|
|
Post by Doctor Doom on Sept 19, 2007 14:55:08 GMT -5
It was NOT a straw man argument. I was indicating that it could not be used to say Mark Waid hated Civil War. No one had said that, nor am I claming they had, I was cutting off someone POTENTIALLY saying that. There's really no more to it than that. Lol C´mon Doom, you can´t be serious. So your whole debate with Tana and NP was just you trying to prevent anyone from saying Mark Waid didn´t like CW (what, at least partially, is what he said in the interview)? So now you start arguing before someone says something because potentially he/she may disagree with you? That´s really funny. It would be... if it were in any way what I said. No, but seriously, don't let such little things as "truth" or accuracy intrude upon your arguments, not that you or Balok have ever made this.. er... mistake before. I was arguing with tana because she implied Waid left an overall negative impression of Civil War. When in fact, as the evidence shows, he criticised parts of it and praised other parts. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Sept 19, 2007 15:25:01 GMT -5
Lol C´mon Doom, you can´t be serious. So your whole debate with Tana and NP was just you trying to prevent anyone from saying Mark Waid didn´t like CW (what, at least partially, is what he said in the interview)? So now you start arguing before someone says something because potentially he/she may disagree with you? That´s really funny. It would be... if it were in any way what I said. No, but seriously, don't let such little things as "truth" or accuracy intrude upon your arguments, not that you or Balok have ever made this.. er... mistake before. I was arguing with tana because she implied Waid left an overall negative impression of Civil War. When in fact, as the evidence shows, he criticised parts of it and praised other parts. Simple as that. Once again you attempting to argue an opinion as fact. That is you problem, you like to argue your opinion like it is a fact. Unfortuantly for all of us, opinions are not facts, the are our thoughts based on what we read or have seen. Personal, after reading what Waid, said, I would not take what he said as complements for CW, they seemed more like back handed insults. But once again all in the eye of the beholder. You have expressed your opinion, so have others. I sugest we all let it go. |
|
|
|
Post by The Night Phantom on Sept 20, 2007 0:06:02 GMT -5
I also recall Waid making some very negative comments about CW, particularly the way Cap was handled. Then you're incorrect. The only comments Waid has made about Civil War (and I follow him as one of my favourite writers) are that Marvel did a great job making it easy for new readers to get into, that he felt the villains won (He made that comment as a joke in the place I read it though, so that can be taken with a grain of salt), and that he absolutely hated the way Cap was handled at the very end. This certainly does not translate to "Mark Waid hated Civil War!" or anything like that. Nor did I say anyone had made such a comment, I was giving an example. So either you misread my post... or you are the one using said argument. An example. Hm. An example of what? If an example of Tana’s alleged incorrectness, then it’s still a straw-man argument. It was NOT a straw man argument. I was indicating that it could not be used to say Mark Waid hated Civil War. No one had said that, nor am I claming they had, I was cutting off someone POTENTIALLY saying that. There's really no more to it than that.  An example of what?
The implication is in your imagination. But since you feel that way, how about this. Every time you decry some work, we are to interpret your claim as meaning there is no exception whatsoever throughout the entirety of the work in question. For example, if you claim that JMS has mischaracterized Tony Stark in this comic or that, your claim will be found to be “inaccurate” if there is any correct characterization within the work—for instance, if it turns out JMS characterizes Tony Stark as having a wealthy background or being personally acquainted with Janet Van Dyne. Of course, under this plan, you can pre-empt claims of inaccuracy simply by giving a full and complete catalog of the counterevidence at the time of your original claim—you know, for fairness’ sake. Of course you yourself know this to be ridiculous and not my claim at all. Congratulations; you figured it out: I did not truly believe that you would care to be held to the same standards that you ad hoc prescribe for others. Not in the interview excerpt Tana quoted. Maybe you’re aware of some other commentary you have yet to disclose; but the comments quoted in this thread do not state that the particular Cap-characterization problem was the sole Cap-characterization problem of the limited series. Waid might think it is the only one or he might not—the aforementioned comments do not say. (I’m relying on normal interpretations, not theories that require a critic to fully and completely catalog all good or bad parts of a work he’s evaluating.) She didn’t. You invented it.
You have expressed your opinion, so have others. I sugest we all let it go. Sorry, BK, I have a hard time accepting bullying. Besides, Doom hasn’t yet expressed an opinion as to what the “example” was an example of. I’m hoping it’s good—he’s had a couple of days to make something plausible! |
|
|
|
Post by Black Knight on Sept 20, 2007 7:40:50 GMT -5
I understand, his brand of posting bothers me to, but I have learned there is not point bother with it. People that post like doom, never admit they might be wrong, or even that there may be a different opinion for his. You run into them all the time.
There arn't that many on this board, but a few other comic boards are crawling with them.
|
|
An example of what?