[002]
ineptizinerating10
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I *certainly* am not suggesting that this is a trope, or something that alters the description of the current trope; I was clear about that in the original post. I agree that altering something to suit one person alone is counter to the definition of, or idea behind, tropes. I also agree that the trope does not *require* a new term to be used in discussing examples, which is what \
to:
I *certainly* am not suggesting that this is a trope, or something that alters the description of the current trope; I was clear about that in the original post. I agree that altering something to suit one person alone is counter to the definition of, or idea behind, tropes. I also agree that the trope does not *require* a new term to be used in discussing examples, which is what \\\"ineptizine\\\" really is.
The \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page seemed (at first) that it might be the place to drop in a fun & related shorthand term -- at least the only place I had seen so far where it might fit in. (I think I recall seeing mention of some sort of place for anything that fit nowhere else, maybe just to give people a place to dump things they couldn\\\'t or shouldn\\\'t post elsewhere. But I noticed it in passing and didn\\\'t take particular note.) I\\\'m seeing that there\\\'s consensus among at least five people, who were kind enough to give some feedback, that THIS is NOT the place in any case.
.*Is* there *anywhere* else on this site that it might go without harm, do you think? Your points 2 and 3 are good ones: avoiding pointless flaming and edit wars is A Good Thing(tm) :) .
Folks I\\\'ve talked with have enjoyed the term, and we\\\'ve taken to using it, knowing that it\\\'s a subjective scale and that numbers assigned can vary. Of course, the folks to whom we\\\'ve spread the term have also been mostly \\\"Trek\\\" fans, and the term is cute because it\\\'s a pun taken directly from mishearing a common \\\"Trek\\\" term once. (\\\"Incompetence\\\" would be as functional, but not as light-hearted, not as fun.) I realized that this site deals with way more TV (and thus way more types of TV) than even I have ever watched -- and that it\\\'s not unreasonable to think that a reference term based in *Star Trek* wouldn\\\'t click with folks who >gasp< (and big *wink*) don\\\'t really know *Star Trek*. Heck, I don\\\'t recognize or understand a lot of stuff from *Naruto* or *Dragonball Z* or lots of others, so no blame to anyone who doesn\\\'t go for everything I go for :) .
... Anyway, I\\\'m not saying that the world needs the word or concepts behind \\\"ineptizine\\\", or that it illuminates the trope \\\"Plot Holes\\\", but I am saying that I think it will add some fun and useful shorthand for a lot of folks. So I wonder where I *can* share it with the people, being all selfless and generous and stuff ;) .
(I know that I type a lot, trying to explain things as fully as possible to lessen the amount of back & forth needed in a conversation. I know some folks don\\\'t like to read a lot, and some don\\\'t even like to be presented with a lot available to read at one time. Ah well. I can only hope that\\\'s not what caused the initial terse responses. Even use of the tropes that I could look up like \\\"What\\\" and \\\"Big No\\\" didn\\\'t help me understand the objections, like Jerrik\\\'s thoughtful response did. \\\"What\\\" seemed to indicate confusion, which is what made me wonder if the first post was too much reading for dontcallmewave\\\'s taste or invoked a milieu he or she isn\\\'t familiar with. The others definitely made clear the fact of objection, but that\\\'s all.)
The \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page seemed (at first) that it might be the place to drop in a fun & related shorthand term -- at least the only place I had seen so far where it might fit in. (I think I recall seeing mention of some sort of place for anything that fit nowhere else, maybe just to give people a place to dump things they couldn\\\'t or shouldn\\\'t post elsewhere. But I noticed it in passing and didn\\\'t take particular note.) I\\\'m seeing that there\\\'s consensus among at least five people, who were kind enough to give some feedback, that THIS is NOT the place in any case.
.*Is* there *anywhere* else on this site that it might go without harm, do you think? Your points 2 and 3 are good ones: avoiding pointless flaming and edit wars is A Good Thing(tm) :) .
Folks I\\\'ve talked with have enjoyed the term, and we\\\'ve taken to using it, knowing that it\\\'s a subjective scale and that numbers assigned can vary. Of course, the folks to whom we\\\'ve spread the term have also been mostly \\\"Trek\\\" fans, and the term is cute because it\\\'s a pun taken directly from mishearing a common \\\"Trek\\\" term once. (\\\"Incompetence\\\" would be as functional, but not as light-hearted, not as fun.) I realized that this site deals with way more TV (and thus way more types of TV) than even I have ever watched -- and that it\\\'s not unreasonable to think that a reference term based in *Star Trek* wouldn\\\'t click with folks who >gasp< (and big *wink*) don\\\'t really know *Star Trek*. Heck, I don\\\'t recognize or understand a lot of stuff from *Naruto* or *Dragonball Z* or lots of others, so no blame to anyone who doesn\\\'t go for everything I go for :) .
... Anyway, I\\\'m not saying that the world needs the word or concepts behind \\\"ineptizine\\\", or that it illuminates the trope \\\"Plot Holes\\\", but I am saying that I think it will add some fun and useful shorthand for a lot of folks. So I wonder where I *can* share it with the people, being all selfless and generous and stuff ;) .
(I know that I type a lot, trying to explain things as fully as possible to lessen the amount of back & forth needed in a conversation. I know some folks don\\\'t like to read a lot, and some don\\\'t even like to be presented with a lot available to read at one time. Ah well. I can only hope that\\\'s not what caused the initial terse responses. Even use of the tropes that I could look up like \\\"What\\\" and \\\"Big No\\\" didn\\\'t help me understand the objections, like Jerrik\\\'s thoughtful response did. \\\"What\\\" seemed to indicate confusion, which is what made me wonder if the first post was too much reading for dontcallmewave\\\'s taste or invoked a milieu he or she isn\\\'t familiar with. The others definitely made clear the fact of objection, but that\\\'s all.)
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I *certainly* am not suggesting that this is a trope, or something that alters the description of the current trope; I was clear about that in the original post. I agree that altering something to suit one person alone is counter to the definition of, or idea behind, tropes. I also agree that the trope does not *require* a new term to be used in discussing examples, which is what \
to:
I *certainly* am not suggesting that this is a trope, or something that alters the description of the current trope; I was clear about that in the original post. I agree that altering something to suit one person alone is counter to the definition of, or idea behind, tropes. I also agree that the trope does not *require* a new term to be used in discussing examples, which is what \\\"ineptizine\\\" really is.
The \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page seemed (at first) that it might be the place to drop in a fun & related shorthand term -- at least the only place I had seen so far where it might fit in. (I think I recall seeing mention of some sort of place for anything that fit nowhere else, maybe just to give people a place to dump things they couldn\\\'t or shouldn\\\'t post elsewhere. But I noticed it in passing and didn\\\'t take particular note.) I\\\'m seeing that there\\\'s consensus among at least five people, who were kind enough to give some feedback, that THIS is NOT the place in any case.
*Is* there *anywhere* else on this site that it might go without harm, do you think? Your points 2 and 3 are good ones: avoiding pointless flaming and edit wars is A Good Thing(tm) :) .
Folks I\\\'ve talked with have enjoyed the term, and we\\\'ve taken to using it, knowing that it\\\'s a subjective scale and that numbers assigned can vary. Of course, the folks to whom we\\\'ve spread the term have also been mostly \\\"Trek\\\" fans, and the term is cute because it\\\'s a pun taken directly from mishearing a common \\\"Trek\\\" term once. (\\\"Incompetence\\\" would be as functional, but not as light-hearted, not as fun.) I realized that this site deals with way more TV (and thus way more types of TV) than even I have ever watched -- and that it\\\'s not unreasonable to think that a reference term based in *Star Trek* wouldn\\\'t click with folks who >gasp< (and big *wink*) don\\\'t really know *Star Trek*. Heck, I don\\\'t recognize or understand a lot of stuff from *Naruto* or *Dragonball Z* or lots of others, so no blame to anyone who doesn\\\'t go for everything I go for :) .
... Anyway, I\\\'m not saying that the world needs the word or concepts behind \\\"ineptizine\\\", or that it illuminates the trope \\\"Plot Holes\\\", but I am saying that I think it will add some fun and useful shorthand for a lot of folks. So I wonder where I *can* share it with the people, being all selfless and generous and stuff ;) .
(I know that I type a lot, trying to explain things as fully as possible to lessen the amount of back & forth needed in a conversation. I know some folks don\\\'t like to read a lot, and some don\\\'t even like to be presented with a lot available to read at one time. Ah well. I can only hope that\\\'s not what caused the initial terse responses. Even use of the tropes that I could look up like \\\"What\\\" and \\\"Big No\\\" didn\\\'t help me understand the objections, like Jerrik\\\'s thoughtful response did. \\\"What\\\" seemed to indicate confusion, which is what made me wonder if the first post was too much reading for dontcallmewave\\\'s taste or invoked a milieu he or she isn\\\'t familiar with. The others definitely made clear the fact of objection, but that\\\'s all.)
The \\\"Plot Hole\\\" page seemed (at first) that it might be the place to drop in a fun & related shorthand term -- at least the only place I had seen so far where it might fit in. (I think I recall seeing mention of some sort of place for anything that fit nowhere else, maybe just to give people a place to dump things they couldn\\\'t or shouldn\\\'t post elsewhere. But I noticed it in passing and didn\\\'t take particular note.) I\\\'m seeing that there\\\'s consensus among at least five people, who were kind enough to give some feedback, that THIS is NOT the place in any case.
*Is* there *anywhere* else on this site that it might go without harm, do you think? Your points 2 and 3 are good ones: avoiding pointless flaming and edit wars is A Good Thing(tm) :) .
Folks I\\\'ve talked with have enjoyed the term, and we\\\'ve taken to using it, knowing that it\\\'s a subjective scale and that numbers assigned can vary. Of course, the folks to whom we\\\'ve spread the term have also been mostly \\\"Trek\\\" fans, and the term is cute because it\\\'s a pun taken directly from mishearing a common \\\"Trek\\\" term once. (\\\"Incompetence\\\" would be as functional, but not as light-hearted, not as fun.) I realized that this site deals with way more TV (and thus way more types of TV) than even I have ever watched -- and that it\\\'s not unreasonable to think that a reference term based in *Star Trek* wouldn\\\'t click with folks who >gasp< (and big *wink*) don\\\'t really know *Star Trek*. Heck, I don\\\'t recognize or understand a lot of stuff from *Naruto* or *Dragonball Z* or lots of others, so no blame to anyone who doesn\\\'t go for everything I go for :) .
... Anyway, I\\\'m not saying that the world needs the word or concepts behind \\\"ineptizine\\\", or that it illuminates the trope \\\"Plot Holes\\\", but I am saying that I think it will add some fun and useful shorthand for a lot of folks. So I wonder where I *can* share it with the people, being all selfless and generous and stuff ;) .
(I know that I type a lot, trying to explain things as fully as possible to lessen the amount of back & forth needed in a conversation. I know some folks don\\\'t like to read a lot, and some don\\\'t even like to be presented with a lot available to read at one time. Ah well. I can only hope that\\\'s not what caused the initial terse responses. Even use of the tropes that I could look up like \\\"What\\\" and \\\"Big No\\\" didn\\\'t help me understand the objections, like Jerrik\\\'s thoughtful response did. \\\"What\\\" seemed to indicate confusion, which is what made me wonder if the first post was too much reading for dontcallmewave\\\'s taste or invoked a milieu he or she isn\\\'t familiar with. The others definitely made clear the fact of objection, but that\\\'s all.)
