Bad…and I'm a real fan of dystopias
-
VicBooth — 13 years ago(March 25, 2013 06:14 AM)
Nice try Gandhi but calm people are prone to brevity.
You mistake general aggression for bitterness, just like you mistake your indignation for my arrogance.
I will admit though, that I admire your instinct to attack my credibility rather than my argument.
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
It's just a bit too amateur for my purposes. -
RetroNewWave — 13 years ago(March 01, 2013 01:43 PM)
You're right in my opinion, but it is not a matter opinion in what fits the requirements of a dystopian film. And I personally believe there has to be some requirements so it can be classified as one. I feel like the movie failed in what it tried to bring to the table. I think Christian Bale could have just been Montag in a Fahrenheit 451 movie. I'm not really passionate to get into an argument and the film in weary in my memory, but I just wanted to say that you seem like the least pretentious of everyone here.
-
StrangeSwami — 12 years ago(September 28, 2013 10:50 AM)
The ability, or inclination for that matter, to criticise something isn't predicated on one's ability to "compile" something better than it. It merely points out an professional's failure in his/her profession.
I also don't enjoy having my original argument syntax obfuscated, which elaboration always results in.- a
- enjoying this?
Pretentious Moi?
-
CindersOJuniper — 13 years ago(January 25, 2013 01:04 AM)
I couldn't help but take an interest in the conversation, because both parties' responses were so fervent, but one of the, let's say 'actors', seems to have claimed a premature 'victory' when the argument over the film in question (Equilibrium) was far from over, and in fact, had hardly begun, in my humble opinion.
I must say, notwithstanding my 'opinion' of Equilibrium, as I'm going to be as objective as possible about both the arguments and the film, that VicBooth is not concerned with the film Equilibrium and in fact seems to have no thoughts on it whatsoever. He tells what the movie took advantage of and what it 'cashed in' on, what it betrayed, the depth of its 'failure', etc. He even provides a list of movies that are superior to it, in what way we aren't told. In other words, he talked around it, above it, through it, but never from within it; he mentioned nothing of Equilibrium's plot, though saying there were plot holes, nothing of the characters, and no mention of a story ever being told or thoughts on that story.
VicBooth's sole mention of something from the movie, namely how "citizens getting burnt alive for not following petty rules fits in it" [the definition of tyranny] fails to take into account the very first paradox of the film, which is that these supposedly cruel or tyrannical measures are taken in the name of peace and freedom, for the purpose of eradicating 'man's inhumanity to man', so that order is kept and maintained through this absolute law of prohibited feeling, and that maintaining this strict law required even stricter powers and government training programs in the service of that law, namely the Grammaton Cleric. At this point the rule isn't 'petty' as Vic says but the very opposite: necessary. VicBooth's one mention of the movie also fails to take into account the greater paradox that the man, or machine, in charge of enforcing the law, namely Preston, happens to be the only force capable of overthrowing that same law.
Even stranger, his reply was addressed to nijabhaava, yet never once did he show how any of the conflicts brought up by nijabhaava were used in the film,(neither by the director, the actors, a particular shot, nothing). What we're shown by VicBooth is not why these certain ideas fail to adhere to an argument, but rather their purpose IN an already structured, relevant, & 'human' argument:
"But in the structured world of language and human communication 'tyranny' does have a definition, as does 'dystopia'. This is mainly because they were created as symbols for non-physical concepts so they necessitate stable meanings."
How reciting a dictionary that no one has ever seen or heard of helps one understand a particular film, I do not know. Objectively now, one can say that films, just like stories, just like theatre, and literature, employ words and ideas and images, in film through everything we see and don't see on the screen. Vicbooth never did talk about anything on the screen, nor about any movie, to be honest I'm actually hard-pressed to say what he talked about.
And if Vicbooth could explain the meaning of this, I would appreciate it:
"And yes I am addicted to definitions as they are the only true way people attempt to transcend their personal isolation and create a shared meaning of spirit and existence and an unyielding battle against the darkness of social duplicity. (see, its annoying when youre on the receiving end of that)."
These terms are taken for granted, in other words unclear and unaccounted for: 'personal isolation', 'shared meaning of spirit and existence', and 'social duplicity'. One cannot deduce the meaning of this from what has been said so far, in fact writing like this begs more questions than it answers.
I'm not siding with anyone or agreeing or disagreeing with anyone, as should be clear, I'm merely upset that discussions about movies should become so easily distracted. -
VicBooth — 13 years ago(January 28, 2013 01:34 AM)
Firstly, please don't refer to me in the 3rd person when directly replying to me. It comes across as condescending and overly-academic.
Secondly, the entire body of text is directed against me so you can stop thinly veiling passive aggression with objectivity (despite how clear you wanted it to be).
I avoid systematic points of detraction from a film as they normally just incite digression and petty debate, which I don't have the time or patience for. Equlibrium's failures are so glaringly obvious to anyone with credible critical faculties (of which you're clearly not in possession of, just an inert vocabulary). But I can see you really want to get down to the nitty-gritties of cinema mediocre:- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
- The movies directing was sub-par and had a decidedly B-grade quality to it: If you want an analysis of the shots, discuss a better film. Although despite your criticism, I dont think you have the technical knowledge to discuss them.
- All the characters are one-dimensional and experience zero character development: smug Taye Diggs dies smug, haughty Angus Macfadyen dies only slightly less haughty and even the talented and mercifully immolated Emily Watson is treated as a purely symbolic love interest.
- There are chasm sized plot holes: The gun swap, how immensely obtuse Preston is as to how suspicious his superiors and peers are of him while being seemingly incredibly observant, how almost all of the characters (apart from Preston, ironically) show a broad spectrum of emotions most of the film (including: fear, horror, humour and smug self-satisfaction).
- The action sequences were a contrived and superfluous: Gun butting a bunch of guys to death who have helmets on (no silencers or knives in the future apparently)? Gun fighting statistics would make it a bit more unlikely you'd get shot but certainly wouldn't allow you to stand in the middle of a room and avoid any gunfire (human beings have judgements which adapt to differing circumstances).
Although probably the biggest flaw to your argument: you seem to think that a film like Equilibrium measures a complete and comprehensive knowledge of its contents to properly criticise.
It's a shame you're somewhat confused about so many basic things and yet so ardent about them. With a film that has already has a convincing degree of public opinion against it, the burden of proving its merit really falls to its fans (that's you, in case you thought you were being subtle about it).
It's the same way I don't have empirically prove Gigli was a bad film, chocolate cake tastes nice or Stalin was an evil dude. There may be arguments against it but those certainly dont belong to the majority (in case youre wondering that doesnt mean you belong to the cultured intellectual minority, which you can probably tell by the company your opinion keeps on this board).
Here's the part where your point really lost steam: There are almost no tyrannical governments (both real and fictional) who are intentionally malevolent. The premise always being that control over the people is for their own well-being as its seen as "necessary". That was just lazy pedantry really.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dystopia
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tyranny
I love how you lament that the films discussion has fallen to semantics, then argue semantics with me.
I wrote that paragraph to parody nijabhaavas sophist and redundant writing style, which you failed to notice in your objective commentary on the argument and which I quite obviously pointed out (you even quoted the parenthesis in which I pointed it out)
And VicBooth did recognise the greater paradox (not really, rather: irony) that the man in charge of enforcing the law happens to be the only force capable of overthrowing that law. Mainly because its almost directly lifted from the plot summary of the movie (another lazy one). An actual paradox would be: an intelligent discussion on Equilibrium. One Im currently suffering under.
Whenever I feel Im done here I get a new user with a slightly better vocabulary bringing up the EXACT same points again. Its like going up against some Ignorance Hydra. CindersOJuniper should be aware that even well-articulated ideas are betrayed by the stupidity of their content.
Ill leave you with Christian Bales thoughts on the film (and Reign of Fire):
''Um, they were experiments for me. And I hope I make more experiments in the future, but more successful experiments.''
-
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(June 14, 2013 05:53 PM)
Ha.You're one of those people who talk a lot but say nothing.You are no different from the idiots posting messages like "OMG this movie was so fu**ing bad",the only difference is that you use long paragraphs and heavy vocabulary in a weak attempt to add some sort of weight to your opinion.
Not once do you explain why you hate the movie,you merely argue about the semantics of the words tyranny and dystopia and what genre the movie belongs in.A normal person would post something along the lines of "I really didn't like this movie for the following reasons"- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
Firstly,Equilibrium has no problem admitting it is dystopian,however the dystopia like a lot of things in the movie is a paradox as everything is done foe the apparent good of mankind.
Secondly,just because a story has similar tones and outlines to another story does not make it a cheap imitation.If that's true then every movie about space or aliens is a copy of Aliens.There's nothing wrong about being influenced by other pieces of art while making your own.You mistake influence and similarity with being derivative. - The movies directing was sub-par and had a decidedly B-grade quality to it: If you want an analysis of the shots, discuss a better film. Although despite your criticism, I dont think you have the technical knowledge to discuss them.
The direction was excellent and though some scenes did have a B-grade quality to them that does not make the movie itself B-grade.The direction focussed on the story and themes rather than action.There are only two major fights in the entire movie and even the final fight is extremely short,there's no cheesy face off between Preston And Brandt or the Father. - All the characters are one-dimensional and experience zero character development: smug Taye Diggs dies smug, haughty Angus Macfadyen dies only slightly less haughty and even the talented and mercifully immolated Emily Watson is treated as a purely symbolic love interest.
You mention that all characters are one dimensional yet name only three.Hmm.You know not every character needs to go through a journey only to reach an emotional epiphany.If you'll notice most people in real life too are one dimensional.Emily Watson was hardly a love interest for Preston,he simply felt pity and guilt for her and she reminded him of his wife and how he had let her burn.Did you find Preston's character to be one dimensional too?Did he have the same emotions and views throughout the entire film? - There are chasm sized plot holes: The gun swap, how immensely obtuse Preston is as to how suspicious his superiors and peers are of him while being seemingly incredibly observant, how almost all of the characters (apart from Preston, ironically) show a broad spectrum of emotions most of the film (including: fear, horror, humour and smug self-satisfaction).
Chasm sized?Really?Only thing chasm sized is your incompetence of seeing the beauty of a great film. Anyway let's get to it.
The gun swap is clearly explained in the movie's FAQ page.There is no plot hole there.Preston's superiors are not suspicious of him,only Brandt is and Preston is aware of it,he is aware that Brandt suspects something but he does not know for sure.So he does the only thing he can,brush off his suspicions.You miss the point of the movie (not surprisingly though).The drug never eradicates emotions,it merely suppresses them and it does not even suppress them all,it only suppresses harmful emotions such as rage but as a consequence emotions like love are suppressed too and so is empathy but as explained in the movie,that is the price they are willing to pay.Where was fear or "horror" displayed?Also the two main villains are the only one who express maximum emotions and it's quite obvious by the end that they were not on the drug.And do you really think Preston didn't show any emotions?Is that your weak attempt at a sarcastic way to say you found Bale's acting bad? - The action sequences were a contrived and superfluous: Gun butting a bunch of guys to death who have helmets on (no silencers or knives in the future apparently)? Gun fighting statistics would make it a bit more unlikely you'd get shot but certainly wouldn't allow you to stand in the middle of a room and avoid any gunfire (human beings have judgements which adapt to differing circumstances).
The movie invented a whole new style of action never seen in any movie before or since,something so obvious and simple.Guns and Kung-Fu.The director even explained it in a satisfactory manner via statistics and predictions.The action was cool,unique while not being over the top.How does it matter if the guards have helmets on?Are you suggesting that bullets can't break through glass helmets?And i'd like to see
- The film is derivative of previous DYSTOPIAN FILMS, mainly Farenheit 451 which its almost directly based on (a novel and film which has no problem admitting to being dystopian): Being derivative is a specific criticism, as I can see you missed that last time.
-
the_la_baker — 12 years ago(June 17, 2013 11:20 AM)
Just like equilibrium, your "rebuttal" could only be dumber if it were longer. Don't try to defend this film. It's impossible and makes you seem foolish and uneducated.
This film is almost a perfect idiot test. Just look at the people defending it. They can't understand the most simple concepts, like no emotions would either make people catatonic or psychopaths, literally, yet profess insight on some deep meaning or originality. It a movie of completely stolen ideas that were executed laughably bad. The ideas that were even slightly original were astoundingly stupid. The vast majority of the world knows this film sucks, stop fighting it. -
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(June 27, 2013 07:48 AM)
So you're basically saying that this movie is impossible to defend because YOU found it dumb and because your dinosaur brain couldn't see through it?You didn't even get that the film did not take place in a world with NO emotions.You invented a plot hole in your head and ignore any rebuttal to it to make yourself feel superior.Wow.
BTW the vast majority of people like this movie,that's why it has a you know 7.6 on IMDb. -
the_la_baker — 12 years ago(June 27, 2013 01:03 PM)
The movie sucks. IMDB has a high rating because of fan boys like you. Ask around in real life(if you know anyone there), its considered a stinker. Check out rotten tomatoes.
You can like the movie despite its abundant flaws and stupidity, thats fine. Just stop trying to convince people it is a coherent and/or profound film. It is not.
I like bad movies myself, like Super Troopers. I found it to be very entertaining, but there is no doubt it is a bad film. I don't need to try and justify why I like it by saying its a good movie and doesn't suck, I like it for what it is, a low budget silly comedy with poor pacing and a very weak plot/story arch. You should like equilibrium for what it is, a rip off of almost every classic sci-fi concept repackaged with a insane premise and a "new"(nonsensical) fighting style, not what it isn't, A good film.
[If someone left ''1984,'' ''Fahrenheit 451,'' ''Brave New World,'' ''Gattaca'' and the Sylvester Stallone potboilers ''Judge Dredd'' and ''Demolition Man'' out in the sun and threw the runny glop onto a movie screen, it would still be a better picture than ''Equilibrium,'' a movie that could be stupider only if it were longer.] -"FILM REVIEW; Preventing World War IV By Outlawing All Emotion
By ELVIS MITCHELL
Published: December 06, 2002"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/movies/film-review-preventing-world-war-iv-by-outlawing-all-emotion.html -
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(June 27, 2013 03:24 PM)
The movie sucks. IMDB has a high rating because of fan boys like you. Ask around in real life(if you know anyone there), its considered a stinker. Check out rotten tomatoes.
Rotten Tomatoes seriously?Is this your first time on the internet?No one with a brain takes Rotten Tomatoes scores seriously.Their critics are idiots.Some of the best movies have a low Rotten Tomatoes rating.BTW it has a 82% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 8.2 user score on Metacritic and a 7.6 here on IMDb.
So yeah this movie rocks,that's the general opinion.So it's actually you who's in the minority and it's you who's convincing people that this movie is bad not me.People are already convinced that this movie rocks.
Oh yes i'm a fan boy and i have a worldwide network of millions of other fan boys and when the movie came out we all stormed IMDb and wrote positive reviews.It's a global conspiracy since this movie is obviously so bad since YOU hate it.Seriously how much more pathetic can you get?
I like bad movies myself, like Super Troopers.
Super Troopers is a bad movie?Are you kidding me?Everyone loves Super Troopers!
I guess you should stick to comedies.Science Fiction movies that make you think,require a little leap of faith and require you to use your brain and connect the dots would be brushed off by your neanderthal brain as stupid.Mindless comedies fit you perfectly.
I like it for what it is, a low budget silly comedy with poor pacing and a very weak plot/story arch. You should like equilibrium for what it is, a rip off of almost every classic sci-fi concept repackaged with a insane premise and a "new"(nonsensical) fighting style, not what it isn't, A good film.
Low Budget?Do you know what that means?The movie easily has a budget of 15 million +.Do you know the difference between the words rip off and inspired?By your logic every movie about space or aliens is a "rip off" of Alien.You name 6 movies that equilibrium apparently ripped off!6!.Do you seriously not see how stupid that is? -
VicBooth — 12 years ago(July 11, 2013 06:13 AM)
Have you ever thought of arguing conceptual instead of pedantically? You might actually be able to convince someone other than yourself that your opinion has any validity at all.
Anyway, While it is true that popular opinion dictates norms and that if enough people eat a crap sandwich it can be considered an actual dish, there is another tier of opinion sets that are considered more influential than others. This is because taste is essentially biased by class and social division.
It's the reason why Crocs reached $1 billion in sales but are still the ugliest shoes in the world, why Pitbull is a very successful artist who everyone hates and why Equilibrium is a truly awful film that has a rabid following (many -read:all- of whom have posed way better arguments in its defence than you).
This concept is known as the cultural hegemony.
And if you wanted I could write you a dissertation on why Manos: Hands of Fate is really a misunderstood masterpiece that's a gripping allegory for sexual maturity and paternal defiance and probably make it far more compelling than your collection of straw man arguments, a person just has to watch it to no that's not true.
But that's taste though. The more your try to rationalise your opinion, the more it seems like you no clue what it means (I'm not using the royal you by the way. I mean you). -
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(July 12, 2013 06:06 PM)
If you would untwist your panties you'd notice that most of the time,rather than arguing opinions,i've argued facts.You claim that the movie is filled with plot holes and i simply point out how there are none.But when you've made up your mind that the movie sucks and is full of plot holes you'd do anything to defend your position.I don't expect you to realize the ridiculousness of your claims since admitting one was wrong is something that takes courage.
"You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough." -
VicBooth — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 01:47 AM)
Retconning a plausible explanation for a plot hole that wasn't properly illustrated in the film cant be included so everything on the FAQ page is entirely inadmissible. That's the basic storytelling, really. Otherwise one could use a wild explanation to solve any plot hole.
But even Dostoevsky-like plot cogency wouldn't save it from being awful.
Secondly,just because a story has similar tones and outlines to another story does not make it a cheap imitation.If that's true then every movie about space or aliens is a copy of Aliens.
You've confused sub-genres with a plotline.
The direction was excellent.
You've displayed nothing but a complete ignorance with everything to do with film, so you're opinion is patently unqualified. Instead I'll trust the fact that Kurt Wimmer only been allowed to helm one other film after that, which was universally panned by critics and the public. But it still broke even because of "people" like you.
And his writing has yet to receive even the smallest hint of acclaim from any film body. His Hollywood failures are only beaten by Troy Duffy.
You mention that all characters are one dimensional yet name only three.
Well 4 (as you clearly quoted). But yeah, those are the principal characters (another storytelling basic) and yes they must experience development, which is actually a different word from epiphany (last storytelling basic, I hope).
The drug never eradicates emotions,it merely suppresses them and it does not even suppress them all,it only suppresses harmful emotions such as rage but as a consequence emotions like love are suppressed too and so is empathy but as explained in the movie,that is the price they are willing to pay
That, incredibly long, sentence is contradictory. It doesn't suppress all emotion but all emotions are subsequently suppressed? So it doesn't suppress say, "joy, love, and elation"?
The drug suppresses emotion to the degree that his superior find him missing the presence of his wife suspicious. This is called Ego-attachment and its quite a deep psychological layer. Sufficed to say that this is a suppression level that would eradicate expressions of surprise and alarm. So it would be out of place for a guard to say something like "Oh beep
Also the two main villains are the only one who express maximum emotions and it's quite obvious by the end that they were not on the drug.
Loved this one, loved it. Because it pointed out yet another absurd plot hole: A sense offender superior enlists the help of another sense offender cleric to coax a potential superstar sense offender cleric to rebel and subsequently weed out an underground movement of sense offenders?
The movie invented a whole new style of action never blah blah blah
Straw man argument (look that up). I don't know what I would've done in that situation but "spring tiny nailheads from my gun butts and start pistol whipping a bunch of helmet wearing cops until they die" would've been last on any compiled list. This is dissonance is called: plot congruity.
Well your opinion (that Equilibrium sucked) doesn't belong in the majority either.
See my entire previous post and Kurt Wimmer's joke of a career after this film. Even Uwe Boll did better.
The rest of your points go over how your plot interpretations differ from mine and misguided attempts at exploring semantics, which doesn't speak to the films merits at all so those are all void.
Now that I've empirically proven you wrong (against my better judgement) maybe you can actually argue with me on an intellectual level so this can be a challenge for me. Although I imagine your next post will resemble your other tireless attempts to veil your opinion and description of the movie as actual arguments. Although I imagine that's more a product of ignorance than courage. -
Hallucinogen-X — 12 years ago(July 16, 2013 04:17 AM)
Retconning a plausible explanation for a plot hole that wasn't properly illustrated in the film cant be included so everything on the FAQ page is entirely inadmissible. That's the basic storytelling, really. Otherwise one could use a wild explanation to solve any plot hole.
The FAQ clearly states that there were parts of the movie which clearly explained the apparent plot hole but unfortunately they could not make it to the final cut.
However the FAQ clearly explains how even without those scenes,there is no plot hole,it just requires a bit more explanation.It's not a "wild explanation".
You've confused sub-genres with a plotline.
Oh really?Equilibrium is clearly inspired by many movies such as Fahrenheit 451,it does not copy their plot,it copies their themes.There are similarities in plot with other movies but that does not make it a rip-off.Like i said it it's a rip off,then every movie about aliens is a rip-off of Aliens.
You've displayed nothing but a complete ignorance with everything to do with film, so you're opinion is patently unqualified.
Yes,because the great Vicbooth says so.
Instead I'll trust the fact that Kurt Wimmer only been allowed to helm one other film after that, which was universally panned by critics and the public. But it still broke even because of "people" like you.And his writing has yet to receive even the smallest hint of acclaim from any film body. His Hollywood failures are only beaten by Troy Duffy.
Kurt Wimmer has been the writer of some great movies which are both publicly and critically acclaimed including movies like Law Abiding Citizen,Salt,The Thomas Crown Affair.What were you saying about displaying complete ignorance again?
Well 4 (as you clearly quoted). But yeah, those are the principal characters (another storytelling basic) and yes they must experience development, which is actually a different word from epiphany (last storytelling basic, I hope).
The characters were developed just fine by every standard of character development especially that of Preston.Plus it's a movie where people don't feel emotions.Where exactly did you find lack of character development,what according to you would develop characters?
That, incredibly long, sentence is contradictory. It doesn't suppress all emotion but all emotions are subsequently suppressed? So it doesn't suppress say, "joy, love, and elation"?
No all emotions are not suppressed unless by your definition all emotions include happiness,sadness,anger and love.
The drug suppresses emotion to the degree that his superior find him missing the presence of his wife suspicious. This is called Ego-attachment and its quite a deep psychological layer.
Missing someone shows love and empathy,emotions that the drug suppresses.Hence why the guards find it odd.The drug does not suppresses emotions like shock and fear.
Loved this one, loved it. Because it pointed out yet another absurd plot hole: A sense offender superior enlists the help of another sense offender cleric to coax a potential superstar sense offender cleric to rebel and subsequently weed out an underground movement of sense offenders?
Congratulations.You have now officially proven that you didn't understand jack beep about the movie and hence think it's stupid.
The point is control.Nobody questions the authority of Father and he lives like a king controlling a population of robot like people devoid of emotions.So it's pretty obvious why a resistance of people who feel emotions and are hell bent on making everyone feel emotions would be a threat to his power.
Straw man argument (look that up)
A straw man argument is when a person blows his opponent's claims out of proportion to make them sound ridiculous.I didn't even look that up.
I merely stated a fact here.The movie did invent Gun-Kata.No other movie has mixed guns,probability and martial arts.I'm not blowing anything out of proportion.Gun-Kata is pretty cool and that is the general opinion.You might think it's stupid but that's your opinion.Maybe you should try educating yourself on logical fallacies.
Now that I've empirically proven you wrong (against my better judgement) maybe you can actually argue with me on an intellectual level so this can be a challenge for me
You can't prove opinions "empirically" wrong or right.You are arguing that the direction sucked,the characters were one dimensional and you think you have actually "empirically" proven me wrong.But i understand that like most of your talk,this word was added just to add weight to a hollow statement.
Although I imagine your next post will resemble your other tireless attempts to veil your opinion and description of the movie as actual arguments. Although I imagine that's more a product of ignorance than courage.
And i imagine that your next post will resemble your other tireless attempts to veil your failure to understand the movie as a plot hole.That is true ignorance and it's foolish of me to even think that it's possible for someone so deluded and cement -
Fire God — 12 years ago(September 22, 2013 03:30 AM)
"That, incredibly long, sentence is contradictory."
That incredibly stupid sentence is (embarrassingly) grammatically incorrect. You should feel lucky someone doesn't correct more of your mistakes, because you have a TON of them. Next time you feel the need to chastise people regarding their writing, please keep it to yourself, okay? You've humiliated yourself quite enough. -
xskingsx — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 06:08 PM)
I wish VicBooth had the decency to share his opinions without being such an antagonistic, belittling and pretentious beep beep That is all.
I added one comma in there for the grammar Nazi police hahaha : D
