different stage of education or not being a native English speaker. I mean it's pretty clear to me at this point that you definitely aren't a native English speaker. The other information would just help me understand the place where your mind is at so that I could possibly engage with you better. You don't have to post it here, send me it in a PM if you like."

I don't think that information will help you one bit.
Because it is a fallacy that one can judge someone clearly only based on their profile.


I'm not going to go through this one point by point with quotes because your formatting is terrible, as is your ability to form a coherent and well formulated argument.

You have clearly missed my point about empathy. The point wasn't whether the woman felt sad, or happy, or anything. The point was that her being there, and her actions, let ME understand that she has experienced loss. I was talking about MY empathy. Not her feelings.

This lack of basic understanding you show throughout this thread reveals you to be far, far less clever than you think you are.

No, not everyone is equal in intelligence or equal in the capacity to learn or equal in creativity or skill. This is beyond a ridiculous claim. I'm a biologist. I've studied neuroscience under people doing active research in the field. I'm far, far more qualified to have an opinion on this than you are. Are you saying that you could solve relativity? Or engineer the Hadron Collider at CERN? Or write The Grapes of Wrath? Or paint the Sistine Chapel? Or write Beethovens 9th Symphony? Come off it, mate. You;re making yourself look moronic with statements like that.

And statements like this are just pure insane inanity:-

"The character don't need to be more compelling, the story suffers by it exactly because it makes the character compelling."

Stories do NOT suffer by having compelling characters. The is irrefutable fact. Stories without compelling characters are generally boring trash. Exceptions exist, but they are few and far between. Just because you say it does, does not make it so. You still haven't provided a solid example of that because you can't. The world just doesn't work that way, man. Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, great thinkers but by God, they couldn't write compelling stories. In fact, by and large they are boring as fuck. Lofty concepts and high minded ideals on their own don't make for good fiction.

"What is important with "knowing a characters feelings" rather than making a judgement yourself about the characters feelings"

How many books have you actually read? I dont know my exact count but I've read a book every 2 weeks for about 2 decades. Sometimes more. Easily. And I'm talking fiction and non-fiction. I'm willing to bet you haven't even been alive for 2 decades.

If you can't grasp the concept that literary devices that show you or tell you how a character feels and acts BEYOND spoken dialogue can be integral to a story, I just don't know what to tell you.

But this all comes back to your grossly incorrect definition of story.

A story is a work of fiction/non-fiction with the purpose of informing or entertaining the reader/listener. There are any amount of marks that a good story can have, but the basics are always the same.

Go write a book with nothing but dialogue in it and I guarantee it will be a boring, confused, mess.

Anyway, I'm done here. Your problem is that you are not listening to anything anyone tells you. You seek to reply not with the intent to increase your understanding or have your opinion challenged, you reply with the sole intent to be a contrarian and forcefully take the opposing standpoint, no matter what anyone says to you.

You've been proven wrong time and again, whether you realise it not. I'm not going to beat a dead horse.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 29, 6:33 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 6:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
CallMeHoot said:
Safeanew said:


1)My point about Fight club is a few points made into one.

The first is related to my claim, when we hear Jacks inner thoughts it gives the illusion that we understand him, this is ofcourse subverted by the movie by the ending.

So then that asks the question why do I still think one could do without hearing his thought?

It is because I don't think that is a good ending, it was a good try in showing the contradictions of the mind, but it avoids making him unrelatable for the audience.
I liked that they tackled a very hard topic with Fight Club, but it has too much poetry as I call it.

Because without hearing his thoughts people would more easily just call him a psycho rather than think he was relatable.
That the character is relatable specifically by hearing his thoughts hides in a poetic way the fact that he is seen as a psycho.


Our understanding of ourselves is subverted all the time in real life. We often think one thing, only to have it disproven by events, encounters, other people, conversations, etc, etc.

The ending is actually really, really well done, given the central conceit of the story which I think you have missed and that is "we all have a different side to ourselves, and desire escape from the monotony of life's routines".

The entire point is that he isn't a psycho, at least not at the start. He's just a man that knows there's something wrong with his life, and he wants to change it. He just doesn't know how. His decent into almost madness, and the dual personality split, is only possible due to the effective use of inner monologue. By your own words, if that was gone, we'd just see a psycho. A man doing random things, for who knows what reason. The fact that we would be wondering what he was doing for the entire movie doesn't make the story better at all. It just adds obfuscation where it isn't necessary.

You cannot apply random philosophical principles to fiction and declare them as absolutes. Which brings me to your next point...dear God...where do I begin. Who has been teaching you, man?

Safeanew said:
2) The story is everything except poetry, poetry is 'monologic' as in one type of logic.

To cite Mikhail Bakhtin in his criticism of poetry in Dostoevsky from the english wikipedia article: "Nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still in the future and will always be in the future".

This is his idea of 'unfinalizability' that means that a person cannot be objectively understood and we can never hold the whole truth.
One still need 'external finalization' (definition, description, causal or genetic explanation etc) and one can't avoid it.

Monologic use of language on the other hand works similar to "opposites come together, look at one another, are reflected in one another, know and understand one another.", this means that people magically understand what they do not understand, their antagonist or opposite.


Firstly, you've read monologic wrong there. He isn't referring to one type of logic, he's referring to language that makes use of monologue, hence "monologic". You've got to understand that first and see your error here. One type of logic? That makes no sense.

You've mentioned this chap before, Mikhail Bahktin. And as such, I've done some research. Your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. We aren't talking about conclusivity. We're taking about effective use of monologue and how story is more than just spoken dialogue.

Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing.

1
"The ending is actually really, really well done, given the central conceit of the story which I think you have missed and that is "we all have a different side to ourselves, and desire escape from the monotony of life's routines". "
I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.

"By your own words, if that was gone, we'd just see a psycho. A man doing random things, for who knows what reason. The fact that we would be wondering what he was doing for the entire movie doesn't make the story better at all. It just adds obfuscation where it isn't necessary."

It is necessary if you want to get the point across.
He does not have a split personality, he is just contradicting himself.
He goes into madness, because he can't stand the contradiction in the system he lives.
Taking away the thoughts would show him, how he actually would look like in real life, adding the realism to the message.
This can be harder to do well, but always worth it if one succeds.
That is why I call hearing his thoughts poetry, as it magically makes him understandable to people that hate him.

"You cannot apply random philosophical principles to fiction and declare them as absolutes"
Yes I can, and my philosophical additions are not random, they quite clearly laid out to tackle a very specific problem.

2
"Firstly, you've read monologic wrong there. He isn't referring to one type of logic, he's referring to language that makes use of monologue, hence "monologic". "
I used logic as a synonym with way of thinking, what Bahktin calls language is the entire way a specific person talks, their word choices and their logic.

"Your quote has nothing to do with the discussion we are having. We aren't talking about conclusivity. We're taking about effective use of monologue and how story is more than just spoken dialogue."
I am talking about conclusivity and how reading minds is bad exactly that it is a bad form of conclusivity.
I not said anything about "We're taking about effective use of monologue and how story is more than just spoken dialogue" other than dismiss it.

"Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing."

It supports everything, you have not shown that you understand my point.
 
Apr 29, 6:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 847
Inner monologues are great and should be used when they don't convey the obvious and move the story forward.
 
Apr 29, 6:46 AM
Offline
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 1
Safeanew said:
Daphi said:
i have to disagree
yakusoku no neverland is a perfect example why the anime should have implemented the inner monologues, that was the reason its inferior to the manga


I can't comment on the yakusoku no neverland but I will look it up.
Why does the inner monologues need to be included?


they generally cut a lot of the dialogue, 10-11 panels of full dialogue between the characters and inner monologue have been cut and replaced with a scene where the characters just stare one at each other and they are like "Yeah we know what to do!", in the manga that scene just had more effect, and it's just an example.
 
Apr 29, 6:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Safeanew said:

I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.


You are so misled it's unreal. Nihilism isn't edgy or cool or proven fact. It's stupid.
I pity you, my dude, I really do. Going through life believing such a thing.

Your lack of life experience is obvious at this point.

I hope the person you end up marrying shares your viewpoint otherwise you're in for a rude awakening.

Also, onions don't have holes in the middle. Lol.

Safeanew said:

"Despite it's relevance to the idea of "unfinalisability" and that we may never truly understand the whole truth about anyone, it doesn't illustrate or lend any credence to the argument. It supports nothing."

It supports everything, you have not shown that you understand my point.


No, I understand you just fine, what is actually understandable at least. And I reassert that it supports nothing.

What I also understand is that if I ever met you, you'd certainly feel empty because I'd knock all of your fucking teeth out. Sometimes, violence is the answer.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 29, 7:14 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 7:31 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 582
ascq said:
Safeanew said:


I can't comment on the yakusoku no neverland but I will look it up.
Why does the inner monologues need to be included?


they generally cut a lot of the dialogue, 10-11 panels of full dialogue between the characters and inner monologue have been cut and replaced with a scene where the characters just stare one at each other and they are like "Yeah we know what to do!", in the manga that scene just had more effect, and it's just an example.


Thanks for sharing!
That sounds interesting to compare the manga and the anime.
 
Apr 29, 7:36 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 417
Aaand it inflated to 10 pages, but now I do know that this one is clearly a joke thread.

I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.


Good laughs in here.
Plus it's always fun to see how the length of the replies in here get longer and longer. Just to make a point. Whichever point that is.
 
Apr 29, 7:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
ArrRti said:
Aaand it inflated to 10 pages, but now I do know that this one is clearly a joke thread.

I disagree with this entirely, people don't have a different side to ourselves, people are completely empty.
People are like an onion, layer upon layer with no core, just a hole in the middle.


Good laughs in here.
Plus it's always fun to see how the length of the replies in here get longer and longer. Just to make a point. Whichever point that is.


Guys never chopped an onion in his life. They don't have holes in the middle. Lol!
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 29, 9:46 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 230
You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, save for a few exceptions, I find characters' thoughts insightful and often interesting.
 
Apr 29, 10:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 728
It's definitely amusing to come back to see how much of a fuck up this thread has become.
The beauty of humans is that they say one thing then do another, but at the same time that can also be their ugliest side.
 
Apr 29, 11:40 AM

Offline
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 59
Safeanew said:


It sounds like your trying to read my mind, maybe that is a bad influence from watching too many inner monologues?

I want more characters that are hard to understand, in the same way you can't understand me.

Because I want dialogue and conflict in stories, as in actually seeing and hearing different perspectives than my own.

That is also why I criticize the word empathy, because people only have empathy for themselves and their mirror image.
The only way to empathize with others is by discussion and conflict, because that is the only way to hear things that don't agree with oneself.


Three questions. What makes you think I'm "trying" to read your mind? Why do you think it's a bad influence for people to watch too many shows that has inner monologue? And how can you find more characters that are hard to understand in ANIME?

It's absurd to think I don't understand you; it's just ironic. As far as I've seen, all you do is run off the track to the horizon endlessly. That's it.
 
Apr 29, 12:05 PM
Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 66
Safeanew said:
AmMar-Sama said:
What about situations that require no dialogue (e.g. Chimera Ant Arc invasion), or where it would be weird to include it? You could go for a narrator instead of making everyone in the scene into long-ass monologues, but people will still complain.

Can't please everyone, I guess.


Yeah the Chimera Ant Arc invasion would be better if it was completely silent.
All those thoughts distract from what is actually happening.
For me it was not distracting. It elevated the experience to whole another level. Inner monologue can be used well and poorly. Examples good Vagabond and Hunter X Hunter, bad almost every isekai with few exceptions like overlord and slime isekai. Then there are the generic high school shows which I will not even touch.
 
Apr 29, 2:31 PM

Offline
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 22
I agree that inner monologue can be bad storytelling, particularly in the animated medium. However, I would much rather see a character’s thoughts expressed in their actions and body language than just freeing things up for more time to talk. That’s the advantage of animation: you can express those subtle movements without having to explain anything.
 
Apr 29, 2:37 PM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 4362
traed said:
Maneki-Mew said:

But you can interpret this in real life too, I mean getting behind why people do things without reading their minds and them telling you their reasonings (and especially not in every detail).

Not fully. You can be close but words and actions and body language don't express everything.

That's true, but it's actually also more fun to interpret things on your own thoughts about them. At least, to me. I like such things. 😅
 
Apr 29, 2:57 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 559
I agree. Hearing narrators thoughts is best story telling!
Modified by drakoneel, Apr 29, 3:01 PM
 
Apr 29, 8:08 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
@CallMeHoot

I'm pissed, you are unable to argue with OP without insulting them. Do me a favor and don't debate anyone, until like OP, you can keep it civil.

"This lack of basic understanding you show throughout this thread reveals you to be far, far less clever than you think you are. "

"Your lack of life experience is obvious at this point."

"I hope the person you end up marrying shares your viewpoint otherwise you're in for a rude awakening. "

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. "

"You've been proven wrong time and again, whether you realise it not. I'm not going to beat a dead horse."

Ego much? You know if you already thought you were better and right, maybe you shouldn't have said anything. As you said, no reason to debate someone who already has their mindset. You seem like you only started this debate to assert your dominance and to make fun of OP, which is unsurprisingly what you did throughout. Assuming that wasn't the intent, you were unable to keep it civil and lost your temper quite easily. In that case, again, you shouldn't have said anything. Try not debating anyone until you are mature.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 29, 8:12 PM

 
Apr 29, 8:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
@Safeanew

I applaud you for your patience.

 
Apr 29, 8:21 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1783
A shame that OP is facing so much vitriol despite being civil throughout and staying on topic.

If your differences are irreconcilable, then stop responding to OP. If they aren't, then debate civilly.

No point in coming on a thread to insult OP and assert your dominance. People on this forum don't need to hear that, I'm sure the people you interact with in real life know how smart you are.

 
Apr 29, 8:30 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 707
Dude got threatened to get his teeth knocked out on an anime forum
 
Apr 29, 8:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 1783
Esquirtit said:
Dude got threatened to get his teeth knocked out on an anime forum


Yeah I had to do a double take on that one. That was way out of left field.

 
Apr 29, 9:11 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 707
HungryForQuality said:
Esquirtit said:
Dude got threatened to get his teeth knocked out on an anime forum


Yeah I had to do a double take on that one. That was way out of left field.
Oh well at least it was foreshadowed, I've been following this thread from the start. Too many posts to go through so I can't find it. Good plot, some characters gave up, others kept going just to lose it all


I was bored: post #229
 
Apr 29, 9:18 PM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 305
if it is bad then how come the series getting popular...no matter how much detail you analyse it, result is what matter.
 
Apr 29, 11:13 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 281
Peaceful_Critic said:
hairu said:

Yes and inner monologues can be used to express their opinion, use of multiple mediums is good storytelling.
You wouldn't need both though, that'll just be repetitive. In that case, it would be about which one you'll prefer.

Throughout the entire story conveying a different characters opinion can be done through multiple mediums, it wouldn't be repetitive.
su#4790
 
Apr 30, 12:10 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
hairu said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
You wouldn't need both though, that'll just be repetitive. In that case, it would be about which one you'll prefer.

Throughout the entire story conveying a different characters opinion can be done through multiple mediums, it wouldn't be repetitive.
Context is needed before anything else, and presentation is usually a visual way to communicate something. Rarely are characters shown just their opinion and a whole different expression that doesn't match it. There are exceptions, like Umaru-chan where the character is two-faced and acts differently depending on the person. That said, that is the exception, most characters in the majority of circumstances don't need to hide their opinions. In the cases, they hide their opinions from other characters, the artists often show you their feelings anyway. for instance, Miku would blush or smile around Saturo even though it was hidden to him that Miku was in love with him. The shy, introverted characters who hide their opinions often show it through facial expressions. Miku throughout the whole anime didn't have any or had rarely inner monologues despite not being a very open character.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 30, 12:15 AM

 
Apr 30, 12:52 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Peaceful_Critic said:
@CallMeHoot

I'm pissed, you are unable to argue with OP without insulting them. Do me a favor and don't debate anyone, until like OP, you can keep it civil.

"This lack of basic understanding you show throughout this thread reveals you to be far, far less clever than you think you are. "

"Your lack of life experience is obvious at this point."

"I hope the person you end up marrying shares your viewpoint otherwise you're in for a rude awakening. "

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. "

"You've been proven wrong time and again, whether you realise it not. I'm not going to beat a dead horse."

Ego much? You know if you already thought you were better and right, maybe you shouldn't have said anything. As you said, no reason to debate someone who already has their mindset. You seem like you only started this debate to assert your dominance and to make fun of OP, which is unsurprisingly what you did throughout. Assuming that wasn't the intent, you were unable to keep it civil and lost your temper quite easily. In that case, again, you shouldn't have said anything. Try not debating anyone until you are mature.


Thankfully, what you and this clown of an OP think about me and about this topic means less than nothing to me.

If someone is going to be willfully contrarian despite any reasonable argument (and despite what you think, I've been incredibly reasonable here, as have many others. I've received 7 PMs from 7 different people applauding my patience in dealing with this muppet) and basically get to a point where he's baiting on purpose, then yeah, I'm done being polite.

Let's leave it at that because as I said, he's already been proven wrong umpteen times at this point and I'm through reading his pathetic pseudo-intellectual wannabe psychobabble. He's got fuck all to back it up and has already said he doesn't want to have an evidence based discussion. He's only interested in posturing.

As for the maturity aspect of this, don't make me laugh. This isn't a debate and it hasn't been from the start. Next time you want to admonish someone, make sure you can. You're all of what? 17? 18? I've been debating almost as long as you've been alive, and not on the internet. I don't need advice from you on how to form or partake in a reasoned debate.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm not right or that I don't have the right to say it. Sometimes you have to just call a spade a spade.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 30, 1:01 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 12:53 AM
I love stuff...

Offline
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 729
I don't think it's bad at all; in fact some comedies work exactly because of that.




...

But in general, I think I prefer narrator more.
 
Apr 30, 1:14 AM
Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 5
Seems that OP wants to read to challenge his/her mind

Here's my take. Stories with and without character's thought can be presented masterfully through its context.

Assuming OP, mysteries, riddles, sci-fi stories are his cup of tea.
By mapping the genre, those genres are not comfortable for casual reader/watcher. Thus, creating smaller pools for your favor. Normally, forgoes sympathy and relating themselves to the character in a story is what casuals got affected the most.

I believe character's thoughts can be defined as one to describe plot points, or just responses after getting stimuli. Stimuli is not just dialogue. Now imagine in a story where a character got hit by truck, what would you think then?

Not understand? Of course since no context appeared.
Now if I use 'isekai', pretty sure everyone knows will think that it's just another story of getting transported into another world.

After all, it depends on your context, or rather, taste to define what to like.

My apologies if what I assume is wrong.

 
Apr 30, 1:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
CallMeHoot said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
@CallMeHoot

I'm pissed, you are unable to argue with OP without insulting them. Do me a favor and don't debate anyone, until like OP, you can keep it civil.

"This lack of basic understanding you show throughout this thread reveals you to be far, far less clever than you think you are. "

"Your lack of life experience is obvious at this point."

"I hope the person you end up marrying shares your viewpoint otherwise you're in for a rude awakening. "

"Are you my equal in terms of experience, academic achievement and literary focus? Probably not. "

"You've been proven wrong time and again, whether you realise it not. I'm not going to beat a dead horse."

Ego much? You know if you already thought you were better and right, maybe you shouldn't have said anything. As you said, no reason to debate someone who already has their mindset. You seem like you only started this debate to assert your dominance and to make fun of OP, which is unsurprisingly what you did throughout. Assuming that wasn't the intent, you were unable to keep it civil and lost your temper quite easily. In that case, again, you shouldn't have said anything. Try not debating anyone until you are mature.


Thankfully, what you and this clown of an OP think about me and about this topic means less than nothing to me.

If someone is going to be willfully contrarian despite any reasonable argument (and despite what you think, I've been incredibly reasonable here, as have many others. I've received 7 PMs from 7 different people applauding my patience in dealing with this muppet) and basically get to a point where he's baiting on purpose, then yeah, I'm done being polite.

Let's leave it at that because as I said, he's already been proven wrong umpteen times at this point and I'm through reading his pathetic pseudo-intellectual wannabe psychobabble. He's got fuck all to back it up and has already said he doesn't want to have an evidence based discussion. He's only interested in posturing.

As for the maturity aspect of this, don't make me laugh. This isn't a debate and it hasn't been from the start. Next time you want to admonish someone, make sure you can. You're all of what? 17? 18? I've been debating almost as long as you've been alive, and not on the internet. I don't need advice from you on how to form or partake in a reasoned debate.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm not right or that I don't have the right to say it. Sometimes you have to just call a spade a spade.
If what I say means less than nothing to you then don't reply.

You've been dealing with them quite poorly and lost your temper a number of times. I don't agree with the 7 people who praised you for the patience you seem not to have. They aren't, changing someone's mind is a hard thing to do.

An argument then? What do you want me to call it? Age doesn't correlate to maturity. I wasn't offering advice, I just called you immature. That said, you should probably follow your own advice: "If you're going to stick to your guns no matter what anyone says, discussion is impossible (and pointless)." You, at this point, admitted you have no intention of having your mind changed as you stated yourself to e right. So, excuse me if I'm reflecting poorly on your character as of now as you started the discussion for another motive.

Yes, you have a constitutional right to say it. That said I also have a right to ask for a favor as a way to criticize your behavior.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 30, 1:25 AM

 
Apr 30, 1:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Peaceful_Critic said:
If what I say means less than nothing to you then don't reply.

You've been dealing with them quite poorly and lost your temper a number of times. I don't agree with the 7 people who praised you for the patience you seem not to have. They aren't, changing someone's mind is a hard thing to do.


It's your right to disagree, but you're wrong. I'd take those 7 peoples word over yours any day.

Peaceful_Critic said:

An argument then? What do you want me to call it? Age doesn't correlate to maturity. I wasn't offering advice, I just called you immature.


"Try not debating anyone until you are mature." This isn't advice? Could have fooled me.

And yes, maturity DIRECTLY correlates to age. In every case? No. But in general, absolutely. To suggest otherwise is willfully stupid, unless you want to try arguing that the average 14 year old is as mature as the average 40 year old. Good luck with that.

EDIT:- I change my mind based on evidence and example. Not conjecture. That's the key difference between me and the OP.

Also, I hope you realise that you can't take the moral high ground and leap to someones defense and then have every word and sentence seethe with passive aggressiveness.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 30, 1:38 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 1:28 AM

Offline
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 10303
This is mostly a anime thing, certain things you just have to accept if you want to enjoy the culture of anime and inner monologue is very popular in anime.

I agree to a certain extent that it can get annoying, to me narration is even worse like what was in hxh 2011.

But I think some anime benefit more with inner monologue like death note, don't think it would be as good psychologically without the inner monologue.

I think inner monologue should be used, but not used too often.
 
Apr 30, 1:41 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
CallMeHoot said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
If what I say means less than nothing to you then don't reply.

You've been dealing with them quite poorly and lost your temper a number of times. I don't agree with the 7 people who praised you for the patience you seem not to have. They aren't, changing someone's mind is a hard thing to do.


It's your right to disagree, but you're wrong. I'd take those 7 peoples word over yours any day.

Peaceful_Critic said:

An argument then? What do you want me to call it? Age doesn't correlate to maturity. I wasn't offering advice, I just called you immature.


"Try not debating anyone until you are mature." This isn't advice? Could have fooled me.

And yes, maturity DIRECTLY correlates to age. In every case? No. But in general, absolutely. To suggest otherwise is willfully stupid, unless you want to try arguing that the average 14 year old is as mature as the average 40 year old. Good luck with that.
Of course, you would, you agree with them. I wasn't expecting anything else.

It's not, that was meant as an insult phrased as advice passive aggressively.

It really doesn't, it has more to do with how the individual was raised and personal opinion on what counts as a mature person. An adult is more likely to e mature because they have more time to develop emotionally, that doesn't mean the age is what made them mature though. It doesn't depend on age.

Edit: You said you were right from the beginning, clearly you didn't come here to have your mind changed.
Moral high ground? Was I talking aout myself at all? I was just criticizing you.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 30, 1:46 AM

 
Apr 30, 1:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Peaceful_Critic said:
It's not, that was meant as an insult phrased as advice passive aggressively.


Read my edit. At least I'm honest with my anger. Maybe you should be the one taking your own advice. You have a go at me about insulting a guy, then thinly veil your own insult before accepting that it was indeed an insult? There are few things more cowardly than passive aggressiveness.

Oh dear.

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

And thanks for basically confirming my point about maturity.

"An adult is more likely to e mature because they have more time to develop emotionally, that doesn't mean the age is what made them mature though."

Here you accept that the older someone is, the more time they have (and thus, the more experience they can aquire) to develop emotionally, which is perfectly in line with the hypothesis that a higher age equals a higher maturity.

I never said pure time was what made a person mature. You inferred that incorrectly. Also the variance of personal opinion on a person's maturity is inherently biased based on that persons view of the subject in question.

Look, lass. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's no victory for you here. You don't have to be talking about yourself to take the moral high ground, and you can do it through criticism as well. Your lack of experience is letting you down, man.

At this point, you're contradicting yourself and coming across as a hypocrite.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 30, 1:58 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 2:01 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
CallMeHoot said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
It's not, that was meant as an insult phrased as advice passive aggressively.


Read my edit. At least I'm honest with my anger. Maybe you should be the one taking your own advice. You have a go at me about insulting a guy, then thinly veil your own insult before accepting that it was indeed an insult? There are few things more cowardly than passive aggressiveness.

Oh dear.

Can you say "hypocrisy"?

And thanks for basically confirming my point about maturity.

"An adult is more likely to e mature because they have more time to develop emotionally, that doesn't mean the age is what made them mature though."

Here you accept that the older someone is, the more time they have (and thus, the more experience they can aquire) to develop emotionally, which is perfectly in line with the hypothesis that a higher age equals a higher maturity.

I never said pure time was what made a person mature. You inferred that incorrectly. Also the variance of personal opinion on a person's maturity is inherently biased based on that persons view of the subject in question.

Look, lass. I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's no victory for you here.

You're contradictory and coming off here as a hypocrite.
I was mad at you insulting them due to OP being civil. If you had a good reason to e aggressive and mean to them, I wouldn't have gotten angry.

No, I didn't: "have a mutual relationship or connection, in which one thing affects or depends on another." I stated that it can affect it, it would more likely happen, that doesn't mean it is what affects it. How someone is raised does. That was my claim, as you, yourself said some people aren't as mature as others their age group. This means that someone's age isn't what causes maturity.

Correlation means something depends on another. When you said it correlated that was what you were supposed to mean. Even if there are outliers(which makes the correlation weaker).

 
Apr 30, 2:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Peaceful_Critic said:
Correlation means something depends on another. When you said it correlated that was what you were supposed to mean. Even if there are outliers(which makes the correlation weaker).


I'm a medical scientist. I know what correlation means. I've written papers on this, for fuck sake. Your little google search has left a gap in your understanding of the word. You do know that it can be used as a noun outside of it's statistical sense and that it has various synonyms, right? Such as "relationship". I mean for fuck sake, are you really trying to argue this? Lol. The youth of today.

Here, let me break it down for you. The word "correlation" doesn't necessarily infer interdependence, it can be used merely to state a relationship between two things, and there IS a relationship between age and maturity.

The older you are, the more likely you are to be mature.

Somehow you've got it in your head that I said/thought age, in terms of pure time, was the only factor of maturity. I never said anything of the sort.

Experience, emotional intelligence, upbringing, a persons circle of friends, all things that can affect maturity. What I'm categorically stating is that the older you are, the more time you've had to have experiences, develop your emotional maturity, overcome any issues you might have had with your upbringing and form a good circle of friends.

I can't put it any clearer than that.

You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

Now let's see how civil you keep things.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 30, 2:14 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 2:21 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 176


safeanew said:
I define the dialogue as the story because the goal of storytelling is to depict how people speak.
If the author only depict how they speak, I call it poetry.

That is not the goal of storytelling. What led you to this conclusion? Because this goes against the very definition of story telling. Stories are accounts of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment. In what are these accounts exclusive to dialogue?

Answer me this, why is storytelling "to depict how people speak". And why is that relevant? You're making a circular argument. If you need to resort to fallacy to back up your claims, you've already lost any semblance of respect and truth in said claims.

safeanew said:
I have no evidence, the thing you call "Non circumstantial evidence" is general case examples to try to show what I mean.
I am making claims that I want to discuss, I don't need to prove them because that is what the discussion is for, to decide if what I am saying is true for myself or if others can convince me otherwise.

Please respond to the following in order of which I number them:
1) You claim you have no evidence. If so what is the point of discussing any of this. You have nothing and even admit that. It can't be debunked because there is nothing to debunk. Even so, we've proven you wrong time and time again. You won't accept it. You just want to reaffirm you stance by using circular argumentation.
2) You do need to prove your claims, else they aren't true. I could say that my toe is the arbiter of the universe. You can't completely disprove that claim. There will always be a possibility that it's true. Therefore, I need to prove said claims or else they're untrue. Your is purely based on opinion. And if you want to go that far, your claims are wrong because my toe says so.

"Arguable claims require a lot of evidence and a level of thinking that extends beyond opinion and beyond the obvious. Arguable claims attempt to convince readers, change their minds, or urge them to think in new ways."

3) Do you not understand the idea of a debate? Or even the idea of a discussion? There is absolutely nothing to discuss if you can't prove your claims. Please leave if that's your stance.

safeanew said:

It is bad to make characters that one can read their mind, because it neutralizes the characters potential to be a character, rather than being an exposition and poetic peice for the audience.
I want unrealistic characters in the other sense, unbelievable characters that do things that are either impossible to do in reality or is seen as unrelatable in reality.

Another completely transparent attempt to argue circularly.
You know the drill
1) How does it neutralize their character?
2) Why do they suddenly become exposition pieces?
3) That's bias. I could then retort that anything unrealistic is at detriment to the story because said story becomes unreliable and unreal.
4) Are you honestly asking us to change your bias? We can't do that unless you actually listen to us and not argue circularly.

safeanew said:

I claim the opposite, that we learn things in fiction that we can't learn in real life.
I want fiction that dares to show how people talk in real life.

Same old, same old.
1) Both my claim and yours ARE NOT mutually exclusive. That's a false equivalence. Where is your proof?
2) Here's thing, nobody cares what you want. Your claims are objectively false. Your petty attempts to get a response out of someone is repugnant. I can't tell if this is true idiocy or someone so smart who is trolling but is dumb as a consequence of wasting all their time on this argument.



From here on out, please refrain from using false equivalence and circular argumentation. My toe declares that if you do so, you automatically lose this argument and have wasted everyone's time with pointless discussion; but mostly your own time. This is your last chance.
 
Apr 30, 2:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 176
@callmehoot
What can you honestly do. There are numerous unreasonable people out there. This person is just one of them.
 
Apr 30, 2:26 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
ThereArentNames said:
@callmehoot
What can you honestly do. There are numerous unreasonable people out there. This person is just one of them.


At this point it's more of a "point and laugh" exercise for me. The wheels came off 9 pages ago, lol.

I gotta say though, your posts are well thought out and they basically ask for the same thing I've been asking for. Some kind of concrete example or evidence to prove the point. But as you say (and I'm stealing this phrase, btw), he's only interested in circular argumentation.
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 2:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
CallMeHoot said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
Correlation means something depends on another. When you said it correlated that was what you were supposed to mean. Even if there are outliers(which makes the correlation weaker).


I'm a medical scientist. I know what correlation means. I've written papers on this, for fuck sake. Your little google search has left a gap in your understanding of the word. You do know that it can be used as a noun outside of it's statistical sense and that it has various synonyms, right? Such as "relationship". I mean for fuck sake, are you really trying to argue this? Lol. The youth of today.

Here, let me break it down for you. The word "correlation" doesn't necessarily infer interdependence, it can be used merely to state a relationship between two things, and there IS a relationship between age and maturity.

The older you are, the more likely you are to be mature.

Somehow you've got it in your head that I said/thought age, in terms of pure time, was the only factor of maturity. I never said anything of the sort.

Experience, emotional intelligence, upbringing, a persons circle of friends, all things that can affect maturity. What I'm categorically stating is that the older you are, the more time you've had to have experiences, develop your emotional maturity, overcome any issues you might have had with your upbringing and form a good circle of friends.

I can't put it any clearer than that.

You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

Now let's see how civil you keep things.
I assumed you meant the most used definition. Was I supposed to know what definition you were using through mind reading? I was talking about statics the entire time. You said it was directly correlated something I see mainly is discussions in statics which is why I assumed you meant that definition as well.

"You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

It's like you didn't read what I said at all.

 
Apr 30, 2:54 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2019
Posts: 235
Peaceful_Critic said:
CallMeHoot said:


I'm a medical scientist. I know what correlation means. I've written papers on this, for fuck sake. Your little google search has left a gap in your understanding of the word. You do know that it can be used as a noun outside of it's statistical sense and that it has various synonyms, right? Such as "relationship". I mean for fuck sake, are you really trying to argue this? Lol. The youth of today.

Here, let me break it down for you. The word "correlation" doesn't necessarily infer interdependence, it can be used merely to state a relationship between two things, and there IS a relationship between age and maturity.

The older you are, the more likely you are to be mature.

Somehow you've got it in your head that I said/thought age, in terms of pure time, was the only factor of maturity. I never said anything of the sort.

Experience, emotional intelligence, upbringing, a persons circle of friends, all things that can affect maturity. What I'm categorically stating is that the older you are, the more time you've had to have experiences, develop your emotional maturity, overcome any issues you might have had with your upbringing and form a good circle of friends.

I can't put it any clearer than that.

You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

Now let's see how civil you keep things.
I assumed you meant the most used definition. Was I supposed to know what definition you were using through mind reading? I was talking about statics the entire time. You said it was directly correlated something I see mainly is discussions in statics which is why I assumed you meant that definition as well.

"You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

It's like you didn't read what I said at all.


When you make assumptions, well, you know the phrase. If you were a little more mature yourself, or just smarter, you'd have understood what I meant. By the way, the most used definition is actually the one I did use. Outside of science and mathematics, the word is used a lot more freely, and it's generally understood that it's synonymous with "relationship".

And hey, if you're gonna cherry pick and not read what I write, I can do that too :)

Keep going with the passive aggressiveness though. Every time you reply, you strengthen my point, and I can do this all day.
Modified by CallMeHoot, Apr 30, 3:01 AM
Like I told my last wife, I said "Honey, I never drive faster than I can see. Besides that, it's all in the reflexes." - Jack Burton
 
Apr 30, 3:04 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1134
CallMeHoot said:
Peaceful_Critic said:
I assumed you meant the most used definition. Was I supposed to know what definition you were using through mind reading? I was talking about statics the entire time. You said it was directly correlated something I see mainly is discussions in statics which is why I assumed you meant that definition as well.

"You got mad at me and insulted me, pretty much exactly what I did with the OP...I repeat, can you say "hypocrisy"?

It's like you didn't read what I said at all.


When you make assumptions, well, you know the phrase. If you were a little more mature yourself, or just smarter, you'd have understood what I meant.

And hey, if you're gonna cherry pick and not read what I write, I can do that too :)

Keep going with the passive aggressiveness though. Every time you reply, you strengthen my point, and I can do this all day.
You said I was wrong due to your assumption I was discussing it in terms of your definition. If you were smarter, you would've stated what definition you meant from the beginning as the context could've suggested anything. SadMadoka probably would've caught us on that, it excessive, most people don't do it, but in this case, it would've been useful. It's alright. It's a waste of time. I'll leave it here.

EDit: Really? You are the first person, outside of a school setting that I hear use it. Especially when you said direct correlation it seemed something mostly discussed in statics sense.
Modified by Peaceful_Critic, Apr 30, 3:08 AM

 
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Top
Pages (11) « First ... « 8 9 [10] 11 »