I have noticed that insulting post happen one of two ways. One is when insults are used instead of a comprehensive explanation of a position. These type of post consist of quoting passages from the show, instead of addressing the actual question. They then insert some type of disparaging comment as if the emphasizes their point. Anyone that does debts knows. When you opponent resorts to attacking, they are losing.
The second type of post that has insults are the one responding to a previous negative post. Some response have so little substance, that a cohesive response is not possible. The only thing left is to defend against the attack.
When responding to a subject that is exploring the aspects of the show. One that is examining the shows substance. Posting lines from the show does not prove the point. They can support a theory but you still need to present a theory. To say that Adalind loves Nick because she kissed him, or she said she loves him is not a theory. It totally lacks substance. Explain why you conclude she loves him. Where did the writers setup the scenario to make that point. Dialog is not a scenario. I notice many can not or do not differentiate between perception and concept.
What becomes really funny is when I post these explanations and the response is you are making things up, or some other way of dismissing the idea. Not once is a cohesive rebuttal ever posted.
It is like when a theoretical concept is presented only to be responded to with dialog trying to disprove the statement. You can tell the idea of abstract thought complete escapes them. This is obvious when you see their reply has nothing to do with the concept being put forth.
(01-12-2019, 05:54 PM)Hell Rell Wrote: [ -> ]We were talking about how Nick isn't getting paid for being a Grimm and then you countered by saying you didn't think people would get so upset by the suggestion their hero could be getting paid for being a Grimm. Anyone with eyes could tell how much of a bait that was because it had nothing to do with why people said he wasn't getting paid for being a Grimm.
Let me update you on this. This is from the thread, "Nick and Company....Grimms for Hire". The remark you are referring to is my post, #26:
Quote:My my, who'd have thought some would be so touchy over their hero doing his little grimm thing for pay?
Now, why don't you go back and read the entire thread again and explain to me how your posts, which occurred **prior to mine**, weren't full of baiting and sarcasm?
By the way, I was the one who initiated this thread.
(01-12-2019, 11:11 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]I have noticed that insulting post happen one of two ways. One is when insults are used instead of a comprehensive explanation of a position. These type of post consist of quoting passages from the show, instead of addressing the actual question. They then insert some type of disparaging comment as if the emphasizes their point. Anyone that does debts knows. When you opponent resorts to attacking, they are losing.
The second type of post that has insults are the one responding to a previous negative post. Some response have so little substance, that a cohesive response is not possible. The only thing left is to defend against the attack.
When responding to a subject that is exploring the aspects of the show. One that is examining the shows substance. Posting lines from the show does not prove the point. They can support a theory but you still need to present a theory. To say that Adalind loves Nick because she kissed him, or she said she loves him is not a theory. It totally lacks substance. Explain why you conclude she loves him. Where did the writers setup the scenario to make that point. Dialog is not a scenario. I notice many can not or do not differentiate between perception and concept.
What becomes really funny is when I post these explanations and the response is you are making things up, or some other way of dismissing the idea. Not once is a cohesive rebuttal ever posted.
It is like when a theoretical concept is presented only to be responded to with dialog trying to disprove the statement. You can tell the idea of abstract thought complete escapes them. This is obvious when you see their reply has nothing to do with the concept being put forth.
You are making stuff up, how can dialogue not be used as part of an aurgument to prove a point who made you the master of how to prove a point, there are also plenty of actions Adalind has done to prove she loves Nick, threatend Renard if he harmed Nick, she worried about Nick and cried for Nick when he wasn’t in the room so clearly she wasn’t trying to minipulate him if he wasn’t there,. She didn’t cheat on Nick with Renard even when pressured to do so by two of the most powerful characters in the show. She subataged her life at the mansion as a mayors wife with wealth and power to go back to Nick at an old paint factory, a place even Claire Coffee cliams Adalind was desperate to get back to in order to raise a family with Nick, she also cliams Adalind couldn’t stand the mansion which is not only backed up dialogue but her actions of treating Renard like crap using spells against him throwing vases at him stealing his clothes and hair for a spell and hiding Monroe from Renard as well. She then stalls Renard at the mansion as the gang asked her to do until the big step down announcement by Nick/Renard.
She took an axe for Nick and before you come back with a nonsense claim saying it was self preservation no it wasn’t, she didn’t step in moments earlier to help out her first baby daddy who was being murdered. The writers clearly showed her yelling moments earlier for Trubel to run with the kids, if she was concerned with self preservation surely she would have tried to run with the kids herself. Yet she stayed behind saw Nick being attacked and ran to his defense and died for him and no she wasn’t the last man either as you as wrongly claimed in a prevouis post Rosalee and Monroe were standing. The writers had Monroe and Rosalee die defending each other in that and they had Adalind die defending Nick. You spin it whatever way you want but that’s what happens onscreen.
She was willing to go to prison and lie in a courtroom from Nick something she wasn’t willing to do for Renard.
She takes 3 taxis to get to the mansion to protect Nicks location and then refuses to tell Boneparte were he liived then even when Bonaparte literally chokes the life out of her which would leave baby Kelly alone at the mercy of Bonaparte she tells the location only to run minutes to use Diana to warn Nick despite the fact Bonaparte literally has her wearing a ring that could harm her children and has threatend them she still user her as Adalind said herself, to help Kelly’s daddy.
I already know what your rubbuttel will be but this was all for her own benfiet and I will once again say prove it. Prove to me why it’s more beneficial for Adalind to turn down Renards advances or get herself choked for not reveling Nicks location rigth away or getting herself turned to stone for Not abbeying bonepartes orders. BC were clearly winning at that stage following their instructions at the Mansion was clearly to her Benefit yet she was petulant in the Mansion Bonaparte had to punish her and force a cursed ring upon her to get her to go with the flow.
Adalind certainly wasn’t a saint, did she lie to Nick and hide things from him certainly as he did from her as well but she’s also shown to be loyal and loving and worried about him. Did Nick feel betrayed and did she betray him under duress when she went to the mansion certainly however he was also shown to be understanding, he told Trubel he believed Adalinds letter about the reasons she left and that she loves him. He also proves by his actions in season 6 that he believed her as he goes running to her at the mansion and kisses her very passionately. In season 6 she showed totally and complete loyalty to Nick even when Renard and BC had a clear upper hand.
I base all my opinions firstly on what was shown and said onscreen and what the writers and actors have to say about what was said onscreen you base yours on what you claim the writers intended even if it goes directly against what the writers have said about certain arcs or storylines or characters.
(01-13-2019, 11:08 AM)Henry of green Wrote: [ -> ]I base all my opinions firstly on what was shown and said onscreen and what the writers and actors have to say about what was said onscreen you base yours on what you claim the writers intended even if it goes directly against what the writers have said about certain arcs or storylines or characters.
Henry, what you are describing here is what participants of loosing arguments do. When your opponent themselves realize their argument falls short by their own minds and aren't able to accede their opposing argument has lost, they will create facts to attempt to uphold their loosing arguments.
In other words, by looking at the glass half full instead of half empty. When your opponent has to crate or twist or hide facts to support their loosing argument, they are admitting you won the argument and they lack the maturity to admit it.