Grimm Forum

(04-13-2018, 10:34 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2018, 04:06 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-13-2018, 02:45 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]your BS is the insult to these threads!

(laughs) You just keep on telling yourself over and over that your opinion equates to fact. Then go ahead, target others to make yourself seem superior. That should make you feel like a bigshot here. Of course your problem is that a few of us see right through the bullying and sputtering. We know you're no better than the rest of us, despite your protests, bolding and enlarged fonts. You don't, but a few of us do. And that really bothers you. You know how I can tell? Because you can't leave it alone. True earmarks of a bully.

I'll tell you what. Since you're so keen on daring posters here, I dare you to be civil and respectful from now on, no matter what you might personally think. You won't be able to do it.

and you will do the same is I post more of my "Grimm Weapons and paraphernalia"?

Of course!

dicappatore people say your position on Juliettes sensuality is delusional because the Puritan morality you are trying use to justify your position. Does not exist for a lot of us. Gone or the days when days when woman can not engage in sex for the pure enjoyment of it. Reading your post you still have this whole romantic notion how and when someone should and can have sex. I would imagine you could never see an adult film star as a moral person. It is this attitude that people are responding to you being delusional. I would not go as far as saying you are delusional, because everyone is allowed to follow there own beliefs. It is when you use these beliefs to as being factual examples of the positions you are taking.

Quote:Yea keep laughing at my opinion of her prostituting herself. While you are at it, keep laughing at the supermarket scene I referenced to that I made up. Keep laughing at the scene in the coffee shop reminiscing about their college days with her roommate Alicia or her own references of her grandmother scolding her about hanging out with young boys with back seats.Big Grin

While your at it, keep laughing at the scenes i created in my delusional mind when she shags Sean and then tops it off with Ken shagging. You remember that scene I created when she jumps on Kens lap, in the house Nick owned, in the bed She slept in with him and tells Ken:

Juliette; If I'm gonna be working with the Royal Family, you need to have a very clear understanding of just how valuable I can be.

Just before she spreads her legs. Yea, I guess I created that scene too. Smile

You might disagree with my summation of her constitution, as a few others did but can you point out which scene I referenced to as my creation in my delusional mind? All I can say is. Just substitute my references to the EverReady Batteries in this commercial link below. Robert Conrad says it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSnEmgNvNM

Yea, I dare you to point out wich scene is from my "Fan Creations". I DARE YOU!:Exclamation

Now, I won't bother doing the research for you on all the crap you made up. Maybe you aren't capable of even recalling the times you were so eager to place your foot in your mouth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U

Anyone reading these post can recall, in more than one occasion what you claimed as facts to be false or question other's references, again and again, in more than one occasion.

You keep claiming and crying about name calling. Why would I keep bothering to do so. You seem to do a better job at it all by yourself. Like you just didExclamationBig GrinTongue

This entire paragraph above is a repost what you wrote, is a perfect example of you stating your beliefs as being fact. You seem to think the rest of us are wrong. The point is you position use to be main stream, but that is a time gone by. People especially women are more liberated , and like I said, like men they enjoy sex for the sake of enjoying sex. They no longer feel sex is constrained to the idea of the past. For a lot of us the idea of premarital sex is an antiquated notion.

---

New Guy

Quote:Syscrash has yet to comment, so I researched "Do-Wacka-Do".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do-Wacka-Do

Quote:
"(And You Had a) Do-Wacka-Do" is a song, released in 1965, by American country music artist Roger Miller. The expression "do-wacka-do" is a funny way of saying "do-like-I-do".

The song expresses envy in a humorous way. The lyrics are written like a letter to a friend or possibly a former friend ("I hear tell you're doing well, good things have come to you ...") with whom the singer would like to trade places ("I wish I had your good luck charm, and you had a do-wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do").

Now that is some very deep allegory. (IMO) Big Grin

Do-Waka-Do!

That is not an allegory. An allegory is when you tell a story about one thing to make a point about another. Do-Waka-Do is more phrase. It is slang for a saying that denotes a concept.

(04-14-2018, 11:33 AM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]dicappatore people say your position on Juliettes sensuality is delusional because the Puritan morality you are trying use to justify your position. Does not exist for a lot of us. Gone or the days when days when woman can not engage in sex for the pure enjoyment of it. Reading your post you still have this whole romantic notion how and when someone should and can have sex. I would imagine you could never see an adult film star as a moral person. It is this attitude that people are responding to you being delusional. I would not go as far as saying you are delusional, because everyone is allowed to follow there own beliefs. It is when you use these beliefs to as being factual examples of the positions you are taking.

Quote:Yea keep laughing at my opinion of her prostituting herself. While you are at it, keep laughing at the supermarket scene I referenced to that I made up. Keep laughing at the scene in the coffee shop reminiscing about their college days with her roommate Alicia or her own references of her grandmother scolding her about hanging out with young boys with back seats.Big Grin

While your at it, keep laughing at the scenes i created in my delusional mind when she shags Sean and then tops it off with Ken shagging. You remember that scene I created when she jumps on Kens lap, in the house Nick owned, in the bed She slept in with him and tells Ken:

Juliette; If I'm gonna be working with the Royal Family, you need to have a very clear understanding of just how valuable I can be.

Just before she spreads her legs. Yea, I guess I created that scene too. Smile

You might disagree with my summation of her constitution, as a few others did but can you point out which scene I referenced to as my creation in my delusional mind? All I can say is. Just substitute my references to the EverReady Batteries in this commercial link below. Robert Conrad says it best: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSnEmgNvNM

Yea, I dare you to point out wich scene is from my "Fan Creations". I DARE YOU!:Exclamation

Now, I won't bother doing the research for you on all the crap you made up. Maybe you aren't capable of even recalling the times you were so eager to place your foot in your mouth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U

Anyone reading these post can recall, in more than one occasion what you claimed as facts to be false or question other's references, again and again, in more than one occasion.

You keep claiming and crying about name calling. Why would I keep bothering to do so. You seem to do a better job at it all by yourself. Like you just didExclamationBig GrinTongue

This entire paragraph above is a repost what you wrote, is a perfect example of you stating your beliefs as being fact. You seem to think the rest of us are wrong. The point is you position use to be main stream, but that is a time gone by. People especially women are more liberated , and like I said, like men they enjoy sex for the sake of enjoying sex. They no longer feel sex is constrained to the idea of the past. For a lot of us the idea of premarital sex is an antiquated notion.

My morality has nothing to do with word definition. I classified her with a word by it's definition. I then showed proof of her behavior which was presented on the screen, not on deleted scenes nor from my imagination to reinforce my definition of that labeling.

Meanwhile, all I hear back is skewed reasoning instead of rebuffing my opinion without any proof of her behavior being otherwise, as presented on the screen. Words have meanings and meaning do not change because of changes in morality.

Today, here in the US, thanks to the changes in "MORALITY" we have more children born out of wedlock than we did, lets say 50 or 60 years ago. Does that change the definition of a "Bastard Child"? Most learned one! Does it? Does the word bastard has another meaning? I know we use it to put down others but its still used to tell someone that they were born out of wedlock even if not so, because it is still derogatory.

So,sorry to rain on your parade. Your argument does not contradict my opinion. You are trying to contradict it by changing definitions. oops, that doesn't work.

Quote:My morality has nothing to do with word definition. I classified her with a word by it's definition. I then showed proof of her behavior which was presented on the screen, not on deleted scenes nor from my imagination to reinforce my definition of that labeling.

Because society had certain expectations for how they felt women should conduct themselves. words where created to describe the women that did not meet these expectations. As people became more enlightened these terms went from being a definition to being a slur. That the word slut meets the legal definition does not change the fact that it is a slur. The other problem with your argument is the definition is suggestive. what is considered many sexual partners to one is not the same to someone else. To one person anything above one is to many. With others one a week is a dry spell. It is ones opinion that sets the limit. That opinion is based on some moral expectation.
Here is the other thing that is total opinion on your part. You assume Juliette dating habits included having sex. You just assume that her grandmother warning about boys in the back seat meant she was having sex. Even now I have kids, they date, go away for the weekends. Even sleep together but their actions do not include having sex.

So not only is the word you are using now considered a slur. The definition is not accurate for what Juliette was doing. Plus the definition is antiquated based on today's norms for what is a healthy sexual appetite.

Quote:Today, here in the US, thanks to the changes in "MORALITY" we have more children born out of wedlock than we did, lets say 50 or 60 years ago. Does that change the definition of a "Bastard Child"? Most learned one! Does it? Does the word bastard has another meaning? I know we use it to put down others but its still used to tell someone that they were born out of wedlock even if not so, because it is still derogatory.

this entire paragraph is based on your opinion on what is moral. Statistic show children of single mothers do not do any worse the children of married couples. We know this is true because marriage is down but the population is still increasing yet the overall standards of society is increasing. The cultural and intellectual levels are increasing. The acceptance of diversity is increasing. Even you state the word bastard is derogatory. Yet you want to argue it is the appropriate label of a child born out of wedlock because to you that is a negative thing. Even though you can not sight any negative effects other then some moral condensation.

Your arguments may fit the definition of the words you use. But you arguments are bereft of any intellectual understanding of the subject. All your arguments see relationships as having a certain structure. Anything out side that is a negative. I would summarize you would have a problem or at least find a child raised in a same sex relationship as not being an optimal situation. Even though statistics would say the opposite.

It is easy to tell your position is not sustainable, because you can not even make a coherent argument in support of your position. You always revert back to standard talking points. This entire discussion is you basing your position on the definition of a word, yet you can not provide support for the accuracy of the definition. I disproved the negativity of your argument with a simple observation. Is society better or worse then before. do women have more opportunities and less restrictions. Do minorities have more opportunities and less restrictions. Since they do, how can you argue what you see as a negative is having an adverse effect. Even if you argue the negatives we see in the news. Statistics show these events are down.

(04-15-2018, 06:15 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:My morality has nothing to do with word definition. I classified her with a word by it's definition. I then showed proof of her behavior which was presented on the screen, not on deleted scenes nor from my imagination to reinforce my definition of that labeling.

Because society had certain expectations for how they felt women should conduct themselves. words where created to describe the women that did not meet these expectations. As people became more enlightened these terms went from being a definition to being a slur. That the word slut meets the legal definition does not change the fact that it is a slur. The other problem with your argument is the definition is suggestive. what is considered many sexual partners to one is not the same to someone else. To one person anything above one is to many. With others one a week is a dry spell. It is ones opinion that sets the limit. That opinion is based on some moral expectation.
Here is the other thing that is total opinion on your part. You assume Juliette dating habits included having sex. You just assume that her grandmother warning about boys in the back seat meant she was having sex. Even now I have kids, they date, go away for the weekends. Even sleep together but their actions do not include having sex.

So not only is the word you are using now considered a slur. The definition is not accurate for what Juliette was doing. Plus the definition is antiquated based on today's norms for what is a healthy sexual appetite.

Quote:Today, here in the US, thanks to the changes in "MORALITY" we have more children born out of wedlock than we did, lets say 50 or 60 years ago. Does that change the definition of a "Bastard Child"? Most learned one! Does it? Does the word bastard has another meaning? I know we use it to put down others but its still used to tell someone that they were born out of wedlock even if not so, because it is still derogatory.

this entire paragraph is based on your opinion on what is moral. Statistic show children of single mothers do not do any worse the children of married couples. We know this is true because marriage is down but the population is still increasing yet the overall standards of society is increasing. The cultural and intellectual levels are increasing. The acceptance of diversity is increasing. Even you state the word bastard is derogatory. Yet you want to argue it is the appropriate label of a child born out of wedlock because to you that is a negative thing. Even though you can not sight any negative effects other then some moral condensation.

Your arguments may fit the definition of the words you use. But you arguments are bereft of any intellectual understanding of the subject. All your arguments see relationships as having a certain structure. Anything out side that is a negative. I would summarize you would have a problem or at least find a child raised in a same sex relationship as not being an optimal situation. Even though statistics would say the opposite.

It is easy to tell your position is not sustainable, because you can not even make a coherent argument in support of your position. You always revert back to standard talking points. This entire discussion is you basing your position on the definition of a word, yet you can not provide support for the accuracy of the definition. I disproved the negativity of your argument with a simple observation. Is society better or worse then before. do women have more opportunities and less restrictions. Do minorities have more opportunities and less restrictions. Since they do, how can you argue what you see as a negative is having an adverse effect. Even if you argue the negatives we see in the news. Statistics show these events are down.

You just confirmed it. You do believe your own BS. I tried but you are a lost cause. Enjoy your delusion of grandeur like a pig in shitz, enjoy.

(04-15-2018, 07:13 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]You just confirmed it. You do believe your own BS.

How does that make syscrash any different from you?

(04-15-2018, 07:21 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2018, 07:13 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]You just confirmed it. You do believe your own BS.

How does that make syscrash any different from you?

So you agree, his opinions are BS. They do seem to line up with yours more than mines. Shhh, I think thats what "different" means.

(04-16-2018, 02:29 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2018, 07:21 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2018, 07:13 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]You just confirmed it. You do believe your own BS.

How does that make syscrash any different from you?

So you agree, his opinions are BS. They do seem to line up with yours more than mines. Shhh, I think thats what "different" means.

And you confirmed you believe your own BS. What makes syscrash and just about everyone here different from you is they don't sputter, or bluster, or call names, or make snide remarks because someone disagrees with them.

See, unlike you, they believe posters have the right to disagree with their thoughts. You have never managed to get to that level of intelligence. Instead, you get very angry, and target them like a typical bully. Oh, wait, a bully who can't keep his word to be civil.

10 minute wonder.

(04-08-2018, 11:10 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]Robyn, I have no issues in discussing any opinions or interpretations of what was presented on the screen. My issues with some is this. If their arguments are so on point, why is there the need to make shitz up? Thats my critique.

Sometimes, dicappatore, I think you don’t see the forest because you focus only on one tree - your tree. All I said was that syscrash clearly stated the show didn’t make a connection between the contract and Zerstörer despite the dots being easily connectable, and that I preferred syscrash’s scenario over the show’s ‘Zerstörer just happened for no particular reason’ scenario. Personal opinions are simply judgments that agree, disagree, or consider alternatives with a show’s actual events without automatically contradicting or challenging established facts.

Your opinion that Nick was too subservient to Juliette is as equally disconnected from the show’s factual events. You may think Nick should have stood up to Juliette, and even ended their relationship, but that doesn’t make the show’s presentation any less factual. The show presented Nick in love with Juliette and willing to wait until she was ready for marriage/family, and, that he was unable to kill her in S4 despite having issued a kill order to the others. And although choosing to make a life with Adalind in S6, Nick clearly remained concerned for Juliette’s wellbeing and happiness.

I preferred Adalind not be so docile and desperately in love with Nick in S5 & S6, but that doesn’t make her any less docile and in love with him than the show presented her to be. Opinions and wish lists don’t challenge facts. Plus, there’s not much to discuss if we don’t have opinions of the creative team’s decisions for the characters and storylines.

(04-16-2018, 05:13 AM)Robyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-08-2018, 11:10 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]Robyn, I have no issues in discussing any opinions or interpretations of what was presented on the screen. My issues with some is this. If their arguments are so on point, why is there the need to make shitz up? Thats my critique.

Sometimes, dicappatore, I think you don’t see the forest because you focus only on one tree - your tree. All I said was that syscrash clearly stated the show didn’t make a connection between the contract and Zerstörer despite the dots being easily connectable, and that I preferred syscrash’s scenario over the show’s ‘Zerstörer just happened for no particular reason’ scenario. Personal opinions are simply judgments that agree, disagree, or consider alternatives with a show’s actual events without automatically contradicting or challenging established facts.

Your opinion that Nick was too subservient to Juliette is as equally disconnected from the show’s factual events. You may think Nick should have stood up to Juliette, and even ended their relationship, but that doesn’t make the show’s presentation any less factual. The show presented Nick in love with Juliette and willing to wait until she was ready for marriage/family, and, that he was unable to kill her in S4 despite having issued a kill order to the others. And although choosing to make a life with Adalind in S6, Nick clearly remained concerned for Juliette’s wellbeing and happiness.

I preferred Adalind not be so docile and desperately in love with Nick in S5 & S6, but that doesn’t make her any less docile and in love with him than the show presented her to be. Opinions and wish lists don’t challenge facts. Plus, there’s not much to discuss if we don’t have opinions of the creative team’s decisions for the characters and storylines.

Negative, I did think he should have stood up more to Juliette because I was referring his behavior as being a bit to unrealistic for a main stream man/detective let alone what we have learned about the "fantasy" Grimms. I do not claim that "push over men" do not exist, they are just not in the majority, from my perspective.

Hey, if someone wishes to point out a connection out of thin air, go for it. Just as I have the same right to "call a spade a spade". In other words, when you can condense six to seven years of a more than a half dozen characters in the time of, lets say 45min/episode, times 123 episodes equates to 5535 minutes divided by 24 hours equals about 230 days. Better yet, divided by 12 hours equates to 461 days.

Then you take 8 characters times 365 days = 2920 times 6 year = 17,520 days in total. 461, 12 hour days, compared to 17,520 24 hour days or 35,040 12 hour days. 461 days out of a possible 35,040 days? All you are going to get is to see just the tree and not the rest of the forest. I am sure imagination does a great job in filling in the blanks, but we are all free to point out what imaginations are ridiculous.

---

---

(04-16-2018, 04:08 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-16-2018, 02:29 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2018, 07:21 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-15-2018, 07:13 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]You just confirmed it. You do believe your own BS.

How does that make syscrash any different from you?

So you agree, his opinions are BS. They do seem to line up with yours more than mines. Shhh, I think thats what "different" means.

And you confirmed you believe your own BS. What makes syscrash and just about everyone here different from you is they don't sputter, or bluster, or call names, or make snide remarks because someone disagrees with them.

See, unlike you, they believe posters have the right to disagree with their thoughts. You have never managed to get to that level of intelligence. Instead, you get very angry, and target them like a typical bully. Oh, wait, a bully who can't keep his word to be civil.

10 minute wonder.

OUCH, angry, bully, civil, intelligence. I hate to tell you but I have much more to live for than to write on these posts. Did it ever occur to you that those words do not come to mind when I type here. You aren't significant enough to give thought to what I have to say to you or to any of these posts.

When I do have time, I do some research based on what I recall or have re-watched but you aren't significant enough to loose sleep over or to spend time on replying as a bully. The process is quick and to the point. If it comes out as angry, bully, civil, intelligence or lack of, its with not much thought and more of a reaction, with some spelling correction that the forum provides.

It might be hard for you and a few others to believe but you are that much unimportant to me. I just enjoy when some put their foot in their mouths.

I used to ski at an upstate NY ski resort called "Hunter Mountain". That resort was a "Mecca" for the "NYC Brooklyn Type Yahoos" to ski at. After getting in hours of pleasure skiing and getting bored, some of us would pull to the side of a major trail intersection and watch the unskilled NYC Yahoos skiers collide in some spectacular fashion.

Now, you ask, was I also one of those "NYC Brooklyn Type Yahoo Skier"? Yes I was, only difference, I was also a ski instructor and I knew how to ski and avoid them other Yahoos. CAPISCE??