What would you change about the show?

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

Darkstream,

Stop being an ass. 

You have NOT given factual evidence to support any of your opinions (which is indeed what your arguments to date in this thread have been) on the quality of the show or any examples of what constitutes factually good writing, character development, etc. All you have done in this thread is take the high road, disregarding everyone else's arguments as opinions and stating your own as facts. This is not the case.

You say GoT is not a good tv show. I disagree. While the show has many weaknesses it also has many strengths and it overall a higher quality product than the majority of garbage on television.

Virtually NO tv show is completely consistent with writing or plot or character development throughout its run. There's frequently actions performed by characters that do not make sense with their overall character or response to things now that in previous episodes the show may have established the character had a different disposition towards. It's much easier to achieve that consistency in a book than in a long running tv series. Long running book series have the same issue though too.

We also need to remember the simple fact the we as humans ourselves do not always do things that make sense or are in line with our core character or beliefs. It is not unreasonable to think that fictional humans may also do the same.

First off, calling someone an ass is quite unnecessary, and against forum rules. If there is any consistency in the moderation on this forum, you should be receiving a suspension shortly for such a remark. I recommend you edit your post before that happens.

Secondly, you're attempting to build strawman arguments, along with ignoring much of what I have said, and what I have explained in defense of your accusations. I don't feel the need, nor do I have the desire to reiterate the exact same points I've tried arguing to Dragon in the North with yet someone else, who obviously isn't interested in listening to what I actually say, or discussing this subject from an objective standpoint.

And third, I've already stated to DitN that I grow weary of such pointless discussions. Judging from your two posts, I see discussing this with you would be no different. Sorry, but I'm not interested, especially considering the level of class you have shown with your opening statement.

[Gaz0680]

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

First off, calling someone an ass is quite unnecessary, and against forum rules. If there is any consistency in the moderation on this forum, you should be receiving a suspension shortly for such a remark. 

Secondly, you're attempting to build strawman arguments, along with ignoring much of what I have said, and what I have explained in defense of your accusations. I don't feel the need, nor do I have the desire to reiterate the exact same points I've tried arguing to Dragon in the North with yet someone else, who obviously isn't interested in listening to what I actually say, or discussing this subject from an objective standpoint.

And third, I've already stated to DitN that I grow weary of such pointless discussions. Judging from your two posts, I see discussing this with you would be no different. Sorry, but I'm not interested, especially considering the level of class you have shown with your opening statement.

Ok, i shouldnt have called you that. I apologise and have edited my original post.

You are coming across quite arrogant however. I am trying to doscuss this objectively and I really dont know what strawman arguments you are referring to. I gave you a perfectly good example in my second post. 

You accused GoT as being very poorly written and cited some examples as your evidence. I refuted, quite correctly, that almost every television show has all those same inconsistencies. So your reasoning as to why GoT is a poorly written show does not really evidence how it is worse than most other writing within its given medium (tv).

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

Ok, i shouldnt have called you that. I apologise and have edited my original post.

Alright, apology accepted.

Quote

You are coming across quite arrogant however.

You are right, partly because you called me an ass. And partly out of my frustrations with having had this discussion lead to where it has, so many times in the past. I realize that is my issue, not yours, so I apologize for that.

Quote

I am trying to doscuss this objectively and I really dont know what strawman arguments you are referring to. I gave you a perfectly good example in my second post. 

Quote

"You say GoT is not a good tv show."

No, what I am asserting is that objectively critiqued by literary standards, the writing on the show is poor.

Quote

"it also has many strengths and it overall a higher quality product than the majority of garbage on television."

I've never stated to the contrary, and would agree.

Quote

"Virtually NO tv show is completely consistent with writing or plot or character development throughout its run."

Again, I've never stated to the contrary, and would agree. No show is perfect. The difference between GoT, and many well written shows is the frequency of these issues in every scene, as well as the blatant disregard for these issues. These are not mistakes made in error, or due to oversight. These are deliberate decisions made by the writers because they don't care. They want to have their big, epic scenes, and force the script to make it happen. Benioff admitted it himself. 

“Creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen." 

I wouldn't argue that the first three seasons were perfect, but I would still admit that d$d did a good job, and that the writing was very good.

Quote

We also need to remember the simple fact the we as humans ourselves do not always do things that make sense or are in line with our core character or beliefs. It is not unreasonable to think that fictional humans may also do the same.

I would agree, however I would argue that these types of questionable actions or decisions still need to be consistent with the character being written. The character needs to have a plausible reason, or be faced with a justifiable circumstance in which would lead them to act in these ways. Not just because the showrunners want to force a scene or scenario in that would be cool, or shocking. They have characters make dumb and unbelievable decisions just for the sake of putting them in a position that they can then emotionally manipulate the audience into the desired reaction they want, without actually earning that response through good story telling.

Quote

You have NOT given factual evidence to support any of your opinions (which is indeed what your arguments to date in this thread have been) on the quality of the show or any examples of what constitutes factually good writing, character development, etc.

No, I haven't given actual examples of the poor writing. As I have stated several times already, these issues have been discussed ad nauseum all over this forum. I've been there done that too, as @Cas Stark stated, and there is always some fan fiction story attempting to explain away these flaws in the show, but these explanations are not actualy in the show. If a show needs a seperate bonus show, in which the show runners and cast need to explain what is going on, often contradicting each other, as well as fans making up their own explanations, then I'm sorry, but it is an awfully written show.

[Gaz0680]

Quote

I would agree, however I would argue that these types of questionable actions or decisions still need to be consistent with the character being written. The character needs to have a plausible reason, or be faced with a justifiable circumstance in which would lead them to act in these ways. Not just because the showrunners want to force a scene or scenario in that would be cool, or shocking. They have characters make dumb and unbelievable decisions just for the sake of putting them in a position that they can then emotionally manipulate the audience into the desired reaction they want, without actually earning that response through good story telling.

I agre wholeheartedly.

I have..a LOT..of problems with the show's writing too and was never really disagreeing with your argument, so much as your tone and how dismissive you were being toward others in this thread (like DiTN). It always annoys me when someone's go to defence is to attack not the argument of the other person but to attack the legitimacy of their opponent's argument. I believe it's a really weak move and it did feel like you were spending many posts doing that, which is why I posted in the first place.

That aside, thank you for accepting my apology.

Now, if Benioff or Weiss really did say "Creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen" that's just very concerning. People who believe that should NOT be running tv series.

One of the biggest gripes I have with the writing is the dialogue. It was not perfect in seasons 1-3 by any means, but I believe it was more logical and true to character than what it has been the last two seasons especially. The conversations felt more genuine too.

A lot of the dialogue in seasons 5 & 6 just seems to be aimed at crowd pleasing as opposed to genuine story or character development.

 

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 6.2.2017 at 11:13 PM, CaptainTheo said:

Agree with all that. I would add they ruined her even more in episode 9 of season 6 having turned her into the exact opposite of her book counterpart into a completely new character (Asnas?) who fed a restrained prisoner to his dogs and smiled about it. Gag. Sounds exactly like her sister Arya (who's supposed to be her opposite) and also exactly like Ramsay himself.[/quote]

So... you're saying Arya is as bad as Ramsay?

Wow - what a great opener to what I'm sure is going to be a reasonable post!

 

Quote

I'm really disappointed because Sansa used to be one of my favourite characters. It's as if the show insists that all the female characters have to be badass (Arya, Brienne), sex sirens (Mel, Margaery) or a bit of both (Daenerys). Those who aren't tend to get killed off (Cat, Myrcella, Shireen).

Well Margaery was a sex siren and she got killed off.

Cat could be pretty "badass" at times, too - perhaps not on the battlefield; but a woman's kind of "badass". The way she commanded everyone to arrest Tyrion wasn't really much different from Danaerys (who isn't physically strong herself) - and she went out on a badass note too, killing Walder's wife.
But I guess he'll get another, so it doesn't count.

Also, Ros was killed - she was a "sex siren" probably even more than the other 2. How does THAT fit into your picture?
She was invented for the show - and killed. While you're complaining about the show specifically (UNLIKE THE BOOK) killing the wholesome females and sparing the sex vamps.

As for the other 2, how do you even know they'll survive for long in the books? Shireen seems to be doomed there as well, by all accounts.


So, I don't know... go look for patterns to get outraged by elsewhere? Maybe?


 

Quote

Also agree that Dorne is worst of all and the worst scenes from the entire series so far IMO are Faullaria and the Sand Fakes avenging the barbaric murder of members of the Dornish royal family by barbarically murdering the remainder of the Dornish royal family (also committing multiple kinslaying in the process)

Horrible - had the show only portrayed them as villainous characters, or at best dark grey misguided and unhinged, that could've been alright. But since the show clearly portrays Faullaria and the Sand Fakes as moral paragons, that's bad.
 

Quote

and the guards just standing there and letting them become the new rulers.

They were part of the population that apparently hated Doran for being weak - the lack of exposition or confirmation of Ellaria's, I'm sorry Faullaria's claims is a problem, but getting outraged by the guards "just standing there" when their motivation was clearly explained in that very scene, is, well, yea.
 

Quote

From season #5 the #1 thing I would have changed about Dorne is to not have Myrcella die on the boat with Jaime. Let the viewers enjoy one nice scene in that finale, let one totally good female character live, and let Cersei see her daughter again. Myrcella didn't have to be killed off so soon. (This would have been far more logical - Faullaria only just swore allegiance to Doran, admitted to Jaime that Myrcella had nothing to with Oberyn's death, and gains absolutely nothing from murdering an innocent little girl.)

Except for the sense of having gotten her revenge, which was clearly established.
 

Quote

This along with Doran's and Trystane's murder reflects a broader problem with the last two seasons that the writers are continually insistent on constant shock value regardless of how little sense the shocks actually make.
[/quote]

Or maybe fans like yourself are contiually insistent on constant outrage regardless of how little sense the outrage actually makes?

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 7.2.2017 at 3:16 AM, Orphalesion said:

I will admit I am a book purist with the Lord of the Rings, but that's because it was the first book I ever read and I wouldn't have lik d the movies even if they had not been an adaption of the book (really you expect me to sit through 3+ hours of washed out colours and dirty people walking through the moors/talking to each other? Pass!) Plus the LotR doesn't really lend itself to adaption, its story structure is difficult to deal with, First we painfully track through every, single. freaking. elf. village. on. the . continent.

Uh, I'm not sure what you're talking about - what freaking elf village, and which of those villages didn't lend themselves to adaption in your mind?

Rivendell and Lorien were the only 2... villages, and both served as a breather after the Nazgul chase / Moria respectively - safe, ethereal sanctuaries after horror episodes essentially, where the characters got new directions for the quest: first, cementing the mission to go to Mordor etc., and in the 2nd case setting up Frodo's separation and Ned trying to take the ring.

The movies didn't change that much, except obviously for reducing the pace and dialogue (natural, expected), and giving Lorien a darker tone to contrast with Rivendell more and also reflect the more pessimistic context in the story. Was it an improvement? I don't know - it certainly wasn't a HUGE improvement, like it salvaged some disaster in the book or something.

So, uh, yeah, in short they're not just strolling through villages, but it all serves the narrative and the structure couldn't be tighter, in this case.

 

 

and in the last volume so much happens that a good chunk of it has to happen offscreen.

Huh?

Characters show up out of nowhere and then disappear again after some sort of supernatural episode and not many of the characters that stay with us are really that interesting or receive much character development. Now try to turn that into a narrative acceptable for movies...

Wait, what characters showed up out of nowhere during which supernatural episode? What, the dead army?

However Tolkien's writing style has so many layers upon layers and whimsy and wonder and mystery that you don't notice that the plot and characters aren't that amazing.

Are you saying the boring, boring horse people were written with such layers and whimsy and wonder that they stopped being boring? 

However you can't translate writing style to film. Sooo....

Soooo you got an exemplary, highly praised 9 hour epic that doesn't feel its length and often named as a great example of its genre?
 

On topic:

Well the problem with leaving out Dorne would be Myrcella, She still has to die somehow. What would you suggest here? Have her simply show up back at King's landing with the explanation that she was traded for Gregor's head? Then off her some other way? Have Varys shoot her to destabilize Cersei?

Shoot her... or something!

...sorry

[Orphalesion]

16 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Uh, I'm not sure what you're talking about - what freaking elf village, and which of those villages didn't lend themselves to adaption in your mind?

Rivendell and Lorien were the only 2... villages, and both served as a breather after the Nazgul chase / Moria respectively - safe, ethereal sanctuaries after horror episodes essentially, where the characters got new directions for the quest: first, cementing the mission to go to Mordor etc., and in the 2nd case setting up Frodo's separation and Ned trying to take the ring.

 It's called an exerragation, a joke. Just like you calling Boromir Ned because lololol they were played by the same actor lololol

Quote

The movies didn't change that much, except obviously for reducing the pace and dialogue (natural, expected), and giving Lorien a darker tone to contrast with Rivendell more and also reflect the more pessimistic context in the story. Was it an improvement? I don't know - it certainly wasn't a HUGE improvement, like it salvaged some disaster in the book or something.

I never said the movie was an improvement, I think it's the opposite. And they changed a whole lot, including character motivations and personalities. Anyway my point was that the LoTR doesn't have a traditional beginning/climax/ending structure, instead it patterns itself after Sagas. They might not be all Elven Villages, but the early part of the story can be seen as a succession of supernatural episodes. Which are excellently written but many of which hold so little impact on the story that the adaption was able to cut them out without altering the plot structure.

Quote

and in the last volume so much happens that a good chunk of it has to happen offscreen.

Several battles and the trip to...(was it Umbar? I'm currently re-reading and only at the breaking of the Fellowship) That happen offscreen. No, I don't think we should have seen every battle of the War of the Ring, but I will say that I enjoyed RoTK most of all the books and wish that TTT would have been more like it.

Quote

Wait, what characters showed up out of nowhere during which supernatural episode? What, the dead army?

Gildor and his merry band, Tom Bombadil, Old Men Willow and Goldberry, The Grave Weights, Glorfindel..remember them? The first part of the story has a lot of them. In some ways Lothlorien and Fangorn could be seen as long, supernatural episodes, featuring the Ents and Galadriel (who is one of the more complex and interesting characters imgho) Lothlorien did have impact for the rest of the story, but the movie completely ruined the whole thing and it's continued importance for the different members of the Fellowship. 

Also not strictly supernatural, but Faramir also showed out of nowhere (even Tolkien said so) and I will say that while also saying that Faramir is one of my favorite characters in the whole thing.

Quote

Are you saying the boring, boring horse people were written with such layers and whimsy and wonder that they stopped being boring? 

Not the boring horse people maybe, I know that it is personal preference, but nothing could make Rohan interesting to me. Also not that I am not saying the characters are bad, just that a lot of the fellowship, like, say Legaolas, don't offer that much that would make them interesting and that the more complex characters are fewer, but that the writing style makes up for a lot of the flaws. Like with Star Wars, where the cinematography and world building elevates the plot above what it is.

Quote

Soooo you got an exemplary, highly praised 9 hour epic that doesn't feel its length and often named as a great example of its genre?

1) I was writing about my Opinion. Personally I wouldn't have liked those movies even if they had not been connected to the books. They are simply not my taste. I am free to not like a particularly set of movies, am I not? I also don't like Fight Club or the Godfather.

2) That's why the story was heavily altered imho, it needed to be in order to fit into the Hollywood formula.

[Pink Fat Rast]

Have some respect for the source material.  

Keep the characters essentially the same people they are in the books

Make sure their actions are logical and oriented in their character

Don't make the Starks idiots unworthy of being rooted for.  

Don't make the Lannisters the good guys

Don't have themes such as "Honor is stupid and gets you killed", that are complete perversions of what the book is about.  (Yes, it has themes, just the wrong ones!)

Honor itself doesn't get you "killed" - blindly following your particular version of "honor" without noticing all the toes you're stepping on in the process, can get you killed.

Ned's insisting on not assassinating Dany was also presented as "honour" and didn't get him killed, remember?

The show has different takes on what "honour" means to different people and what the consequences of it are - if there's a common thread to them all, I'd say it's rather simply "life isn't a fairytale, so watch your back".

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 4.3.2017 at 8:37 PM, farm_ecology said:

I hate this lazy defence of bad decisions by the show as just being book purists nitpicking.

 

[...]

For example, they have reduces pretty much everything to goodies and baddies at this point. The north has descended into a bunch of evil psychopaths who have unflinching loyality to a maniac.

Um... WHAT? Mormont and those two other guys (one of them was Woman Manderly right?) refused to join them because they felt let down by the Starks and/or didn't think they could win - they didn't have "loyalty" to Ramsay, they feared he'd skin them for even talking to Sansa.

At most, they may have thought the Boltons would be more competent at upholding stability or whatever than the remaining Stark brats, but that was never really a talking point - I'm just being generous here.


Then, the Umbers switched direction when their asshole son took over, and the Karstarks were kinda pricks from the get go - if you notice, the BoB was northerners vs. northerners, so much for all them being evil and loving Ramsayy lmao

Meanwhile the iron islands plot has just become a joke, with a series of great scenes just literally being two lines of "I will build a big fleet" and "yeah, but I will build a bigger one!", its just a joke.

There was clearly a satirical element to that whole "election debate", the Ironborn were portrayed as a bunch of easily swayed, amygdala-driven apes, and Euron essentially won with superior rhetoric and attitude - to what extent it SHOULD'VE been portrayed that way is another question, but it was clearly meant as a joke and you missed that in your outrage.

 

Previously grey characters have just become black and white,

Book fans always complain when grey characters become black and white, and when black and white characters turn grey - often inaccurately so to boot, as we've just seen. ^^

and there is no legitimate reason they could not have spent the same amount of time keeping the murky waters they did so well in the first few seasons.

You mean... murky waters like with Stannis? Who sacrificed his daughter in a horrific way for what he thought was a just cause? Or, or like Yara who seems like a nice person in general, but finds it hard to let go of her raping&raving I meant reaving ways and treats her traumatized brother... questionably?

And yet all I see is book fans complain about Yara is so immoral, and D&D totally hate Stannis and made him worse than he was in the books - so, I guess you like your greyshades, until you don't.

But maybe I shouldn't project other people's views onto you

 

If I would change one thing i would have been have all the  chekov guns in the northern plot to have led somewhere. Be it Johns comment about Bolton's troops loyalty, or the tactical planning before the battle of bastards. Instead it was good v evil

No - evil vs. evil, because you just said all those Northern Houses that fought with Jon were actually totally evil; and someone else said Show Tormund was an evil psychopath unlike his gentle book self, even though Tormund is a grey character leaning towards the good side.

as deus ex machina. God forbid a main character win for their own wit rather than divine intervention.

It's not really "deux ex machina" if it's something that was set up earlier, but yeah - ending the 3RD battle with a rescue cavalry was, I dunno.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 4.3.2017 at 8:37 PM, farm_ecology said:

I hate this lazy defence of bad decisions by the show as just being book purists nitpicking.

 

[...]

For example, they have reduces pretty much everything to goodies and baddies at this point. The north has descended into a bunch of evil psychopaths who have unflinching loyality to a maniac.

Um... WHAT? Mormont and those two other guys (one of them was Woman Manderly right?) refused to join them because they felt let down by the Starks and/or didn't think they could win - they didn't have "loyalty" to Ramsay, they feared he'd skin them for even talking to Sansa.

At most, they may have thought the Boltons would be more competent at upholding stability or whatever than the remaining Stark brats, but that was never really a talking point - I'm just being generous here.


Then, the Umbers switched direction when their asshole son took over, and the Karstarks were kinda pricks from the get go - if you notice, the BoB was northerners vs. northerners, so much for all them being evil and loving Ramsayy lmao

Meanwhile the iron islands plot has just become a joke, with a series of great scenes just literally being two lines of "I will build a big fleet" and "yeah, but I will build a bigger one!", its just a joke.

There was clearly a satirical element to that whole "election debate", the Ironborn were portrayed as a bunch of easily swayed, amygdala-driven apes, and Euron essentially won with superior rhetoric and attitude - to what extent it SHOULD'VE been portrayed that way is another question, but it was clearly meant as a joke and you missed that in your outrage.

 

Previously grey characters have just become black and white,

Book fans always complain when grey characters become black and white, and when black and white characters turn grey - often inaccurately so to boot, as we've just seen. ^^

and there is no legitimate reason they could not have spent the same amount of time keeping the murky waters they did so well in the first few seasons.

You mean... murky waters like with Stannis? Who sacrificed his daughter in a horrific way for what he thought was a just cause? Or, or like Yara who seems like a nice person in general, but finds it hard to let go of her raping&raving I meant reaving ways and treats her traumatized brother... questionably?

And yet all I see is book fans complain about Yara is so immoral, and D&D totally hate Stannis and made him worse than he was in the books - so, I guess you like your greyshades, until you don't.

But maybe I shouldn't project other people's views onto you

 

If I would change one thing i would have been have all the  chekov guns in the northern plot to have led somewhere. Be it Johns comment about Bolton's troops loyalty, or the tactical planning before the battle of bastards. Instead it was good v evil

No - evil vs. evil, because you just said all those Northern Houses that fought with Jon were actually totally evil; and someone else said Show Tormund was an evil psychopath unlike his gentle book self, even though Tormund is a grey character leaning towards the good side.

as deus ex machina. God forbid a main character win for their own wit rather than divine intervention.

It's not really "deux ex machina" if it's something that was set up earlier, but yeah - ending the 3RD battle with a rescue cavalry was, I dunno... questionable?

[Angel Eyes]

Dorne, Dorne, Dorne.

[Pink Fat Rast]

On 18.3.2017 at 5:32 PM, Batbob45 said:

alot of season 5

The Sansa-Ramsey story was mainly for shock value(I know they needed a replacement for Jeyne Poole)

The Stannis story arc-It make no sense to have him killed Shireen(a king is useless without an heir). If king's blood is needed, give Shireen a small cut on the finger.

WASTE NOT

?

I know that the showrunner hate Stannis, but it was plan dumb to do.

See? Showrunners decided to make Stannis a bit shadier, maybe for creative reasons (because they wanted it to happen), and the wise book fans all everywhere go "OMG NO D%Dumber HATE STANNIS!!" - not trying to be rude, but how naive and immature do you have to be, to look at a show that can't stop jerking itself off over how interesting its morally ambiguous characters are, and conclude that when they're increasing the moral ambiguity of a given character it's because they "hate" him?

Making a character a meaniehead because they "hate" him is something 14 year old fanfic writers can do - not pretentious arthouse "hacks" obsessed with moral greyshades.
IF you're gonna go with the whole childish "they h8 Stannis" angle, it's much more plausible that they hated the more ethical book Stannis and "like" their darker version more.


Of course when GRRM has Tyrion abuse an Essos sex slave or molest Sansa for a while before pulling back, that's not GRRM "hating Tyrion", but "interesing grey shades" - and then D&D suck for "liking" Tyrion too much and making him "St. Tyrion" amirite?

What a consistent framework you've got there - if only the fanboyish mainstream press singing praises to this awful show caught on with your insights and judgement.

[Pink Fat Rast]

16 hours ago, Gaz0680 said:

I agre wholeheartedly.

I have..a LOT..of problems with the show's writing too and was never really disagreeing with your argument, so much as your tone and how dismissive you were being toward others in this thread (like DiTN). It always annoys me when someone's go to defence is to attack not the argument of the other person but to attack the legitimacy of their opponent's argument. I believe it's a really weak move and it did feel like you were spending many posts doing that, which is why I posted in the first place.

That aside, thank you for accepting my apology.

Now, if Benioff or Weiss really did say "Creatively it made sense to us, because we wanted it to happen" that's just very concerning. People who believe that should NOT be running tv series.

Haha that whole debate between Darkstreem and Northdragon was like the What's Your Number HitB with Gillian for 5 pages

I skipped through most of it.

 

Anyway, that famous D&D quote is from one of those "inside episode x" featurettes, and was specifically referring to Tyrion meeting Danaerys.

I personally take this quote with a heavy grain of salt, because I think those "inside" features tend to be 6-7 of the writers and actors summing up and commenting on the plot, and they all come off as if they don't particularly want to do it and just go through the motions - and who can blame them? New Who had like 40 minute featurettes exploring each episode, no wonder those people were inspired to do them - these are lame 8 minute summaries or something.

So basically D&D look mostly bored when talking in those (unlike the way they usually come off in interviews or panels), they say stuff like "Stannis had to choose between his daughter and ambition and ultimately he chose ambition" (even though the show made it clear he was primarily concerned about justice and saving the realm), and were probably equally disinterested and absentminded when they said "creatively it made sense because we wanted it to happen".

It probably does reflect some aspect of their thinking process, but I wouldn't put too much stock into that particular phrase - make fun of it, sure, but that's about it.

[Darkstream]

4 hours ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Haha that whole debate between Darkstreem and Northdragon was like the What's Your Number HitB with Gillian for 5 pages

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the reference. Maybe you'd like to try another?

...I'd hate for my ignorance to be what prevents your attempt to ruffle my feathers.

Quote

I skipped through most of it.

Clearly, you were the wiser of us three. No sarcasm, that's my honest assessment.

This comment did give me a good chuckle though. I must admit, I did the very same after reading your first few comments. Go figure, eh? 

[Pink Fat Rast]

14 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yeah, I'm not familiar with the reference. Maybe you'd like to try another?

Nah, this one's fine;
it's good.
 

Quote

...I'd hate for my ignorance to be what prevents your attempt to ruffle my feathers.

I, on the other hand, would not.
 

Quote

Clearly, you were the wiser of us three. No sarcasm, that's my honest assessment.

Well, a correct assessment in any case.

Quote

Go figure, eh?

Northdragon was the Gillian fyi, if that comforts you.

[Darkstream]

8 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Northdragon was the Gillian fyi, if that comforts you.

Like I said, I'm not familiar with the reference. That means nothing to me. And no need to put yourself out, I'm actually quite comfortable as it is.

[Pink Fat Rast]

Well you're not the girl is the point - though no better, really

[Darkstream]

11 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

Well you're not the girl is the point - though no better, really

Oh, so your implying that there's something wrong with being compared to a woman, and for some reason that should make me uncomfortable. Real classy. Not surprising coming from a d$d apologist though.

[Pink Fat Rast]

wow

[Darkstream]

25 minutes ago, Pink Fat Rast said:

wow

Please do explain then. You said that I should be comforted by the fact that I wasn't the girl in some meaningless comparison. Why? Why should that comfort me?

You then went on to say, "though no better", implying that normally not being the woman is better.

Please do explain what you meant, if my response is so shocking to you.