Why do people only notice the BAD points of your video?

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:31 pm

Savia wrote: If it's a simple enough mistake that you made it, it's a simple enough mistake that others might reasonably not catch it. As I have yet to see any reasonability from you in this thread, I suppose that might not be surprising.

I can highly recommend the 'preview' feature for checking you made no accidents in posting.

Making a mistake as far as the mechanics of posting is one thing, making a mistake because you simply weren't paying attention TO THE CONTENT of what is being argued is something completely different. Anyone paying attention TO THE CONTENT would not have made that mistake. For me, I was *SO* focused on content, that the mechanics of posting took a back seat.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:35 pm

Fine, so I quoted the wrong person for the last statement. ^_^ Let's try that again.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
TIME does equate to quality...

The first stance.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
...the aspect of time and how it's usually an essential part of what makes "good" art.

Now you make exceptions. So...if time is not always an essential part of what makes "good" art, then that means there are cases where time is *not* part of what makes good art. In which case, you cannot say
"Time equals quality" because you're using...

...how did you say this to Willow a while back...?

Definitive language.

Say time 'usually' equals quality all you want and few people will argue. And since that's what you're now saying, there isn't anything to argue about. The only problem was earlier when you didn't allow for exceptions to that rule.

AbsoluteDestiny · Post by **AbsoluteDestiny** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:36 pm

No amount of time will improve your argument.

SSJVegita0609 · Post by **SSJVegita0609** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:37 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote: No, that was reality. If some of you are so utterly fucking retarded that you can't even remember what the person RIGHT BEFORE ME said...wow...what the fuck are you even doing here? Serious, go find a Pokemon thread, I think that'd be more your speed.

That was a bit better, but Pokemon is too old nowadays to be considered a n00bish fad. Naruto maybe... I dunno...

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
How about I just expect less next time, that way I won't be so surprised.
Maybe, but then you'd deny yourself the chance to get more people pissed.

Well not when your audience is too stupid to tell the difference anyway. `, )

OMG YOURE TEH WITTAY! `, )

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:37 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
Savia wrote: If it's a simple enough mistake that you made it, it's a simple enough mistake that others might reasonably not catch it. As I have yet to see any reasonability from you in this thread, I suppose that might not be surprising.

I can highly recommend the 'preview' feature for checking you made no accidents in posting.
Making a mistake as far as the mechanics of posting is one thing, making a mistake because you simply weren't paying attention TO THE CONTENT of what is being argued is something completely different. Anyone paying attention TO THE CONTENT would not have made that mistake. For me, I was *SO* focused on content, that the mechanics of posting took a back seat.

Ok, I bow to your capital letters and refusal to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to a good discussion. You win.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:43 pm

Arigatomyna wrote:Fine, so I quoted the wrong person for the last statement. ^_^ Let's try that again.

It was more than that, you weren't paying attention to the content of what was being argued, you were only paying attention for the purpose of trying to "prove me wrong" or "get back at me". In reality, you probably don't have a single clue as to what any of us in this thread is even arguing about, only that you want to try and "prove me wrong" for whatever failing reason.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
TIME does equate to quality...

The first stance.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
...the aspect of time and how it's usually an essential part of what makes "good" art.

Now you make exceptions.
[/quote]

I have made no such exceptions, you are trying to compare two completely seperate and unrelated thoughts. In the first one I am taking about quality in and of itself and how time is a necesary part of the equation. In the second though I am talking about what is considered "good art", not what is quality.

Quality != "good art"

When I was talking about quality I was speaking more from an objective standpoint, when I was talking about "good art" I was speaking from from a subjective standpoint.

*shakes head*

I swear, sometimes arguing with people on this board is like trying to argue against high school kids...of course now that I think about it, most of you probably are, so I guess that would explain it. In the future I'll try and go a lil slower and keep things more narrow. I realize that most forms of public education keep debates and arguments pretty linear, I'll try to be more straight forward, wouldn't want to confuse anybody with too many "conflicting" thoughts all at once...

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:51 pm

Savia wrote: Ok, I bow to your capital letters and refusal to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to a good discussion. You win.

I'm all for a productive argument, I just can't stand the bandwagon humpers who try and jump on in some internet "vengence" induced run of stupidity. In the big picture, there is no definitive right and wrong, nobody really "wins" per say. But there is a big difference in contributing to the debate and trying to derail the debate for the sake of ego. Let me just make it perfectly clear to everyone right here and now though, I am not some all knowing visionary, I merely present counter arguments and opinions to the things you have said. Not so that you can agree or disagree with them, but simply so you can see another facet, another way of looking at things. Looking for "right" and "wrong", isn't gonna get you very far, at least that's what my experience has taught me.

Arigatomina · Post by **Arigatomina** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:54 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:It was more than that, you weren't paying attention to the content of what was being argued, you were only paying attention for the purpose of trying to "prove me wrong" or "get back at me". In reality, you probably don't have a single clue as to what any of us in this thread is even arguing about, only that you want to try and "prove me wrong" for whatever failing reason.

You really need to use the preview button more often. ^_^;;

Anyway, making assumptions about my thoughts or lack thereof doesn't make you look smarter, it just makes it look as though you resort to slander in the absence of a strong argument. Drop that and stick to the subject at hand and you won't seem so defensive. ^_^

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:I have made no such exceptions, you are trying to compare two completely seperate and unrelated thoughts. In the first one I am taking about quality in and of itself and how time is a necesary part of the equation. In the second though I am talking about what is considered "good art", not what is quality.

I see. The problem is you were unlcear with this before when you called on people to present you with examples of 'art' to try and disprove your time vs quality argument. If you make a distinction between quality and art, then why drag art into the discussion in the first place? Explain what is quality in an object that will allow us to discuss it - if you don't mean 'art' then what sort of objects (with quality) are you talking about?

quality != "good art"

When I was talking about quality I was speaking more from an objective standpoint, when I was talking about "good art" I was speaking from from a subjective standpoint.

Why make a distinction? From a subjective standpoint you think an art object made in a few hours is not 'good art.' From an objective standpoint you think something (something other than art - not a defined thing) lacks quality if it didn't require time to make. At least when you were talking about subjective judgement of art, you had concrete examples to use. You can't even refer to amvs now - not if you're making a dividing line between art and whatever it is you're talking about here.

*shakes head*

I swear, sometimes arguing with people on this board is like trying to argue against high school kids...of course now that I think about it, most of you probably are, so I guess that would explain it. In the future I'll try and go a lil slower and keep things more narrow. I realize that most forms of public education keep debates and arguments pretty linear, I'll try to be more straight forward, wouldn't want to confuse anybody with too many "conflicting" thoughts all at once...

Back to the slander. It really doesn't make me look bad if that's the intention. It makes your stance look weak - as if you have to resort to making your opponent look bad in order to pretend you have a strong argument.

If you have a good argument, make it. There's no need for insults or whining about the inferiority of those around you.

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:16 pm

Onideus_Mad_Hatter wrote:
Savia wrote: Ok, I bow to your capital letters and refusal to conduct yourself in a manner conducive to a good discussion. You win.
I'm all for a productive argument, I just can't stand the bandwagon humpers who try and jump on in some internet "vengence" induced run of stupidity. In the big picture, there is no definitive right and wrong, nobody really "wins" per say. But there is a big difference in contributing to the debate and trying to derail the debate for the sake of ego. Let me just make it perfectly clear to everyone right here and now though, I am not some all knowing visionary, I merely present counter arguments and opinions to the things you have said. Not so that you can agree or disagree with them, but simply so you can see another facet, another way of looking at things. Looking for "right" and "wrong", isn't gonna get you very far, at least that's what my experience has taught me.

To clarify: I attempted to start a discussion, not an argument. Arguing is rarely productive course of action and is not something that I enjoy partaking of. I feel that your remarks towards the members of the forum at large, some of which may be taken as insulting, are argument points, not necessary for a discussion about the role of time in the production of art. I have no wish to engage in an argument on this matter. I also feel that ambiguity in posts in inevitable in all cases, and taking the opinion that another user is insuffuciently intelligent and/or patient to read your posts as the only plausible explanation implies an attitude that does not wish to accept that there may be some flaw in your own post's clarity and presentation.

Onideus_Mad_Hatter · Post by **Onideus_Mad_Hatter** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:20 pm

Arigatomyna wrote:
You really need to use the preview button more often. ^_^;;

I care more about the content of the debate than I do about the mecahnics of posting.

I see. The problem is you were unlcear with this before when you called on people to present you with examples of 'art' to try and disprove your time vs quality argument. If you make a distinction between quality and art, then why drag art into the discussion in the first place?

First of all, it was never time vs quality, it was always time vs time (ie a long stretch of it as opposed to a very short instance).

In the earlier arguments I was refering to art that expands over more than one period of time. Basically art that stands the test of time, art that despite hundreds of years of advancement is still revered in awe and excitement. Later, the argument was shifted more towards current art, or art in the now (ie when The Matrix, SW, etc was brought up). None of those examples has yet to stand the test of time, maybe in a few hundred years we shall see, but not right now. After that point I was refering more to what is considered within the now as "good art".

Explain what is quality in an object that will allow us to discuss it - if you don't mean 'art' then what sort of objects (with quality) are you talking about?

I suppose I could bring up a truly perfect circle vs one that is not. Although in the current time period a circle that is not perfect maybe considered "good art", over the test of time, a circle that isn't perfect probably won't be. In most art forms there is a constant struggle between chaos and perfection and creating new forms of chaos and then trying to find perfection within them. But throughout history, perfection always seems to be the prevailing end to the constant motion. To take that which is raw and then to refine it into that which is perfect.

Why make a distinction? From a subjective standpoint you think an art object made in a few hours is not 'good art.' From an objective standpoint you think something (something other than art - not a defined thing) lacks quality if it didn't require time to make. At least when you were talking about subjective judgement of art, you had concrete examples to use. You can't even refer to amvs now - not if you're making a dividing line between art and whatever it is you're talking about here.

One thing I should probably bring up is that I do think time can be in some situations substituted for skill and various other factors. However when it's always an peak, meaning that while skill may be used to substitute time, when you combine both the maximum potential of skill WITH the maximum potential of time, it will weild the maximum amount of absolute perfection within the medium.

Also one of the reasons I'm not refering to AMVs much now is because the focus of the debate has kind of moved away from that and simply put, AMVs haven't been around long enough to be used an example in what I'm trying to convey.

Back to the slander. It really doesn't make me look bad if that's the intention. It makes your stance look weak - as if you have to resort to making your opponent look bad in order to pretend you have a strong argument.

If you have a good argument, make it. There's no need for insults or whining about the inferiority of those around you.

The point I was making is that there is no single argument. Maybe when you're on the high school debate team and you're lacking in experience and knowledge it's okay, but when you argue or debate against something like me you should fully expect to be doing it on multiple adpating levels and you should have enough sense and understanding to see WHERE those arguments evolve, HOW they evolved, and WHAT they evolved from. If you can't do that, just don't bother, cause I'm not interested in kickin it with teh high school debate team, I'm interested in a highly complex debate made up of arguments within arguments that can change and adapt after every post. I am not linear, I do not think in terms of right and wrong, my postions, ideals, thoughts and opinions can change just easily as I can change my shirt. If participating in a discussion like that isn't something you can handle, I would suggest you find another thread.