BF2S Forums Back in the day.

Uzique wrote:

'Intellect', not 'intelligence'. The fuck is wrong with you? I am saying that intellect is a huge driving factor behind the quality of debate, not the poster's intelligence or quantified 'cleverness'.

Shakespeare is considered witty? Yeah, Sonnet 14, so witty.

I can figure out the parallels between Shakespeare and writing styles on this Forum? Sorry, I don't see many people speaking in Elizabethan prose or positing their debates in metred iambs, so I'll have to decline to agree with your whacko statements.

Using intellect you can argue about the superior type of dog food. It is not the most important part at all.

Oh yeah, Hamlet, Taming of the Shrew, he was dumb as a rock.

Despite being written in the vernacular, many people consider Shakespeare to practically be written in a foreign language. It might be incredibly interesting to someone who can easily understand it, but if someone has to work to hard just to understand what he is saying all amusement is lost.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uzique wrote:

'Intellect', not 'intelligence'. The fuck is wrong with you? I am saying that intellect is a huge driving factor behind the quality of debate, not the poster's intelligence or quantified 'cleverness'.

Shakespeare is considered witty? Yeah, Sonnet 14, so witty.

I can figure out the parallels between Shakespeare and writing styles on this Forum? Sorry, I don't see many people speaking in Elizabethan prose or positing their debates in metred iambs, so I'll have to decline to agree with your whacko statements.

Using intellect you can argue about the superior type of dog food. It is not the most important part at all.

Oh yeah, Hamlet, Taming of the Shrew, he was dumb as a rock.

Despite being written in the vernacular, many people consider Shakespeare to practically be written in a foreign language. It might be incredibly interesting to someone who can easily understand it, but if someone has to work to hard just to understand what he is saying all amusement is lost.

I said you're clearly not familiar with his entire folio, because Shakespeare is not instantly regarded as a 'witty' figure, he is a genius dramatist and poet, not Mark Twain. I never said he was "dumb"- there's a difference between wit and intelligence - quit being purposefully retarded. Besides if you wanted to namedrop some plays in the defense of your argument, you could have chosen more wisely: As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Merchant of Venice et al and the other Comedies/Problem Plays are infinitely more 'witty' and thought-provoking than Hamlet. Written in the vernacular? No. Considered written in a foreign language? No. Try Chaucer or some of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles (e.g. The Battle of Maldon) if you want to see English resembling a foreign language. Comparing well-written, modern prose to antiquated and outmoded poetic language is just an absurd argument.

Nice try though.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-12-10 06:20:22)

Pug wrote:

Shakespeare's overrated.

Not really the argument, but someone thought it was a good idea to reference him to compliment the 'strength' of his argument anyway...

Shame that the 'someone' has a rather basic understanding of said playwright.

Pug wrote:

No, I'm just letting you know.

I know a lot of extremely intelligent and respectable scholars that would disagree with you, but I don't really care to... I'm sure your discerning literary tastes are far superior. If this is an attempt at trolling then it's one of the lamest I have ever seen since registering for these Forums, yawn.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shame that the 'someone' has a rather basic understanding of said playwright.

Yeah well, one could argue that he is a fictional character himself - and that his collected works come from various other sources or that in fact Shakespeare was a pseudonym.

That 'conspiracy' has merit in what, 9th Grade? Save the argument for another day if you like, I'll kindly blow it out of the water for you sometime.

Pug wrote:

I'm not trolling.  It's called an opinion.  Shakespeare was brilliant...then.  Many have improved on what he did.

If you want to make something better then it actually is because it was the "first", go right ahead.

What was Shakespeare the 'first' at? Please, enlighten me. Combining the Petrarchan sestet with his own Iambic quartet? It was pretty smart u know! I think I'll make it the 'better' as it deserves after years of study and research, not some bullshit Internet-educated generalisation, thanks all the same.

And, much of Shakespeare's brilliance stems from the fact that sentiments and echoes of his plays have modern relevance. How many times, for example, has Henry IV been interpreted as a symbol for national pride and military jingoism? How many times do we see permutations of the St.Crispin's Day speech in popular media and culture? I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

This is becoming tiresome; please, if you're going to reference or allude to something... make sure it actually has a point. This digression on Shakespeare hasn't really proven anything other than the utter pointlessness of the original post and the lack of anything insightful to say.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-12-10 07:02:48)

Uzique wrote:

deeznutz1245 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

OTOH
You elected Bush twice
You haven't impeached the lying bastard
The whole middle east is in flames basically for your 'right' to drive 10mpg SUVs and to ensure some 2,000 year old mumbo jumbo plays out the way your more fundamentalist child raping brethren see fit.
So on the average Americans are ripe for criticism, same as the Germans were for WW2 and the holocaust, the Japanese for their Asian rampages and the Canadians for Celine Dion.

So, sort your shit out, stop being so paranoid, stay within your borders, stop financing genocide, keep your less talented entertainers at home and you won't get flamed so much on internet forums.

Ok, whew. I thought for a while that it was us. After reading what Jahmanred wrote and realizing he is actually pretty cool, and then reading this crap from you I realize it is just that you are an idiot. Your post just proved it.

Deez I'm sorry but, with all these "idiot" comments flying around... where's the 'old school' intellectual goldmines that you prospected?



Get over yourself to be honest; it may not be 'old school' times and the 'new school' may not be up to your standards, but a lot of them intellectually whup you into oblivion.

It has nothing to with standards Mr. Hat, it has everything to do with the names I listed are people who bring insight to their debate and make you want to read their posts. If you entertain the thought for one second that I personally have control over the shit that Dilbert requested than you are an idiot too. It is easy to just bash someone because they are from a particular country and that happens more often than not but apparently you are so concerned with sounding superior that you miss it. The most I can expect from Rammunition and Dilbert is a bunch of inaccurate hatred. And you spend half of your time ensuring everyone of how intelligent you are before you attempt to get to any real point.  And the mere thought that I even associate anything good with Celion Deion is preposterous.

Uzique wrote:

This digression on Shakespeare hasn't really proven anything other than the utter pointlessness of the original post and the lack of anything insightful to say.

Then why the fuck do you keep posting in this thread? You seem to be the troll in this instance.

James Cameron's a far better director and storyteller than Shakespeare.

Pug wrote:

Me: I have an English degree, including 3 hours of study in Shakespeare, and a point - Shakespeare isn't as great as you think he is.  There's many items he was great at - but what he was first at was the presentation/theatre style - nothing to do with his writing...

You: pretty much insulting for no reason.

At no point did I say Shakespeare sux.

A degree with 3 hours study of Shakespeare?

Deez I went off on the long one because someone tried to use an (ill-informed) point about Shakespeare in an argument against me, for some unknown reason. Also, I haven't said anything about 'education'; I'm arguing the merits of the writer based on his writing, nothing to do with the self...

The whole point of the digression is that certain 'new school' posters have a writing style that alienates others, comparing it to 'vernacular' (lolz) Shakespeare... well, what a load of bullshit. All of the D&ST participants are clearly well-educated people that can read and comprehend English prose, so stop holding the writing style of certain people against their debating credibility. As I said in the first place, intellect is a major force in intelligent debate- which for some reason turned into a semantics argument about wit, intelligence and profundity. I still maintain my original point, which is that you complaining 'old school' members can GTFO because the new guys have a lot of insightful and intelligent things to say, whether it suits your notions of 'D&ST' or not.

And please don't call the 'U r a troll' card on me when you mentioned with apparent pride that you were quite the 'tough one' in your OP. I'm just trying to live up to and emulate your high-standards, oh wise and incredible old one .

Oh and as an aside to Pug:

Pug wrote:

but what he was first at was the presentation/theatre style

What?!? Shakespeare was 'first' at his theatrical style? Aka giving no stage direction or theatrical intervention at all? Come on, Shakespeare was a writer, a poet and a playwright first and foremost- his skill with the quill clearly stood above his 'skill' at play production. He crafted works that suited his audience and Court, but I think the point is that his role was in writing them, he left all of the production and dramatic elements to his company and actors themselves... I find it ludicrous that you make such a statement after 3 hours (years?) of Shakespeare study. What about his folio of Sonnets and poems that so masterfully revived Dante-Chaucer's iambic pentameter? You cannot ignore those... answer in PM, I'm interested .

Last edited by Uzique (2008-12-10 08:27:58)

It is suggested that Billy wrote the new Testament. True? Dunno.

Uzique wrote:

I still maintain my original point, which is that you complaining 'old school' members can GTFO because the new guys have a lot of insightful and intelligent things to say, whether it suits your notions of 'D&ST' or not.

I never said that. In fact I complained about the lack of debate by new members. Quite the opposite actually.

One of my only regrets is not frequenting this section enough, in fact at all.  I don't think I can seperate from 'messing around 27' to a 'serious 27' even though it is there.  I also like to sit on the fence and wish to make no enemies.  I take RL pretty serious but not so much the internet.

I feel I have missed out on making friends here in DS&T but perhaps that stopped me from making enemies.