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.
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.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one