Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion History Film / RealGenius

Go To

[004] Chuckg Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \'\'not\'\' allowed to determine \
to:
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what is allowed to be said on the topic at all. And yet me, who is also one person, is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' allowed to so much as assert that something might be in \\\"general consensus\\\". How\\\'s about an experiment: why don\\\'t you try leaving the entry up this time and see if \\\'\\\'anyone else\\\'\\\' actually objects to its being there? Then we could find out what the general consensus \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is instead of thinking that you get to write it all by yourself. I\\\'m pretty sure that outside of you, nobody else is going to give a damn about its being up.
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
3. You \'\'are\'\' aware that the Executive Order forbidding government assassinations \'\'only\'\' means that it can\'t be done without Presidential permission, not that its illegal? (As, y\'know, executive orders are subject to change by the chief executive whenever he feels like.) It is in no way a moral condemnation of, it only means that they don\'t want the US government specifically targeting people without the commander-in-chief knowing about it and signing the permission slip. And again, \'\'giant glowing laser beam from space\'\'. It would be kind of hard to use one of those \'\'without\'\' it coming to the President\'s attention. So again, the plot tries to strawman these guys, but ignores the gaping plot hole in their script\'s logic. It also means that your assertion that its \'generally accepted\' that CIA assassination is a bad thing and so can be demonized by any movie that cares to do so, without them having to justify it, is, y\'know, not correct.
to:
3. You \\\'\\\'are\\\'\\\' aware that the Executive Order forbidding government assassinations \\\'\\\'only\\\'\\\' means that it can\\\'t be done without Presidential permission, not that its illegal? (As, y\\\'know, executive orders are subject to change by the chief executive whenever he feels like.) It is in no way a moral condemnation of, it only means that they don\\\'t want the US government specifically targeting people without the commander-in-chief knowing about it and signing the permission slip. And again, \\\'\\\'giant glowing laser beam from space\\\'\\\'. It would be kind of hard to use one of those \\\'\\\'without\\\'\\\' it coming to the President\\\'s attention. So again, the plot tries to strawman these guys, but ignores the gaping plot hole in their script\\\'s logic. It also means that your assertion that its \\\'generally accepted\\\' that CIA assassination is a bad thing and so can be demonized by any movie that cares to do so, without them having to justify it, is, y\\\'know, not correct. Some people actually disagree -- you\\\'re talking to one right now -- and that\\\'s all it takes to make it a point in contention rather than a point of general acceptance that can be safely assumed, and is not allowed to be challenged on the main page.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \'\'not\'\' allowed to determine \
to:
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' allowed to determine \\\"general consensus\\\". How\\\'s about an experiment: why don\\\'t you try leaving the entry up this time and see if \\\'\\\'anyone else\\\'\\\' actually objects to its being there? Then we could find out what the general consensus \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is instead of thinking that you get to write it all by yourself. I\\\'m pretty sure that outside of you, nobody else is going to give a damn about its being up.
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \'\'not\'\' allowed to determine \
to:
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' allowed to determine \\\"general consensus\\\". How\\\'s about an experiment: why don\\\'t you try leaving the entry up this time and see if \\\'\\\'anyone else\\\'\\\' actually objects to its being there? Then we could find out what the general consensus \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is instead of thinking that you get to write it all by yourself. I\\\'m pretty sure that outside of you, nobody else is going to give a damn about its being up.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
2. So, one person is a \'general consensus\' when its you (because you\'re the only person stating what\'s \'generally accepted\'), but not when its me. Are you a forum moderator (and if so, it helps if you actually tell the guy you\'re talking to that you are, thanks), or do you just assume things a lot?
to:
2. So, one person is a \\\'general consensus\\\' when its you (because you\\\'re the only person in this disagreement at all, other than me -- I haven\\\'t seen anyone post to agree with you, or delete the entry other than you, or in any way indicate that they even care) even but not when its me. Are you a forum moderator (and if so, it helps if you actually tell the guy you\\\'re talking to that you are, thanks), or do you just assume things a lot?
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \'\'not\'\' allowed to determine \
to:
4. And again, we loop back to the part where you seem to have decided that you, alone, as a committee of one, get to determine what forum standards are. And yet me, who is also one person, is \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' allowed to determine \\\"general consensus\\\". How\\\'s about an experiment: why don\\\'t you try leaving the entry up this time and see if \\\'\\\'anyone else\\\'\\\' actually objects to its being there? Then you could find out what the general consensus \\\'\\\'really\\\'\\\' is instead of thinking that you get to write it all by yourself. I\\\'m pretty sure that outside of you, nobody else is going to give a damn about its being up.
Top