> > This is one of your misinterpretations:
>
> > "Everything you object to is not action. The action sequences,
> > including the ones that /are/ filler in the sense that they aren't
> > in the book, you don't object to. It is quite clear where your
> > interests lie." / Paul S. Person - 11/28/2014
>
> > This was false, your "clear" was not clear at all - given the
> > multitude of times I had told you things like:
>
> > "Again with the action. I hope it has better pacing and that
> > Jennifer has learned to emote."
>
> This was in response to a different topic: you assault on the player
> depicting Katniss.
No, it was not. It was in response to this:
"and, that said, you aren't going to like the next movie any
better, although it should have more action in it"
/ Paul S. Person - 11/27/2014
Don't make stuff up as you go along.
> It is /not/ that you object to Katniss and Gale sitting by a stream
> doing nothing (for about 30 seconds) because the actress cannot
> emote to suit you. Yet that is what your out-of-context quote
> implies. Try playing it straight some time.
It was not out of context - I provided the context; you making claims that
I want an action movie in spite of me telling you multiple times that that
isn't true.
At this point, all you have to do to behave like an adult is say something
like "Ok, I misunderstood you and what you wanted, I realize that now,
sorry about that".
> > Sandman:
> > And:
>
> > "Everything I object to is *boring*, and as I've said many times
> > (and which you have snipped many times) is that the remedy for
> > boredom isn't automatically "action", unless your name is Michael
> > Bay."
>
> > It was *perfectly* clear that I was not asking for more "action",
> > yet you kept repeating and repeating this.
>
> Exactly. Any scene not involving some form of action, however mild,
> acceptable to yourself is "boring".
WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension - my quote above says *THE
EXACT OPPOSITE* of that - yet here you are telling the same lie AGAIN? As a
direct reply to those exact words?
> I kept pointing it out because you were (and are) clearly in denial.
Nothing is "clear" here to you. What *IS* clear is that I was *NOT* asking
for an action movie, which I've said over and over and over again. These
were just two quotes out of a multitude of quotes from me where I told you
this.
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > (If I actually /did/ state that I thought you believed it should
> > > be an actual Action Movie, then I overreached myself and hereby
> > > apologize. But I am quite certain I did not.)
> >
> > Sandman:
> > You did say it:
>
> > "I think the real problem here is that you expect to see an Action
> > Movie, possibly even a Brain-Dead Summer Action Movie (BDSAM)." /
> > Paul S. Person - 11/25/2014
>
> And you have my apology. Please take another.
I want an apology for your continous lies about me wanting "action" when I
never said anything like it. As you did in this very post I'm replying to.
Why apologize when you keep doing it?
> > Sandman:
> > But that's not the problem - the problem is that you kept saying
> > it over and over and over again in spite of my correcting you
> > many many times.
>
> Are you saying that I claimed you expected to see an Action Movie
> "over and over again" or merely that I pointed out that your own
> words clearly show your preference for (some sort of) action
> (however mild)?
I am claiming, and have claimed unambigously over and over again, that you
are *incorrect* in claiming that I wanted Mockingjay to have more action in
it. I said the movie was *boring* which you interpreted as me wanting more
action. That's a perfectly valid misinterpretation, but since that
misinterpretation on your part, I have told you many times that I do *not*
want more action, yet you kept repeating that over and over again.
> IOW, are you actually saying something new here, or merely repeating
> what you said above?
It must appear new to you, since you didn't understand it the ten first
times I told it.
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > And I cannot have misunderstood it, for you write so clearly.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > Indeed - when I have explained what I meant it should be clear,
> > and your misunderstanding should have been remedied. When you
> > insist on your incorrect interpretation, you're being
> > disingenious.
>
> I guess you don't understand sarcasm either.
> If you wrote clearly, I would not be able to misunderstand you.
Misunderstandings happen all the time, that's not the problem. I'm not
saying you did something wrong by misunderstanding me. It's an easy enough
mistake to make, on both parts. I could be unclear or you could infer
something that I didn't imply. That's not the problem. The problem is when
you misunderstand something, and I explain myself, and you keep claiming
your misunderstanding is the correct interpretation. *That's* the problem.
> So, to say that I misunderstood you, is to say that you did not
> write clearly.
Of course not. While that's a perfectly valid reason for misunderstanding,
it's hardly the only reason for misunderstanding someone. You could
misunderstand me because you inferred something incorrectly. Or you could
misread something, or have a brain fart. Or you could willingly
misinterprete me in order to troll me.
> I believe I suggested that the problem might be how you were
> expressing yourself. I forget whether you blew it off or just
> ignored it.
Again - the problem is that not *THAT* you misunderstood me - it's that you
*INSISTED* that your misunderstandment took precedence over my
clarifications. That's where you're being disingenious. If you think I am
being unclear, or if I see you misunderstand something, I am happy to
clarify what I meant, at all times. And I don't think of less of you for
having to do that. That doesn't irritate me at all. Misunderstandings
happen *all the time* in written media.
> > > > Sandman:
> > > > You making claims about what I want:
> > >
> > > > "That is simply not the case. I saw the film before I read the
> > > > book, and the emotional state of Katniss was clear at each
> > > > point throughout the movie. They are all present, they just
> > > > aren't done in some over-the-top fashion you have convinced
> > > > yourself they should be." / Paul S. Person - 12/01/2014
> > >
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > Your desires were clearly expressed: you believe that Katniss
> > > should show /externally/ in the film, the emotion she shows
> > > /internally/ in the book. The result, as I have noted before,
> > > would /not be Katniss/.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > Which is an incorrect conclusion and also not substantiation for
> > your claim that *I* think they should be done in "some
> > over-the-top fashion".
>
> And yet the emotions you recognize are very strong and may be, to
> some, over the top.
That they are "to some" over the top, is *NOT* substantiation for your
incorrect claim that *I* think they should be done in "some over-the-top-
fashion".
Support your claim, or retract it.
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > And your failure to pick up on the Elf-Dwarf love story in the
> > > second and third Hobbit films until it became so obvious that
> > > the slice of cheese in /Diary of a Wimpy Kid/ would have noticed
> > > it supports the theory that you are blind to emotions that are
> > > in any way subtle.
> >
> > Sandman:
> > What. The. Fuck? I am going to ask you to support that I have
> > supposedly "failed" to "pick up" on this love story? I can
> > support the exact opposite, but it is now on your shoulders to
> > support this outrageous claim *or* retract it.
>
> You asked for it ... from 12/15/14 1126AM:
> <me>
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > I would, however, point out that she abandoned her post, refused
> > > a direct order from a superior officer (Legolas), and abandoned
> > > said officer -- all to follow and save Kili from the Morgul
> > > blade -- in the second film.
> <you>
> > Sandman:
> > Which is a far cry from "true love", and could all be ascribed to
> > her feeling that he doesn't deserve to die coupled with the fact
> > that Thranduil doesn't seem to want her around either way. It
> > would have been another matter all together if she was already
> > betrothed to Legolas and they in turn was not in love with each
> > other, the the events on screen would have more meaning. As it
> > is, she's an elf that fancies Legolas, but Legolas father doesn't
> > approve and she meets this nice dwarve dude that has some
> > unfortune that she wants to help him with. Bam, true love!
>
> You failed to pick up on it. Instead, you made excuses for not
> believing it. Any excuse, it appears, is better than actually paying
> attention to the story.
What the hell is wrong with you? This is me questioning the sudden "true
love" turn of events, not me "missing" that there was chemistry between
Tauriel and Kili. This was written in a thread about the third movie - and
how the hell am I supposed to have "failed to picked up" something by that
time? All events were known to us, and this was me questioning the "true
love" part of their rather quick relationship.
> And your "Bam, true love!" also ignores the continuation of this
> part of the story in the third film -- if nothing else, the Parting
> at the Lake should have been noticeable.
Again - I wrote that *after* having seen the third movie.
> And I would like to point out that "true love" is your own
> interpretation, based on your own refusal to notice the preliminary
> parts of the story. It is not in the film. At least, not in the
> film(s) I saw.
Not at all - the words "true love" is directly from the film, and I was
merely pointing out that the characters had not been given enough time to
develop any supposed "true love". Again you misunderstood me and are
claiming your misinterpretation is the only valid one.
> I still haven't made my mind up on that earlier issue. Yes, you
> appear to have forgotten this exchange. But it has been so long that
> anyone may have forgotten it. The manager was forgetting things
> almost as soon as she said them.
It is clear that you are trying to bend things to fit your preconcieved
notion of things. Your claim remains unsubstantiated and should thus be
retracted.
> As further evidence that you are not paying strict attention to the
> films, I offer this exchange from 12/15/14 0105AM:
> <me>
> > > Paul S. Person:
> > > I forgot to ask: does Galadriel awaken Gandalf with a kiss, as
> > > she appears to do in the trailer? Have PJ & accomplices been
> > > overdosing on Disney animation?
> >
> <you>
> > Sandman:
> > I don't... think so, not that I can remember. But she does cradle
> > him and speak to him softly to wake him. Not really lovingly like
> > that.
>
> The film I saw showed her kissing him on the forehead, just as she
> does in the trailer. But this is a minor point, and perhaps you were
> distracted by something else at the time. After all, it does take a
> certain amount of dedication to pay strict attention to a film.
I have a very good film memory, actually, but I was unsure about this at
the time.
> <I'm stopping here, this is getting out of hand>
You should stop BEFORE you make moronic claims you can't support, not after
you're being asked to support them. At that point, you should either
support them (which you never have done, not one single time) or retract
them (which you never have done, not one single time).
--
Sandman[.net]