Analyze Victor/split from Forum's Scariest Members

[Blackmail!]

It's curious.

I've seen Victor pastiched here, and yet each time those pastiches lacked depth and clarity.

Because that's what I like with our Victor: clarity of thoughts. And I'm always wondering why people find him to be so vague and blurry: he's not.

Of course, Victor is not inventing new stories each time, and I think I'm a familiar with the themes and metaphors he frequently uses; but yet, what I like with him is the fact he uses a very structured, undefiled English language, with simple, efficient sentences.

For a non native speaker like me who is rather familiar with written forms of universitary English, never using coarse or oral expressions is a real blessing.

People who are trying to pastiche him don't seem to realize that Victor is a very efficient orator, hence the density of his comments. He will never waste a word or a sentence like most of us will.

 

[simulatedworld]

He will never waste a word or a sentence like most of us will.

You can say that again!

 

[Qre:us]

It's curious.

Is it now?

I've seen Victor pastiched here, and yet each time those pastiches lacked depth and clarity.

It seems you, like Victor, didn't get all that I was alluding to. I'm not suprised, this is the burden of pretentious tunnel vision. It doesn't lack clarity or depth, it lacks your understanding of its clarity and depth.

Challenge, to back up your smarm talk:

Unless you can point out at least three themes that I hit upon using that long "pastiche" I did (hint: all related to the character of Victor and his views), then you can talk about how you understood but didn't see anything in those themes to show depth.
Go, I'm waiting.

 

[Blackmail!]

You can say that again!

Yes. That's really what I think.

When the majority of us will use three or four sentences to explain an idea, Victor will use only one or two at most.

What makes him sound so unique, is precisely the density of his words. He very carefully selects them. And for me, as I said this is a real blessing because we get quicker to the essence of his idea.

 

[Blackmail!]

Unless you can point out at least three themes that I hit upon using that long "pastiche" I did (hint: all related to the character of Victor and his views), then you can talk about how you understood but didn't see anything.
Go, I'm waiting.

Fact 1:

I find Victor to be clear and concise.

Fact 2:

On the other hand, I found your pastiche to be long, annoying and blurry. And first and foremost, it lacked substance.

---

I do not need to go any further.

 

[Qre:us]

Fact 1:

I find Victor to be clear and concise.

Fact 2:

On the other hand, I found your pastiche to be long, annoying and blurry. And first and foremost, it lacked substance.

---

I do not need to go any further.

Fact:
You can't even take up the challenge, this proves that you did not understand it. And, when backed into a corner, squirm like a little oily worm. Thus, whether you found it to lack substance or not, is moot. As you can't even point out whatever "annoying, long, blurry substance" there was, when challenged. So, I call your bullshit.

You want to stroke your friend's ego, and 'hit' back at me because in this thread you saw your friend, Victor, mentioned you, and I countered by calling you pretentious.....go ahead.

This kind of juvenile act is so transparent, and obviously lacks depth.

Hint 1: Your cultural imperialism, Western Enligtenment, knowledge, that Victor holds to such esteem, and you most definitely share, that was one of the many points I highlighted in my piece. You can say that you "already saw it", now consequently, because I pointed it out, but, I know you missed it. It was your pretentious tunnel vision that can't see beyond your own lengthening nose.

 

[matmos]

Fact:
You can't even take up the challenge, this proves that you did not understand it.

No. It's possible to understand a challenge fully, but not wish to take it up.

 

[Qre:us]

No. It's possible to understand a challenge fully, but not wish to take it up.

It's also possible to walk the walk once you talk the talk.

 

[matmos]

It's also possible to walk the walk once you talk the talk.

You propound flawed logic, insults and platitudes as if it were the stuff of good debate, without any awareness whatsoever.

Whether I talk the talk/walk the walk is irrelevant. You answer a perfectly good point with a schoolyard barb. That's your level. You wallow in mediocrity and call yourself "Qre:us".

You are the quintessential dumbass who talks but does not listen, who looks but does not see.

Tell me, Qre:us - how can someone called Qre:us have not the slightest bit of curiosity?

 

[Qre:us]

You propound flawed logic, insults and platitudes as if it were the stuff of good debate, without any awareness whatsoever.

Same to you, good sir. I see your projection.

Whether I talk the talk/walk the walk is irrelevant.

Flawed logic. How else does one prove understanding? Stating an understanding and showing an understanding are two different things. One is an opinion, the other, a proof. Of course, it's relevant.

You answer a perfectly good point with a schoolyard barb. That's your level. You wallow in mediocrity and call yourself "Qre:us".

You do not take insults well. Yet....

You are the quintessential dumbass who talks but does not listen, who looks but does not see.

You give it.

Tell me, Qre:us - how can someone called Qre:us have not the slightest bit of curiosity?

Platitudes.

Thank you for showing me how it's done. I'll keep it in mind for the next time I want to engage in a mediocre "debate" like you have just walked us through.

 

[matmos]

Keep up the good work. You're doing a swell job.

 

[Blackmail!]

You want to stroke your friend's ego, and 'hit' back at me because in this thread you saw your friend, Victor, mentioned you, and I countered by calling you pretentious.....go ahead.

My dear Ma'am, I do not know who Victor really is, I've never met him in real life. We never shared any sentimental or professional link, so I'm wondering if I can call anybody here "a friend".

This kind of juvenile act is so transparent, and obviously lacks depth.

Hint 1: Your cultural imperialism, Western Enligtenment, knowledge, that Victor holds to such esteem, and you most definitely share, that was one of the many points I highlighted in my piece. You can say that you "already saw it", now consequently, because I pointed it out, but, I know you missed it. It was your pretentious tunnel vision that can't see beyond your own lengthening nose.

Once again, the question wasn't if your text was rich or not, but if I could understand it or not: I didn't. So subjectively speaking, it lacked substance, and still lacks substance even after your explanations.

I plead guilty of "cultural imperialism" if it helps you feel better, I don't care because any other issue beyond basic comprehension is irrelevant.

Victor would never have posted such a long monologue, by the way. And he can be very factual while you weren't.

 

[Qre:us]

Keep up the good work. You're doing a swell job.

I learn from you.

/mimicking mediocrity

 

[matmos]

Lol.

Oh, dear. I can see you have a wonderful, happy life.

Do you have a strict father?

 

[Qre:us]

Once again, the question wasn't if your text was rich or not, but if I could understand it or not: I didn't. So subjectively speaking, it lacked substance, and still lacks substance even after your explainations.

Any other issue is irrelevant.

The bolded was not my point, my point was whether you understood it or not. And, hence, the challenge. Are you purposely being obtuse?

And, this was another point of my loooooong monologue. When someone does not subjectively understand, it lacks substance to them. Just like all those who have chimed in to this thread to say that Victor has failed in communicating his meaning.

Can Victor be understood or not. There's quite a few that understands him, and quite a few more that don't.

Just like you did not understand mine, yet the rep comments for that post of mine validated those that did.

Glad you're finally seeing the comparison.

I dont care because any other issue beyond basic comprehension is irrelevant.

This has been the same critique of Victor, in case your comprehension of this thread overlooked this.

 

[Tallulah]

@banana Wow, really? Defend the merits of Victor's "art" if you must, but Qre:us has made some valid points in this thread.

 

[Qre:us]

Lol.

Oh, dear. I can see you have a wonderful, happy life.

Do you have a strict father?

Not as strict as your wife. Is that why you know of pub life so well? After she's gone to sleep, I assume? Lol, oh dear.

 

[Blackmail!]

The bolded was not my point, my point was whether you understood it or not. And, hence, the challenge. Are you purposely being obtuse?

And, this was another point of my loooooong monologue. When someone does not subjectively understand, it lacks substance to them. Just like all those who have chimed in to this thread to say that Victor has failed in communicating his meaning.

Can Victor be understood or not. There's quite a few that understands him, and quite a few more that don't.

Just like you did not understand mine, yet the rep comments for that post of mine validated those that did.

Glad you're finally seeing the comparison.

I still fail to see the comparison.

Your pastiche was light years away from Victor.
End of the story.

 

[Qre:us]

I still fail to see the comparison.

Your pastiche was light years away from Victor.
End of the story.

Er....subjective.


I'll try once more: what was your point? That if you cannot understand, it lacks clarity for you. Now, imagine that "you" as the receipients of Victor's art, those that tell him that he's lacking clarity for them. The same core issue remains.

I'm not competing to upstage Victor, I was facetiously mimicking him to prove a point. Some may get him, some may not, regardless of subjective "evaluation" of the quality of the art. It's the clarity, the engagement that the members are seeking from Victor, at least once in a while.

 

[Blackmail!]

Er....subjective.

Absolutely.

But the point is, that even if there are people who don't understand Victor, you have to admit the possibility that some others might manage to successfully do it.

And they do not understand you when you try to pastiche Victor.

That's only the point. No need to go further away.

You would have been proven correct ONLY if 1/ everybody would not understand Victor, OR 2/ if those who could would not have noticed the obvious difference with your pastiche.