Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
You really need to stop worrying about my motives for taking issue with some of your stated opinions. It also wouldn't hurt for you to get over your snark aversion. It's odd.
What a lovely dissertation on "generic" as it applies to television content. The only problem I see that it doesn't even remotely address the falseness of your claim that people who prefer new and original (and don't rewatch show or movies) do so at the expense of quality. Not to mention the false equivalence you've made in suggesting that new and original equals "new generic" in the first place. Read your own words again and tell me how anyone couldn't have taken them any other way than I did.
Still a terribly inaccurate statement.
|
I see nothing odd about thinking that running around insulting people and thinking you are clever while doing so is sophomoric and undesirable. Maybe you should get over your need to put other posters down. It's certainly unappealing behavior in a moderator.
I also so no reason to try to address your attempt to spin what I actually said into something different. I used the word generic in a manner consistent with the dictionary definition of the word. It's not my concern that you don't understand the usage. It's also not my concern that you fail to grasp what I actually said and now try to spin it some other way. I was listing varies things people desire in media. The list was neither all inclusive nor are each category exclusive to other categories, nor was it meant to be. I think that fairly obvious to anyone who actually read what I said.