[001]
Turtler
Current Version
Changed line(s) 7 from:
n
B: The first thing that caught your eye was the \
to:
B: The first thing that caught your eye was the \\\"Idiot\\\" line, and ergo you \\\"saw\\\" my posting as ignoring that in favor of saying Brooks is an idiot. Simply put, you saw \\\'\\\'wrong. End of dispute.\\\'\\\' While I did indeed crib greatly on the full reasons why, my posting was primarily focused on the story, and the reasons given within. The Idiot line was even in reference to the quote given by his author avatar (If I remember Correctly) saying how a shot to the head is really the only reliable way to put them down.
The fact that you somehow saw it as ignoring this in favor of calling Brooks an idiot *just because* - it caught you eye first indicates one thing. You decided to \\\'\\\'libel me\\\'\\\' without even *reading the full context* (and yes, I am all too happy to provide the context of the edits made). I do not appreciate being insulted and charged, especially not on false grounds. Hence why I responded scathingly and fully to your stated reasoning: SeptimusHeap claimed it was rude and aggressive, and he was most likely right. However being falsely charged and having one\\\'s character come under attack on false grounds in a way that is equally rude and aggressive warrants such a response, and I did not let it degenerate into *just* a flame war; I fully and accurately stated my reasonings and the terminal problems with yours.
If you had simply limited yourself to talking about the \\\"Idiot\\\" line as wrong or surgically deleted it alone, I would have been forced to concede your point and this entire fight would have not happened. However, you did not do that. You deleted an entire part of the discussion well beyond the little inkling that had to do with the calling of Brooks; you were libeling me by falsely accusing my post of not contributing to the narrative discussion and cast false insinuations by extension against my personal character. In doing so, you were indeed doing what I accused you of, and brought the response upon yourself. \\\"Rude\\\" and \\\"aggressive\\\" as it might have been, it was also true, and your disclosure here only goes to support that.
The honesty is much appreciated. We all make our mistakes, and I\\\'m happy to admit that this one was a bipartisan one on both our parts that got started off by that extension. However but the bottom line is that the main bulk of this controversy is centered around a tiny segment of the text which has been blown out of proportion to somehow be *the* defining trait of the passages in question. Even with it removed or otherwise cut down according to whatever suggestions you have in mind, it would not seriously affect the rest of the content. I\\\'d be perfectly happy to do exactly that, which is why I\\\'ve aasked for advice in good faith.
On that note, I would earnestly like to know how authorial character should be addressed. Simply put, Brooks made mistakes, including several that stand as practical defamation against several all-too-real people in the present and past. This alone would not be newsworthy; god only knows how many problems there are with early writings and what have you. But well after the fact, and doubtless after the critiques became known he has in fact *doubled down* on his accusations, even going so far as to affirm them and their \\\"accuracy/realism\\\" in interviews and on events like his appearance of Deadliest Warrior.
Considering the narrative content and what it serves to defame, and how that intent is so closely tied to both Brooks\\\'s own behavior and the narrative\\\'s composition, it seems to me that any logical argument would by necessity do *something* to address Brooks\\\'s claims and role. What I am asking is *how* that should be handled, given the controversy of the Idiot line.
The fact that you somehow saw it as ignoring this in favor of calling Brooks an idiot *just because* - it caught you eye first indicates one thing. You decided to \\\'\\\'libel me\\\'\\\' without even *reading the full context* (and yes, I am all too happy to provide the context of the edits made). I do not appreciate being insulted and charged, especially not on false grounds. Hence why I responded scathingly and fully to your stated reasoning: SeptimusHeap claimed it was rude and aggressive, and he was most likely right. However being falsely charged and having one\\\'s character come under attack on false grounds in a way that is equally rude and aggressive warrants such a response, and I did not let it degenerate into *just* a flame war; I fully and accurately stated my reasonings and the terminal problems with yours.
If you had simply limited yourself to talking about the \\\"Idiot\\\" line as wrong or surgically deleted it alone, I would have been forced to concede your point and this entire fight would have not happened. However, you did not do that. You deleted an entire part of the discussion well beyond the little inkling that had to do with the calling of Brooks; you were libeling me by falsely accusing my post of not contributing to the narrative discussion and cast false insinuations by extension against my personal character. In doing so, you were indeed doing what I accused you of, and brought the response upon yourself. \\\"Rude\\\" and \\\"aggressive\\\" as it might have been, it was also true, and your disclosure here only goes to support that.
The honesty is much appreciated. We all make our mistakes, and I\\\'m happy to admit that this one was a bipartisan one on both our parts that got started off by that extension. However but the bottom line is that the main bulk of this controversy is centered around a tiny segment of the text which has been blown out of proportion to somehow be *the* defining trait of the passages in question. Even with it removed or otherwise cut down according to whatever suggestions you have in mind, it would not seriously affect the rest of the content. I\\\'d be perfectly happy to do exactly that, which is why I\\\'ve aasked for advice in good faith.
On that note, I would earnestly like to know how authorial character should be addressed. Simply put, Brooks made mistakes, including several that stand as practical defamation against several all-too-real people in the present and past. This alone would not be newsworthy; god only knows how many problems there are with early writings and what have you. But well after the fact, and doubtless after the critiques became known he has in fact *doubled down* on his accusations, even going so far as to affirm them and their \\\"accuracy/realism\\\" in interviews and on events like his appearance of Deadliest Warrior.
Considering the narrative content and what it serves to defame, and how that intent is so closely tied to both Brooks\\\'s own behavior and the narrative\\\'s composition, it seems to me that any logical argument would by necessity do *something* to address Brooks\\\'s claims and role. What I am asking is *how* that should be handled, given the controversy of the Idiot line.
