Word...this is getting pathetic. " you can't detect art/satire/hyperbole/sarcasm/comprehend a text/a stylistic device when you see it". Did you try asking yourself why I even asked the question? It's because the argument you were making was hilariously flawed, bias, and overall ignorant - this led you to being a pretentious ass since you thought you knew so much, made even worse by you trying to justify art with medicine. There was a reason why I asked it, and you were the one too ill-equipped to know what you were reading. I'm not surprised that you try to turn it around on me - you haven't shown yourself to be a reasonable person (I've said many times that I don't have anything against you personally - yet you go out of your way to form personal attacks...gj).Word wrote:Everyone: Enjoy the attachment at the bottom of this post.
Durf:That you're still lecturing me about subjectivity/the definition of art/my supposed pretentiousness to justify that you can't detect art/satire/hyperbole/sarcasm/comprehend a text/a stylistic device when you see it - that is so tragic that I almost dropped my monocle. I'll just reply in a meta-way, this is my final statement.Why are you expecting Ubisoft to make a cure for cancer?
I'm not lecturing you about the subjectivity of art as a means to justify my supposed inability to detect satire (which isn't the case anyway, but we'll get to that later). Stop being so selective with your attention and try to be a little more open minded. I warn you about turning a thread into something more, yet, you don't seem to care either way - so be it. I'm "lecturing" you about a subjective matter because you are treating it like an objective matter. That was the only reason why and still is. Calling you pretentious is accurate; instead I will use more insulting words like pompous - since you can't seem to tell when someone is choosing their words enough to appeal to the ego you should have - not the ego you want to have. If you want me to lie to you, I would only end up being patronizing - I can't lie to you to be polite (I've tried, only comes out as patronizing). Don't be pretentious and I won't call you pretentious. Being stubborn about it is what makes you pompous.
I never said you had said or implied any of the parts you quoted. They are examples / explanations. If you didn't understand it, you could also ask me to clarify - if you assume a false interpretation, I will clarify. Just about each of these quotes is in likeness to a similar (rather opposite) point from your posts. If the conversation was about art in general, you wouldn't have diverted into a convoluted mess of other topics like medicine or historical context because art (true art) can stand on its own.Word wrote:To be even more clear: Houses are not related to how entertaining one's life can beare you saying that video games and medicine depended on paintings?!"I know more about art than you, that is why what you say means nothing" <-- this in itself has no valueModern medicine and surgical procedures never depended on the Mona Lisa. Stop pretending like it did - stop grasping at straws.More stuff I haven't said or even implied. The conversation was about art in general. And while I clearly stated that the art market appeals to rich people (or didn't I?), the art/artists want to earn some money as well, the logical consequence being that they have their buyers in mind when they're working. Have you ever seen family portraits? Art is rarely created in an economic vacuum.Art is not for rich people - but the art market is
When you talk about the art market, the artists make pennies; nothing. Shouldn't you know since you're so well educated in this matter? Any artist's work is less than $1000 (usually) until after they die. Their death is the one thing that will increase the value in their art (for the market) tremendously. One would think someone as pretentious as you would have at least pretended to know that. So when you say art is rarely created in an economic vacuum, you're just full of your own shit - you're basically saying the homeless can't make art. Art can be made with $0.00, during a depression, and overall at any time. Your opinions is what limits what you think art should be - this is what makes you pretentious. You act like you know what art is when you're just being narrow-minded. Saying that most art is made with the buyer in mind is also a ridiculous assumption - MOST art is created from passion of the artist and is not motivated by monetary gain. Do you actually know any artists?
Word, you're digging yourself a deeper hole - and your emotional outburst of a post isn't helping your case.
Shall I analyze the sentence about you dropping your monocle? Remember when I said "you're asking for it"?
Don't start what you can't finish.
You're mistaking an inability to detect satire for an alternate perspective. Much like I did with your "sarcasm" - there are many ways to interpret written words unless there are enough to actually define what is meant. You confuse my words describing the lack of sufficient material that would define the article as satire for a lack of a sense of humor (or the inability to detect satire). It's not that I never saw it, in fact that is the conclusion I would have come to had the article not make an attempt to portray itself as serious. Which is exactly why I'm free to discuss the "satirical context" after you bring it up without is being an attempt to "weasel" out of anything. I'm aware of the possibility of it being satire, and even so, it is too weak to define itself as satire without some other context. And in the end, that is an opinion (something ELSE subjective you want to argue about - learn to get a life and move on with it). Dictionary links are there for the same purpose you feel the need to clarify what you've said - the response was just not appropriate (and misunderstandings do happen, so being patient and tolerant is important if you want to solve anything). Definitions are verifiable facts that everyone can use; this is the type of substance (value) that your posts lack. There is no support in anything real, verifiable, and/or usable to anyone else; your posts are only meaningful to yourself (and those with a similar enough mind to naturally attach themselves to your words - this will be explained later).Word wrote:Someone who is exposed to satire/art for the first time usually grasps that there is some concept behind it/that it is satire/art even if he still has no name for it and no dictionary at hand. You don't detect it although you're obsessed with dictionary links, so your opinion matters little. You didn't say the article was bad satire, you said it wasn't a very convincing collection of diary entries and, after the joke was explained, tried to weasel your way out by claiming it was also bad satire and made for pretentious people only. You treat it the way you treat everything that exposes your ignorance. Convict, on the other hand, is a typical philister whose opinion can't be taken seriously because he's ignorant and not even ashamed of that. That doesn't mean one can't take the attitude seriously.are you saying their opinion of a work of art is meaningless? Do you really think your opinion is so much more valuable than theirs?
Furthermore, you devalue a person's opinion because they are "ignorant" - this is more of your pretentious behavior. If someone is being ignorant, then show them how - but their words are still of value; they have a mind, they have feelings, and they have thoughts of their own (even if they are "incomplete"). The least you could do is put some effort into not being an ass.
^ this is probably good enough to leave on its own. But even though the general public would be able to see how ridiculous this is, you might still need the explanation.Word wrote:As someone who already compared the moderators to Nazis as solemn as a judge, you just shattered the glasshouse you were sitting inside.Comparing other users to terroristsAs you said yourself, you don't read emotion. And who says you can't find a shelter during the winter somewhere in Canada? Are Canadians that hostile?The ONLY thing that would make that scenario worthwhile is the business aspect
Here, you're not even addressing the issue, you're trying to avoid it by pointing the finger at me (for something you apparently never understood). I compared a decent portion of the community to Nazis (not just moderators) and that was due to the likeness in the ridicule and discrimination being done by those users (it was indeed similar to that of Nazis - if you're so offended by that, then try to be something better). Having made this comparison doesn't alleviate me of credibility when asking you why you are comparing users to terrorists when that was uncalled for. There is a huge difference in showing how ACTUAL discrimination against other TRONNERS is like being a Nazi, and going out of your way to compare someone who disagrees with you to a terrorist group who stands for terrorizing others. What I did was not harassment - quite the opposite. What you did was harassment; it was just plain wrong - you are trying to force your labels of the very essence of a person onto someone else - you are trying to define who they are by what you said - learn to curb your hate.
I never said that I don't read emotion (it is, at least, sometimes perceived), I said that I wouldn't be appealing to your emotions, and I wouldn't be writing for your emotions. Don't confuse a choice for an inability (again). I read posts, and their emotional content has very little weight when it comes to the message trying to be said - meaning, I won't empathize with you just because you're crying; if you've got something to say, you can just say it without your emotional garbage. Learn to speak like an adult and no one will have to guess what your emotional outbursts really mean - learn to address what's actually said to you, instead of responding with irrelevant nonsense because your emotions tell you to.
I never said you couldn't find shelter in Canada (now either you are genuinely that dense - or you are just trying to play stupid to make a point, which is failing anyway). What I said was an OBVIOUS comparison between the proposed "building/living in a house vs owning a masterpiece". My point was fairly clear: in Canada, that is an easy choice. It wasn't to say "oh but the homeless can just go find shelter", no, it was a comparison between the 2 choices - do you choose to have a house to live in (shelter) or do you choose to own a work of art. Again, you're going out of your way to try to justify something you simply can't - bringing in irrelevant nonsense like homeless shelters to try to prove how your original point works; it doesn't. The fact is that you wouldn't have to go to a homeless shelter if you made the choice to have a house to begin with.
Now should I even get started on the "Canadian" thing? Your implications are offensive. Frankly it is known worldwide that Canadians are some of the least hostile people around (in and out of Canada) - so besides you talking out of your ass just to prove a point (showing your ignorance publicly), this is just another emotional outburst of yours. There was no reason for you to try to deface Canadians as a race, yet you go out of your way to do so. Want to explain why that's important to art? I don't think you can (Why? Oh that's right, you're full of your own bullshit!)
Don't make aspersions to any user without any support for what you say. This is what you said: "You still confuse creating, owning and appreciating art. You want to punish the artists and people who enjoy what they see because you hate the rich.", and no explanations followed, no clarification, no definitions, nothing. You failed to prove that claim; therefore all you've done is make an unfounded assumption and are basing your argument on that.Word wrote:Can't you at least try to sound less like a broken record?Your accusations are unfounded and based on pretentious assumptions.I know. I'm not forced to reply here, but if someone misunderstands what I said, I usually clarify. In your case that's probably pointless, since you stay disrespectful either way and drag everyone into your intellectual abyss. You said earlier it takes you no effort to refute my claims. Probably because you don't really put effort in it at all?You said you were done before, and you apparently weren't. Even so, you said you were done yet again, and yet again were not.
Like I've said to you in another post, you only want to think I'm being disrespectful (or insulting) when I say you're being pretentious. Don't be pretentious and I won't call you pretentious.
Similarly, don't make unfounded claims, and you won't have to hear me talk about it. One could argue how you fail to support what you say (continuous unfounded claims) are the broken record in itself. You just want to cry about your emotions...over and over again. When will your tantrum end? When will you grow up and act like an adult?
Oh, what that too disrespectful for you? Try not making blatant insults for the purpose of insulting users, and maybe you will turn out to be a respectable enough person to deserve being talked to in a decent manner. Should I point out that you're someone who likes to try to define people as terrorists? Or what about what you say about Canadians? (and if you had the mental capacity to see why you even want to say anything about Canadians, you'd know that Canadians have nothing to do with it - it is your emotional response to ME and what I've said - learn to curb your hate, because it's beginning to effect innocent and unrelated people - all because you just want to prove a point - good for you; you must be proud)
Now what about your constant bickering over trivial nonsense? Isn't it convenient how no one seems to be telling you to "just drop it"? Oh but your reasoning was the EXACT same as mine: "but if someone misunderstands what I said, I usually clarify"...hmmmmm. Now either you understand why misunderstandings happen, which will allow you to have the patience to work through them - or you don't and prove yourself to be bigoted (trying to use the very same reason for your constant posting when you could just "let it go"). The best part about this is, you set this up for yourself - I'm not going out of my way to insult you, you set up all the pieces and they are just falling into place.
"You said earlier it takes you no effort to refute my claims. Probably because you don't really put effort in it at all?" - I meant what I said and I said what I meant. If I didn't put any effort in, I wouldn't have posted. I said that it doesn't take me any extra effort to refute what you say. The reason being that not very much effort is required to do so. You fail to see how much of my side of the argument has a basis in REALITY - so what you're fighting against isn't me, it is your own stubbornness to accept facts. It requires little to no effort to inform you, or point you in the direction of correct information. Put simply: if someone says 2+2=3, how much effort would it take you to convince them that it actually is 4? How difficult would it be for them to argue their side? Given the difference in difficulty, you can probably spend even less effort than you normally would since their own difficulty in trying to prove their side will eventually lead them to the right answer anyway. That is assuming that people actually care to know the truth rather than accept their assumptions as truth (delusions). Now what was the point in asking that I "probably don't really put effort in it at all"? What were you trying to accomplish? Were you asking out of genuine curiosity? If so, then you should refrain from being that narrow minded and ignorant. Like I said, I meant what I said and I said what I meant - reread if you need to because you jump to far too many conclusions of others to have any credibility.
If you want to post our PM chain, by all means, prove your claims. But your paraphrasing needs work because you've changed the meaning of what I've said (seemingly to suit your needs - otherwise you're just a stubborn moron). Everyone can see how you have gone out of your way to reply to the things I've said (without provocation, you went to get yourself involved and turn something out of nothing).Word wrote:I remember "unfounded assumptions"/"I can show you the truth"/"stop harassing me by replying to my posts in public, or else I won't stop PM'ing you" - whiny phantasmagoria and self-victimization, abusive language and blackmail which I reported after you failed to cease PM'ing me as requested several times.Did you forget the PMs we had? Did you forget how you were entirely unwilling to work things out and get along? You chose to hate. That is your responsibility.
If you think you can say "whiny phantasmagoria and self-victimization, abusive language and blackmail" about me without providing some kind of evidence, you're mistaken, and guess what ends up looking like that of which you claim? Your post.
Furthermore, it isn't self-victimization just because I'm asking you nicely to cease your unsupported aspersions. I even made sure to note that you are free to respond to me, but if you cannot support a claim that is, in itself, just an insult, then you are constantly harassing me for no valid purpose. Asking you to stop isn't, by any means, just "self-victimization"; however, I'm glad that you've proven your choice to everyone in public - now that this evidence is here, it can be used as a means to actually get results from someone who will most likely do something about it (Tank Program). Like I've said to you in our PMs, I'm willing to work out our differences, but apparently you're not and seem to enjoy having a problem with me...so be it; if I can't solve the problem with you personally, I will take it up with someone who will.
And how did that report go? Hm? (somehow I doubt there is an actual report - but I'm not alleviating the possibility that there is one)
Much like this thread, you say when you're done, yet you keep asking for more. If you didn't want PMs, you wouldn't do something that would call for one; I never spammed your inbox, everything sent to you was only a reply to something you've said - so you're shit outta luck for your report either way.
Don't start what you can't finish.
Are you saying morse code is meaningless? >_>Word wrote:Also, sampled from the last two posts in no particular order:If you hadn't said you're an autist, I'd suspect you have tourette's. I'm getting the feeling that you're constructing your posts like meaningless morse code to intersperse a few insults here and there (I had some time on my hands, see attachment. I suggest you read this while having the other post in a different tab). Someone can make a bingo sheet out of this.asshat pretentious ass pretentious ass bigot pretentious asshat idiot ass
Also, I'd like to again point out that you, as a very emotional creature, think it's an insult to say "if you do this, you are ___"; which is why I gave the example of a fat person. How would you go about telling a fat person that they are obese without insulting them? Especially if they are an emotional creature such as yourself? Does a dictionary offend you? Or does the thought that you are doing the things you think you aren't doing offend you? Are you sure it's not just pride? Have you considered the possibility of you being a pretentious asshat? No matter how much of what I said offends you, it is all based in truth. My word choice might not be the best, but that's allowed here on these forums. You should be taking up that complaint with the rule makers, not with me. Even so, stopping me from saying it wouldn't stop you from being a pretentious asshat.
You further try to dismiss any reasoning in my posts by trying to label it as meaningless (trying to attribute it as merely insults with no purpose - much like your posts are; you have yet to define a purpose, any actual reasoning for your posts - mine, on the other hand, are always explained).
You bingo card is much like what I just described - a method used to devalue my words by putting them in conjunction with false interpretations of my motive. You're basically trying to define my character through a series of phrases, and by using real phrases I've said (some are edited and changed to different words = different meaning or different context) along with all these made up trollish ones, you're trying to associate everything in that card as nothing but troll attempts or otherwise not worthwhile as individual thought. Which is why, you sir, are an asshat.
You, quite literally this time, went out of your way to put effort into being such an asshat - so yet again I'm asking you, "What is your purpose? What are you after?". Because if your only goal is to deface me publicly, then this is the very thing that I asked you nicely to stop doing (in our PMs). Trying to report me for PMing you so you don't have to answer to the request is what you describe: to "weasel" your way out of it. Continuing to make such posts (aspersions without any real support - no real discussion) shows just how much of an asshat you are; it would have been enough to not want to have PMs, if you also tried your best to stop making an ass of yourself. No, instead you weasel your way out of a simple request, and continue to do the very thing that someone has asked you directly to stop. So either you will be banned for harassment, or the moderators will be proven to show favoritism; because at this point, I will be reporting this to all 3; we will see who responds to it and how they respond to it - I've had to ask you too many times and you're still just coming after me without purpose (not that it's having any effect, but the community has complained enough about drama - and you're just causing more, and I don't want to be associated with your bullshit).
"The annotated Durf": (answered in chronological order)
1) (black) I said pay attention, and I'm surprised you still failed to do so. Guess I can't expect much from an emotional creature when it comes to having mental capacity to control one's own mind. It wasn't according to me, it was according to YOU. Specifically the shared sentence from both of the quotes used "Oh yea, totally subjective." followed directly by "You. are. wrong." (wtf grammar?) is the important bit. I gave possibility that you intended that to be sarcastic OR literal.
Now, given the two options, it is far more likely that you intended it to be sarcastic; which, as I've said, amounts to you limiting the definition of what art is to suit your argument. The sarcastic sentence, in itself, carries the opposite meaning of its words, meaning that you literally meant that the previous sentences subject was not at all subjective. Did you forget you were talking about art? Or don't you consider code to be art? Don't you consider comedy to be art? Don't you consider a satire article to be a form of art? Because what you say would only make sense if you are that ignorant.
If, by chance, you meant that sentence literally, then it makes everything said before it worthless, because you're obviously too ignorant about art to know what you're talking about then - you need to be educated.
I already explained "me not getting it" and you're mistaken about that anyway, so it's mostly irrelevant. It is your poor choice of words (or thought when creating your post) that implied that you think art isn't subjective. You try to justify the insults YOU'VE made to others in this thread because "you know more about art than they do". Calling that pretentious is going easy on you. Especially when you try to talk like as if art isn't subjective.
Did you pay attention that time?
2) (red) I told you to get a dictionary because you apparently don't know what pretentious means, or rather don't care for its definition and only want to see it as an insult (I'm sorry you have too much pride, but maybe if you didn't have as much, you could work things out with someone who is willing to do so - you're the only one not willing). I've explained why you only think I didn't get the joke - why it's a bad joke in general, and why all of that is also subjective. None of that relates to you being pretentious. Step outside the predictable boundaries of the emotional creature you are - I'm giving you the respect that you have the ability to control the body you possess, so prove yourself and stop fighting against that of which you cannot fight. You, and your own hostile responses, have turned this thread into something else, and something personal - you like to pretend as though it's just a "Durf conspiracy" but you can't use that label to excuse your constant incessant and illogical arguing over something so stupid. Like I said, "Are you sure you want to argue about something subjective?". I said that as a means of understanding your motive - and you made it clear that you'd rather be pretentious and attempt to argue about something subjective, than to keep the peace and understand that everyone has a different opinion. Your intolerance is a problem.
3) (orange) I dismissed your observations because they are misguided. As you said, when someone misinterprets, you usually clarify; so you should understand the response. I said no one cares that you think you actually know about art - rather that no one had to care. Everyone on these forums is aware of your opinion, and no one is obligated to care or to agree with them. What you fail to understand is that you are also not obligated to care or agree with anyone else's opinions - yet you treat people as though they are making an offense to your very existence. I wasn't dismissing your (erroneous) observations by saying no one cares; your observations are dismissed by being unfounded - they cannot stand on their own and the slightest test of their stability makes them fall. If the reasoning for your observations was sound, you wouldn't have to defend it at all (hence the lack of effort required). Even when trolls such as yourself attempt to turn it into a convoluted mess of irrelevant topics and cyclical logic, facts remain facts, and truth will always reveal itself in the end; you cannot use something fake to fight what is real (defend yourself from a real sword with a pretend shield). If you weren't a troll, you would know how to discuss rather than gibber constantly over the most petty topics (which only makes me want to ask you again, what are you after exactly?). Now, in case you forgot what you JUST TRIED TO ARGUE, art is subjective. Which means your second point, in this point I'm addressing (orange), is entirely bullshit. If you try to say art is subjective to prove the points you try to make in your first point (black), then this point becomes unfounded. If art is subjective, then people are entitled to their opinions of art. Regardless of how they came to their conclusions, you can't say that theirs is any more or less right than what you perceive art as. After all, you just said it was subjective. Unless you intend to imply that it's not subjective? Meaning, as an objective matter, there is something verifiable and factual to go off of? Again, are you sure you want to argue about something subjective? (you're really digging yourself a grave here - but I don't mind, you can keep at it - you might hit the other side). You also say how there was no proof of any contradiction. If the contradiction I already pointed out wasn't enough, it should have been clear that the original "Oh yea. Totally subjective" sarcasm was in contradiction when you pretend like you think art is subjective - then again the other way when you try to pretend like your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. Would you like me to prove that too? Or will you just see the paragraph as misinterpret it as a whole like you seem to enjoy doing? Next you claim that I've insulted you (frankly you could be insulted "pudding" for all I care), but nothing I've said is a direct insult to your character (who or what you are) - I've only shown a likeness to your behavior to that of which is (most likely) a perspective you could relate to (on the outside). Meaning, put yourself in the shoes of the people you're posting to - you've basically said your opinions are superior; that is being pretentious. That is by no means an attempt to insult you; if I wanted to insult you, I would actually insult you (don't start what you can't finish). Saying you are unreasonable because you refuse to acknowledge the correlation between the dictionary definition of "pretentious" with your posts' contents, is also not any attempt to insult you. At this point, I can call you over-sensitive and over-emotional because you are being such, and it's not an insult. I'm fairly certain nobody tries to be a pretentious asshat - therefore, it is logical to assume that you want to make some kind of attempt to not be one. Now unless you're admitting to the opposite, one could call you a "closet asshat" (if you will) since you are in denial about the situation. "if you can't see that it makes sense" was to illustrate your refusal to just get a dictionary and read the definition - to relate that definition to your posts' contents. Was it condescending? Probably. Was it truth? Definitely. Finally, I asked why you're still posting (as I've done in this post) to find out your motive - you're clearly here trying to prove yourself and/or trying to fight something, yet your purpose remains unclear. You and your posts lack conviction. You jump from irrelevant topic to irrelevant topic, all as a means to support what you've said (support = actual evidence or facts that are verifiable by others to come to the same conclusion; reasoning. What you have been doing is selectively misinterpreting just about everything and wording it in a way to sound like you're right - even though no real support was given; an attempt to manipulate the sheeple into just going "that sounded right so it must be"). So if you have no reason for posting, why start what you can't finish?
4) (maroon) I didn't say you have psychological issues because you reply to me - I said you have them because of your incessant behavior. Your constant replies to what I've said when you weren't even being talked to (example: PM History thread). You go out of your way to talk to me, seemingly for no purpose, then get upset when you didn't get what you wanted. If this is some sort of supremacy game, then you're just too ill-equipped to begin with. Funny though how you label what I've said regarding the "conspiracy" as me saying "I am right you are wrong". Not once did I even try to imply that I was right - you did that all on your own (Gee I wonder why? Could it be because of a supported argument?). I wasn't claiming anyone to be an ass (and certainly not because I'm a victim). Your attempts to label genuine reasoning (pointing to evidence to prove what I say) as "fanfare" devalues the post - same goes for "overblown wailing" as I give reasoning in my posts, like you fail to do in yours - but regardless, everyone can read for themselves, and no matter how much you try to label what I say as meaningless, the facts still carry weight - and you are only supporting the thought that there is some "conspiracy" if you show an inability to discuss facts, especially with me. Furthermore, this is related to the psychological issues you seem to have. You are driven to respond to me as if you want something from me - now I've asked you countless times already to state your reasoning, your purpose - and yet you don't say any. If there isn't (at the very least) a conspiracy of one (you having a problem with me), then you will have a valid reason for being incessant with your unfounded aspersions. If you have no valid reason (which was asked from you many times - even when I requested that you stop your harassment) then you are being a cyber-bully. That's not an insult, but a fact; unless you can prove otherwise. By all means, show us how you don't have a problem with me. Show everyone. Now you seem to have a problem that I replied to a post that wasn't directed to me? :O The hypocrisy! Holy shit! How many of my posts have you replied to that wasn't directed towards you? Weren't you also the one to have first done that? Don't start what you can't finish. And yes, you are a cyber-bully for even suggesting (implying) that someone's life is worthless or worth less than your own simply because of what they've done in their life (let alone be an argument over something SUBJECTIVE - it is because you're saying that as a means to prove your side of a subjective argument that makes it worthless to the argument, and only harassment from you). You are the one who, yet again, bring up an irrelevant topic, when discussing art, as a means to try to support what you've said - but all you ended up doing was making yourself into the asshat that I can now legally claim you are. Don't like being called an asshat? Don't be one. I'm harassing you about it, I'm only ever responding to you and the posts that instigate a response. The thing is, someone could be very successful, such that they can afford works of art instead of toilet paper. They can even make it a lifestyle to use those works of art as toilet paper. But you going to insult someone by suggesting (questioning) someone's own life's worth as insufficient or less than your own is being a cyberbully - art is subjective after all, and someone might find those pieces of art (that have been wiped on) to be of more value than before - but that is also a subjective matter. Don't be a cyberbully if you don't want to be called out on it.
5) (black) Funny...NOW you want to pretend like you don't know what an idiom is? You're so full of shit. "To be even more clear: Houses are not related to how entertaining one's life can be.". This was the straw you were grasping at. You tried to support your arguments by saying that art provides a form of entertainment and/or fulfillment to life itself, and that the alternative (in that example; having a house to live in) being dull and lacking fulfillment. It is straw to grasp because that's not even an argument since you're proving the very reason why art is subjective. A person can view the house they built as a work of art; this shows how you are fighting against nothing. You posted a false pretense that art (and paintings in particular) are the only thing that a person can find enjoyment and/or fulfillment in. That in itself is the grasp at "straws". You are trying far too hard to prove something you cannot. The "absurd" things I've said hasn't been addressed in your posts - you have been avoiding addressing every one of my points; most likely out of fear of being proven to be a total bigot. I've never that art lovers can't lover art enough to sell their homes - besides this being completely made up bullshit on your part, what do you think a second mortgage is? (ability to still have a roof over your head while selling your house). And I was even specific enough to note that the decision in itself isn't stupid as that could be a lifestyle choice, and I believe people are free to pursue the lifestyle they wish for themselves. Even so, you now make a reference to if they should care about my opinion...why do you think that is? Hmmm, perhaps because art is subjective? Oh wait, wouldn't that mean that back when I said that no one has to care about your opinion, and you got over-emotional...you were just full of shit! Hypocrite. I also never said or implied they were obligated to care about my opinion (regardless of what they may be).
6) (red) Are you saying that you didn't claim that video games would look a little different if nobody had written a book about vanishing points in 1436? Are you saying that you didn't make the claim that any surgery I would ever undergo would likely result in my death (because this was in the same sentence, it is implied that it is because of a lack of knowledge regarding vanishing points - or in a greater sense, art)..? I can quote you some more if you'd like (you're really, REALLY digging yourself a grave here). I never stated that I'm right, and I have no reason to imply it either. Saying that a book on vanishing points in 1436 might not have existed is like saying one might have existed in 1437, or 1438 - or like saying that an e-book, scroll, parchment, heck even an audio book could be created. The point was that you are treating that book as the sole provider of the knowledge on vanishing points. Like as if there aren't multiple inventors for the same inventions (either reinvented because of history, or culture); like as if nobody else in the entire world and throughout history would be capable of taking the place of that author. Discussing possibilities as to how you're utterly wrong is not a means to say "I'm right" - it is just pointing out major flaws in your reasoning; making everyone aware of just how bias you are. Saying that a doctor would prefer a corpse is in reference to the Mona Lisa. Even if there was a painting of the internal organ structure of humans, a real corpse would have been preferred in the development of medicine. By no means will a painting ever be worth as much to a doctor (doing his job) as a corpse is (regarding the development of medicine). You reference to Leonardo combining everything he learned in his life into his work of art is only valuable to people who appreciate art; which makes your argument that medicine (the surgery part) would be different now, complete bullshit. You were talking out of your ass in a way to try to sound smart but you failed horribly. I'm not doubting that Leonardo combined everything he learned, and I'm not doubting that that increases the value of the painting in the market. But you choosing to use that as a means to say that video games (vanishing points) and medicine (surgery) would be different today is just more of the same bullshit; clearly you want to be right, so try learning what it takes to be right; learn the facts, and you won't make an idiot of yourself. Did you make the connection? I never said you did, and you're the only one that thinks anyone is blaming you for it. You made 2 points in your sentence; one for video games (vanishing points) and one for surgery...did you forget what you wrote? Are you that dense? Although you made the points, there was no support either way - what you are seeing is a result of the lack of support you provide for your posts. Don't like it? Learn to support what you say. Or just try not saying complete bullshit, because you will be called out on it.
6) (orange) Word, you don't even know what you're going on about anymore. The quote was in a post you made directed to someone else - so if anything we're talking about someone else's opinion. "stupid", you never said you thought the opinion was stupid, what I quoted you on was "You apparently hate it because you lack imagination and knowledge." which is your interpretation of someone's opinion. YOUR opinion of art is to have prerequisite knowledge and imagination to be credible enough to even have an opinion (this is why I asked you if someone who's never been exposed to art before, if their opinion is worth less than yours). Now again, is art subjective or not? You seem to conveniently change that definition to suit your posts. If art is subjective, then you understand that everyone is entitled to an opinion and it is allowed to be different than yours, AND that there is no absolutely defined answer. Which means everything in this block is just fine as it is; the reason why you have a problem with is can only be assumed to be that you were proven wrong. So unless you're admitting to being bigoted, you accept that anyone can hate any work of art for any reason (the reasoning doesn't really matter at that point since it is SUBJECTIVE). Besides this block being misguided into thinking we were talking about my personal opinion (judging by your paraphrasing), your sarcastic annotations only serve to show how you think art is an objective matter (and perhaps it is to you - but you're being pretentious by trying to force your opinions onto others as superior).
7) (black) You're implying reasons why everyone should appreciate the Mona Lisa when you make claims like video games and surgery would be different today without such art. I never said that you said that people are required to appreciate the Mona Lisa for the same reasons you do - in fact quite the opposite. And it's because no one appreciates art in the same context (generally - individuals might, but I'm mentioning the diversity of contextual interpretations) that art itself becomes subjective. You stating the reasons why you appreciate the Mona Lisa, in the context of all the posts you've made in this thread, is a method to attempt to support the earlier claims (about vanishing points and medicine) - but like I've said, a scientist can appreciate the Mona Lisa for it's scientific context and STILL consider it to be bad art as a whole. Regardless of any of that, for the relation to your earlier claims, medicine and video games aren't dependent on works of art like the Mona Lisa, or any scientific context within. This is an example of you contradicting yourself; there wasn't a "worst possible intention", because the intention was quite clear (unless you're admitting to not being concise enough? Oh but somehow that's my fault too; my fault when I write a post and my fault when I read one... >_>). You point has been thoroughly refuted...go cry to mommy about it.
8) (black) It is the same case as your previous "sarcasm" - do you know how to use sarcasm? You words are more likely to be literal in this case because as sarcasm, they don't offer any support to your argument. In fact, they only make you appear ignorant; shall I thoroughly explain how? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not a complete moron, digging their own grave. Didn't you drop your monocle because of my response? (removed a few sentences explaining how stupid it was for you to say that). I gave possibility to each interpretation before responding...now if you really were literal, I would tell you how stupid you are in expecting Ubisoft to cure cancer (though I also wouldn't limit them so as to say they can't). But since you admit to it being sarcasm, my response is fitting. I'm shedding light on the lack of correlation between Ubisoft and a cure for cancer; showing everyone how this point in itself is total garbage because you can just tell us when the Mona Lisa reveal some deep secret that ends up being the cure for cancer. Face it, you failed.
9) (black) You say it is a "no u" paragraph without any proof. The first line that I say is basically those words exactly. Now either you're a little bitch avoiding the issue, or you genuinely disregarded the possibility that the part I've quoted you on has no support. Here's what you said, "You still confuse creating, owning and appreciating art. You want to punish the artists...". None of that had any support. My response however, was supported through reasoning. Saying "your unfounded reasoning is based on pretentious assumptions" needn't any proof, since I quoted you and have shown this to be true already within my post. If you wanted me to do it again, then you can ask - challenge the claim instead of bitching about it. When I said, "this isn't about hating rich people", it's because your argument(s), yet again, are just irrelevant nonsense. To be clear: someone can hate rich people but still appreciate art just as you do. So how they hell does your post actually make a point that's relevant to the discussion? It doesn't. And this isn't a "no u" either. You said that they hate rich people as a means of supporting the overall topic that you are actually any more credible in discussing a subjective matter - when rich people have nothing to do with art (as a means of defining is as good - they have a lot to do with defining art's monetary value, yes, but that is also very limited). So this means that even if ConVicT hates rich people, it doesn't invalidate anything he says about their opinions of art. It doesn't devalue their perspective on a subjective matter. Lastly, I didn't ask you to stop posting in this thread (wtf where'd you come up with that?). I asked you if you were sure you wanted to argue about a subjective matter (basically this is making it publicly known who is the person that has an obsessive problem - because everyone knows what subjectivity is, and that arguing about opinions [that don't have an affect on facts] is just plain stupid, bigoted, bias, and overall pompous). You have proven yourself time and time again - you are nothing but a child having a tantrum because people have an opinion that's different than yours. Learn to grow up and show some tolerance. I never made an appeal to get you to stop posting here, I was asking if you are sure you want to be this stupid. You answered as I can only expect from you (not surprised). Emotionally.
Though, interestingly enough, you failed to actually address any of the questions/points made to you.
"You treat it the way you treat everything that exposes your ignorance." - you seem to be in a constant state of psychological projection.
Nearly every "point" you tried to make in your last post has nothing to do with "a gem in art restoration", nor does it have to do with art; it is a clear outburst of emotion on your part (AND FOR WHAT - I've asked you what you're after too many times now, because you seem to like to have a problem with what I say on these forums - and each time you fail to answer).
Arthur Schopenhauer wrote:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
You're pretty close to reaching the end Word - just a little more and you'll get there.W. Clement Stone wrote:Truth will always be truth, regardless of lack of understanding, disbelief or ignorance.
Very soon you will realize the stupidity in trying to argue something subjective (if you haven't already).
Good thing it was your choice and not mine.
