Report AnimageNeby's Profile


Anime Stats
Days: 0.0
Mean Score: 0.00
  • Total Entries0
  • Rewatched0
  • Episodes0
Anime History Last Anime Updates

No updates yet.

Manga Stats
Days: 0.0
Mean Score: 0.00
  • Total Entries0
  • Reread0
  • Chapters0
  • Volumes0
Manga History Last Manga Updates

No updates yet.



No favorite anime yet.


No favorite manga yet.


No favorite characters yet.


No favorite people yet.

All Comments (18) Comments

Would you like to post a comment? Please login or sign up first!
HalfMetalPriest Sep 26, 2013 11:22 PM
I'm not saying the big three are shit or anything, I just don't have time to catch up right now.

HalfMetalPriest Sep 25, 2013 6:24 PM
There's too much catching up to do for the Big Three, so that's why I tend to avoid them. HxH hooked me pretty well, but I forgot which chapter I'm up to now = (

If your using the forums, why not get a DP and signature (though I'm not bothered ATM)? Unless your too lazy or something...
HalfMetalPriest Sep 22, 2013 5:28 AM
Aren't you going to use the list feature? Or do you really not watch anything?

I just want to see our compatibility, that's all.
dankickyou Jun 15, 2013 3:11 AM Get a grip. that is like the most amazing comeback ever, man! D: I have no idea what to say to that. I'm just gonna go to a corner and contemplate the meaning of life.....get a grip, man...get a grip.

dankickyou Jun 14, 2013 11:49 PM
WAH!!! WAH!!! dankickyou is being so mean to me WAH!! WAH!!! Protip: DONT DERAIL THREADS FOR 15 PAGES OF YOUR BULLSHIT!
dankickyou Jun 9, 2013 2:08 AM
Tee Hee. Serves you right. :3
dankickyou Jun 8, 2013 5:38 AM
Truly you are a most sophisticated gentleman. I have seen the error of my ways. If only we peasants have only a modicum of your wisdom and generosity.

dankickyou Jun 8, 2013 3:03 AM
Stop trolling the damn SnK subforums, you retard! Make your own Goddamn fucking thread if you want to talk about the goddamn fucking pocket cities!
symbv Apr 25, 2013 7:36 PM
I was about to say the same, because I will go for a week long trip after today and will have little internet access to check this site. Yes, let's agree to disagree. And I would also want to say while we understand each other's positions more we have not yet reached any agreement about what rules to follow in posts between us, so I would say we just proceed as if we do not have any "rule" to follow between us. I won't call out on you for breaking any agreement and neither should you. But of course I would still complain if I perceive any humor as unfunny or unkind. And you can complain to me if I post anything annoying to you, just that you should not claim that I break any rule like "repetition" or whatever. I hope this sounds clear as I do not want any more dispute about this matter in future.
symbv Apr 25, 2013 12:19 PM
> I never actually agreed, I counter-suggested just because I didn't agree. It's true when you ignored this, I decided I should give it a try, but that doesn't mean one is entitled to it because I didn't keep posting my counter-suggestion again, and again, and again. It *should* have been clear to you, after my first suggestion and my response to it, that I wasn't agreeing to it, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested something else.

This should NOT be clear. And if you go for this kind of thinking if you are negotiating something, you will be already breaching a verbal contract if you decide to call it a settlement without raising objection to what the other side proposes at the end. I do not see how not raising an objection means you are not agreeing to it. Such idea is outrageously contrived to say the least.

> And I repeat: if you think I 'agreed' to it by not responding to your second 'no more humour', why should I not be able to do the same, and consider your lack of response an agreement to my counter-suggestion.

Yes, indeed you should have done the same and then we all lay out points on the table and work out the final details. If you have said something and I did not object before calling it a settlement, I would be honest and say that I missed it and I was sorry for not raising it when we negotiated, not going back and say that since I did not agree it means I objected, which is really an unworkable argument. And in this case, I was the last who touched upon the use of humor and so it is up to you to agree or object to it. In any negotiation this is how it always works: if you want to buy something for 10 dollars, I say 12 dollars, you cannot just then drop 10 dollars and take the stuff away.

> It seems to me that you act as if you've got the moral higher ground here, while, in fact, rationally it makes no sense, and emotionally, I at least made an effort to try it out EVEN though I did not agree.

Because you are indeed on the questionable moral ground here. And as I said above and repeatedly before, rationally (your favorite word) it makes sense.

> To me, it feels like following analogy: One vegetarian to another person: "Let's not eat meat anymore, it's unhealthy." Other person: "But I actually like meat. Couldn't we just agree to eat a bit *less* meat?"' Vegetarian: "Let's not eat meat anymore."

Yeah, and the person should not keep silent if he wants to eat meat. To fall silent and then backtrack on it is one of the most common source of conflict between even friends or couples, not to say between people who do not know each other so well, like you and me.

> This is a normal conclusion in all situations. For instance, it's not because a woman wears a burka to try it out, even though she already voiced her objection to it, that it now becomes a sign of acceptance. That's only the perception of the Islamic man.

Don't even know why you brought up burka in between the vegetarian analogy.

> but if those other cases turn out be make out only 10-20% than it still remains the question why that person should so starkly reduce his meat-eating (which he likes) because someone else has a problem with it. 'Because it's unhealthy' (or an animal gets hurt) is a potential objective reason, but therefore not enough on itself, especially if it turns out the benefits don't occur at all. Maybe this analogy makes a bit more clear about the 'why' and how I feel about it.

Actually it made it even less clear. Because what you eat affects only YOU and you alone, what you write affects the other side - it is a two way process. If you take the analogy of writing diary then I can see the analogy. It would not make sense if I tell you not to use humor in writing your diary, which affects only you alone. But the key thing about the humor here is not how it affects YOU but how it affects the other side. So your analogy just muddies the water.

> As for the 'reality reference' issue; it's not because it happens in reality, that it HAS to happen in the anime; but when a certain action IS portrayed, it *should* follow the logic or sense that it 'normally' would have

It depends on how far you want take the logic and sense. Just like my example of PTSD after battle. The person I saw think it absolutely has to be there for the story to be made believable (and thus enjoyable) to him. And of course this means he finds a lot of battle depiction in fiction (or anime) to be utterly unenjoyable. But is his way of approach the best way to enjoy an anime? I doubt it.

> If this proves that it therefore has no obligations to be coherent and consistent anymore, than it's always true for any anime in every instance, and even obvious loopholes are impossible to argument. For me this is a nonsensical stance, because just like the former argument, it's always true and all-encompassing, which makes it futile to debate anything.

Well, that goes back to what I said above, you put on a too broad and all-encompassing stance to how far a story needs to keep to a standard of coherence and consistency. The problem with your argument is that a story can be coherent and consistent but it just does not look that way to you as you use some nonsensical standard, which thus produces a nonsensical situation to you. Whether in an anime a group of people called "pirates" have to commit rape is a good example. There is no particular loophole created if we do not insist projecting everything from real life into the anime, and so whether the anime follows such practice as in real life does not affect consistency, but somehow in your case it becomes incoherent and inconsistent. This begs the question of what you exactly mean by incoherence and inconsistency, because within the story world nothing from that issue affects its inner coherence and consistency within the story world.

> In that regard, a realistic anime HAS to be interpreted to some basic standards that one finds in reality, otherwise the story doesn't feel coherent anymore.

Well, it depends on how much "realism" you want to push for. At the end, there is always a certain level of unrealism in anime. Your basic standards may just be too much to fit into the anime. Either you relax your "basic standards" (which may be not that basic to start with) or you should just consider it an anime that is not really that realistic after all. It seems that you just decide that it is a realistic anime, then use some stringent standard (which you call "basic standard") to judge it and when it comes out short you declare it incoherent, when actually it is not really realistic to the level you want to begin with.

> That's why I said they could have done a better job with it. It's fully possible, for a good writer, to get your message across, and yet, remain completely consistent story-wise, and without creating loopholes and contradictions in it.

Well I also think that they could have done a better job but not for your reason. I don't really see any loophole or contradiction, but some scenes can indeed be handled better to make it clearer to the viewers.

> He let a typical 'anime trope' message get in the way of the story, in a way that was really badly done. If it hadn't been, there wouldn't have been so many that noticed the same. Was there really no better way to implement it? I very much doubt it. It was just an easy way out,

Trope message is all over the place in all anime, but here I see the situation is a bit different because the writer deliberately does not want to take an easy way out. He does not put the people of the fleet as some people of one mind and/or sympathetic/kind to Ledo so easily, something you could expect from the conventional anime from Ghibli to the usual shounen stuff. And this is why the complexity of the situation trips up so many people, and it is also why I say it could have been handled better, which means depicting the scene better so that the logic and thinking behind the people of the fleet can be easier for viewers to understand. But I do not see problem in the plot itself.

> Look at Naruto and bleach: those are FULL of tropes and overused moral messages, and are also riddled with loopholes. One can hardly claim they are great works of art/anime. They're casual pop-corn entertainment at best, but they will never score high in my list.

Precisely, and as I said Naruto and Bleach can often take the easy way out, and this is not quite the case in Gargantia, at least so far.
symbv Apr 24, 2013 8:06 PM
> Your counter-suggestion was the same as your first suggestion: to use no humour anymore. To which I already responded the first time. I do not see why merely repeating it would yield another response.I mean, I could have then answered again with the same counter-argument too, and then you again, and then me again, ad infinitum: what's the point of that? It's not a game where the last man standing wins.

Yes, because I want to make sure that if we say we settle, this is the way to go. I do not leave ambiguity. From my point of view, you did not voice any opinion and we got into a "settled the matter" state, and then suddenly you said that "hey! I did not remember I agreed to it" thing when you just went on your way. Sorry, this is not how it should work. What's the point you said? I would ask you what is the point of any negotiation. Negotiation is done precisely to prevent the situaton we are facing now, to get things cleared up and avoid future disputes. If you did not agree with my suggestion, speak up and we continue talking. Pretending we settled and then do things your own way disregarding what the other thought has been settled is just a betrayal of the spirit of negotiation.

> And even then you still seems to imply that I'm wrong in my conclusion, but this is untrue, because within my context of referring to reality as a way to evaluate a realistic anime, I'm making perfectly sense, just as you are right if you take the 'but an anime is an anime' approach. From your viewpoint, you're right in your conclusion, as I am in mine. The personal appreciation of eachothers context is something else. I personally find the argument that an anime doesn't have to adher to reality (or not much, anyway) a rather spurious stance, for the simple reason that such an argument can ALWAYS be used, in WHATEVER context. Whan one accepts that as an overruling argument, then all arguments are lost, and nothing sensible can be said anymore, because whatever one says or indicates, it can be dealt it with saying it doesn't have to adhere to logic or anything at all, because it's not reality but an anime. In this sense, it very much is alike to the "a wizard did it" argument

Yes, indeed I think you veered the wrong way in your conclusion because I do not think this is the way it is supposed to be interpreted, and I am sure that it is not the writer wants it to be interpreted, and I do not believe that your kind of argument would have been missed out by the writer too. We could argue that there are issues of execution and presentation of the events to make it more easily to understand. And your words above is fixing a bunch of things that we (not just you and me, but other people posting in that thread too) touched upon, and this is not good way to approach a debate. "An anime is an anime" is about what the pirates do. And this is something you have problem with shaking away from what you think as "it must be like this in real life" thinking. But the thing is there are certain things that they deal with clearly differently in anime, and I already stated explicit sex is one of them, and if we want to go on, we can always go on, like why some of the leaders in the fleet and pirates are so young ete etec there is no end of asking why such and such is not like what happens in real world. I remember reading a fan writing that he hates all battle anime because in anime the characters almost never show PTSD while everyone he knows who came back from war has PTSD. Well, it is surely unrealistic, but as far as we can tell, there is almost never any portryal of characters undergoing PTSD in anime (feeling depressed about his buddies or friends died is something else). If you cannot handle an anime with an arm's length to how things are like in reality then you are likely to interpret many anime in the wrong way. Besides, as one poster said, the whole thing happens in a far future world, who know what a group called "pirates" do differently from the pirates in the present world?? Not to say there are indeed pirates who do not seem to rape (have you heard of Somali pirates raping people?) And for the rationale of not trusting Ledo, that is something entirely different and I never use "an anime is an anime" argument, so don't lump it together.

> Being more tolerant and relaxed in our responses, and being less uptight about what the other says, *would*, I think, give a much better result.

Agreed. So are you going to tone down your grand and all-encompassing tone in your posts?

> even if I answer to others, you still mingle in it. As 80% or such makes out discussions between you and me, saying one can still use humour 'to the rest', is rather meaningless.

I mingle in it, BUT I do not stop you from using humor in replying to others. This is a major point here. And this is why my suggestion is not meaningless.

> As for having difficulties with your honour I disagree

What "honour" do you mean?

> As I said, that first time when you repeated the same things as I said just before to you, was caused by the repetition. Even if you say it was humorous, I highly doubt all you humour consists of repetitions, and I have experienced no problem with your other forms of humour. Thus, by leaving out the repetitions, it's already enough, there is no need to not use humour 'at all' (yes, I mean in our posts). The fact that I have trouble with the actual 'quoting', and not with the humour, can be seen that the second time you repeated me, I got ticked off as equally, and yet no humour was used or intended, there.

I am not talking about the repetitions. I am talking about my humor in the SSY post. I used humor which you found condescending and got upset long after I made my explanation repeatedly. It is clear you have problem with the way I use my humor.

> And I'm not saying you're not making *any* sacrifice, only you already indicated that it's far less important for you than it is for me, and also that you have problems with my use of humour as such, not with a technicality of a specific combined use with sentences or behaviour that tick you off.

And the thing is still is, I do not see how important it is for you to stop using humor in your internet interaction with one single person. At least I have the self-awareness that my humor could work the wrong way to you. I just think that you should get a bit more self-aware too.

> It's because it's part of how I write. If you would ask to forgo all logic, for instance, I would have the same problem, while you have many who would have no problem with that at all (as is apparent of some posters); those would have no problem with that neither, and maybe wouldn't understand what is so difficult to only use soundbites and irrelevant 'wow that rocked' or 'Geez, that sucked' comments

Well, at least I am asking less of you than asking someone to stop posting "that sucked' "it's a piece of shit" "it's fucking garbage" in ALL of his posts in the forum. I am only asking you to stop using humor in posts that address to me.

I don't know, it seems even as I said you wrote a longish comment even though you said the point is "moot", yet I see you now write an even longer comment. I wonder at what stage we run out of space of writing everything in one comment.

symbv Apr 24, 2013 11:15 AM
> Well, it's not because I don't object to something that this means acceptance; otherwise my counter-suggestion the first time could be deemed as accepted by you as well

Your counter-suggestion was followed by my suggestion, which was not followed by any more of your suggestion. So you are using some weird argument here.

> Thus, it was a comparison on the subjective importance we place on it.

Subjective importance is one thing, how practical to do it is another. I think it is practical and not hard to forsake humor but it is impossible to talk about Japanese translation without using my Japnanese language in this forum. But anyway, since I suggest "no humor" only in our dealing with each other, I can also accept no talk about any Japanese translation between you and me, meaning you do not directly comment on my Japanese translation and I don't directly comment on yours, if you really want to go for that "subjective importance" argument.

> Fact is, humour is part of 'La condition humaine', and as a human, I have difficulties not using humour at all (albeit, as is apparent, this differs much from individual to individual).

I have never asked you to let go of all your humor in every way. I just say between you and me we don't use humor. No need to throw those philosophy around, because there is occasion that this kind of "broad human condition" needs to be qualified (it may be broad if you see the matter in general term but it may not be the case if you look at it in more restricted circumstances), just like saying "Darwinian instinct" may be universal but there are individual cases when it does not necessarily apply (like in the Gargantia episode).

> and as a human, I have difficulties not using humour at all

Let me repeat, I am not asking you to not use humor at any time towards everyone. I am just asking you not to use humor if you reply to me. You just escalate the matter to a human being level. This is getting ridiculous I must say.

> Anyway, been away for more then a day, and the whole topic now seems a bit...moot.

Moot, maybe, but you still think it necessary to write a longish comment. To be honest, I already stop going to those episode threads just to avoid getting involved in another round of debate/argument/finger-pointing. So I am not sure what you want to achieve here.

> on the other hand, it's mainly you that have a problem with humour

Not really. You were the first one who had problem with humor (my humor). My suggestion is also to help you avoid situation when I use humor that you do not appreciate or even feel upset like it happened last time, so don't talk as if you are the only person who is making concession or sacrifice. At the end I find it very hard to understand why it is so difficult to avoid using humor in your internet interaction with a single person, as if you are being asked to give up all the ability to use humor at all time in all situations to all people.
symbv Apr 22, 2013 12:39 PM
I think I stated again the No Humor thing later and you did not object.

My point is - humor is a risk factor and so far has caused more harm than good between us. So this is different from not talking to each other (in order to get no conflict). Why is humor so indispensable? If there is some chance that I take your humor the wrong way, why do you still want to use it? Do you just want to test how far my tolerance go or how "twisted" my sense of humor compared to yours???

> I guess it's diffcult for you to understand how it feels for me,'s like if I would ask you never to go on about your Japanese knowledge anymore, for instance.

I don't see how the two can compare. I cannot explain certain things (like whether the pirate boss really means to kill the fleet boss) without using my Japanese knowledge. Do you have occasion that you cannot write at all without using your humor?
symbv Apr 22, 2013 11:20 AM
> if you're honest, you will note that I never was very happy with the part of the humour, which I made that other suggestion.

No, I never saw you are not being happy with it.

> And I *did* make a counter-suggestion *immediately* from the start, to maybe try to make it more apparent when using humour, instead of not using it at all. It's still viewable at my reposte on ep2 thread; you can see it yourself

Where? Is it in the final exchange of posts? I would say that only what we talked about near the end is the deal. As for my part, I talked about NO HUMOR at least twice (perhaps thrice) in my posts. There is no way you could have missed it.

> When you make it clear you're using humour, I'm not all uptight about it neither, because it's meant to be taken with a grain of salt. Just do the same, and there is no need for both of use to exclude all forms of humour.

Facing you I do not have confidence that I can deal with your sense of humor. So I suggest we go without humor.

> If we make it clear when we use humour, and not use sarcasm and reduce the subtlety of the irony used, we should be fine. There is no way two rational adults can't handle *a bit* of humour, me thinks.

I don't know why it is so hard to avoid humor. If you really insist, go for it. Just bear in mind with the risk and don't tell me that I am a killjoy or humorless chap just because I don't get your humor or I think your humor is condescending, belittling, sarcastic or mocking. As I said, I have very little confidence I can handle your sense of humor (or you mine) without bumping into some sort of issue, which is why I prefer to reduce the risk by removing the cause. If you want so much to engage in humor, I won't and I can't stop you. Just remember we have this history of ongoing misunderstanding -- and I was so surprised to see you never took seriously by No Humor proposal that I stated repeatedly to settle our argument last time. Who knows what would get us into fight next? I just want to reduce as much possible cause as possible.
symbv Apr 22, 2013 10:04 AM
Debate of what? Or you mean our arguments over whatever we may or may not have agreed to end any potential misunderstanding of our reply to each other's posts? If you mean that, sure we can keep arguing here I guess.