To you yes, to others no. In otherwords opinions. Your opinion is not the gospel truth deal with it there's always ALWAYS going to be people who disagree with you no matter if you are part of the majority or minority. I know Bolt is going to say something about me saying this.
Actually, I agree. I think some people have very
bad opinions, but unfortunately everyone is entitled to one. While I fail to believe that Vengeance was being 100% serious when he said there's
nothing enjoyable about Casino Royale, he has the right to think that and there seems to be a fair amount of people that think QoS was better for whatever reason (probably drugs), so I'll have to live with it.
Shougo B'Stard said:
Wow, Bolt, overreact much? I'm disappointed. When did you become such a nasty bastard? Did you grow bitter all those months you were banned? How many times is it now that you've been banned for annoying people to no end?
Yes, the conversation was semi-thoughtful until you chimed in. You see, you've developed a bad habit of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, so I tend to not think you're worth responding to seriously anymore. You can't accept that some people prefer a movie you don't like to a movie you currently do; you felt the need to respond condescendingly. Lately, you're never interested in a serious discussion. You're only interested in trying to get a rise out of people for some sad reason. I should have listened to my instinct and not responded to you this time, as I've tried to ignore you so often lately. FTR, I recall a previous Casino Royale topic that was killed because you thought "everyone was thinking about it too much." So, why waste the time with you? I could have taken the time to explain why I liked Quantum of Solace, but it wouldn't matter when you'd respond with something brilliantly observant such as "it blows chunks" and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. (BTW, one can disagree without being disagreeable -- a trick I think you should learn.)
The way you go against the popular view for the sake of seeming "cool" or whatever, is just an act that's grown old, and it's clear now just how pathetic it is. Ordinarily, I'd feel somewhat sorry for the way a person has to build himself up like you do, getting off on arguing on the interwebs like you do, but in your case, you've become such a nasty, immature twat, it's impossible. Word of advice: it's unwise to ridicule someone for liking a "kids show," yet act as immaturely as you do.
But you have one last surprise -- the first genuine laugh from one of your posts in quite a while! When you said you're "consistant" (sic). You've flip-flopped more times than an epileptic thrown down a flight of stairs at John Kerry. I'm sure if the consensus was how sucky QoS was, you'd suddenly have been defending it and slamming Casino Royale, just to go against the norm, be on the outside, keep pretending to be "cool."
Eagerly awaiting Bolt's typically nasty, condescending "rebuttle" (sic). Because you're predictable like that.
I'm not really sure how I should respond to this. Part of me wants to make fun of you for being such a hypocrite (and a flip-flopper, guffaw), since you're basically doing exactly what you accused me of doing, which was:
1. Lay down an opinionated, possibly inflammatory post.
2. Boobytrap it with thinly-veiled insult and/or irrelevant jab at other poster's veracity.
3. Get defensive when they meet your bullshit with more bullshit.
4. Repeat.
This is all built on the foundation that you used to cheer me on when I would make a spectacle out of my disagreements with others, since obviously my sole purpose is to make myself look cool on a message board by disagreeing with everything that is met positively by consensus. Not to mention those times I had your back whenever somebody accused
you of being argumentative or elitist or whatever people accuse guys like us of being. We're really not that different; if I made fun of you for that, I would effectively be defacing myself at the same time. Where does the vicious cycle end? :shakefist
The only difference I see here is that apparently when our views clash, I don't feel bad about cracking jokes about your argument points or observations, whereas you seem more intent on taking personal pokes at me and what you perceive to be my character. You see, I
am consistent. I may change my opinion about a particular work on repeat viewings or when I've had more time to think about it, but my methods never change: bullshit is bullshit, and I call it as I see it. You, on the other hand, play amicable until somebody corners you on something, then you get your fur up and start howling, even taking it a personal level... that's something I wouldn't have expected from somebody usually so objective. It's like you're cool with people making harsh comments and criticisms (and even making them yourself) until one gets levelled at you, and then you start talking out of your other face. Traitor.
