| #1 [135453] |
| mnet-baca244-13-199.monarch.net |
| 1st |
| #2 Ender[135454] |
| 128.226.4.90 |
| 2nd |
| #3 ComicGenius[135455] |
| ip-209-23-0-138.modem.logical.net |
| I dunno....Its tempting.....AGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH3rd |
| #4 SiX5532ONE[135456] |
| client-151-198-243-110.qdx-it.com |
Very good. As a whole, I'd give it a 7/10...........
..........this is a battlereporting site after all. |
| #5 endersshadow[135458] |
| ool-182d2de6.dyn.optonline.net |
this was excellent lost. imo i don't believe the internet will ever truly be rid of "paper genius'", but as you said it may be possible. however, after these series of essays, i have two questions.
1) how old are you?
2) what this based on anyone in particular? the name pop_killer comes to mind... |
| #6 Nafarias[135459] |
| 216.169.198.9 |
; ) Comment with a wink. As a serious approach it lacks focus as the definition is broad and can encompass almost anyone who has disagreed on the internet, is articulate, or the author doesn’t like. Could be more succinct, and should contain less ad hominems. As a typical internet rant it is fine, if not Swiftian.
People should judge ideas, not language. This is a valid premise, but almost condems the essay. Should not the PG’s ideas have respect if they are valid or accurate? Writing is art properly subject to technical criticism when displayed. Such criticism can improve one’s skill. It isn’t necessary to run away from, or shout down styles of criticism that experience has taught you is not valid. Slough invalid criticism, and accept the valid bits. ‘Pre-silencing’ specific kinds of criticism is unwise, as is denigration in ignorance of motive. Be careful not to be a physician needing to heal oneself.
|
| #7 LameJoker[135460] |
| ip-209-23-1-249.modem.logical.net |
*whispers*
this outta be good... |
| #8 LameJoker[135461] |
| ip-209-23-1-249.modem.logical.net |
| Slough is a funny word I never use it but I like it |
| #9 Convider[135471] |
| Toronto-HSE-ppp3660712.sympatico.ca |
| ummm... top ten? |
| #10 Lost[135491] |
| GAU42-03.labs.uidaho.edu |
Nafarias, franky your post was just a lot of nothing wrapped up in some pretty words. It showed a complete lack of understanding, as nowhere in the three submissions did I even mention a paper genius in relation to articulation or disagreement, and I have no personal vendetta against anyone, therefore your "author doesn't like" portion is also completely false. You are a shining example of someone who considers themselves to be quite intelligent, but in fact does not even understand the paper that they are attempting to comment upon.
As far as being more succinct, if I had set out to write a paper for an english professor or for a scholarship program, obviously I would not have elaborated as much on some of the less important topics. However, this paper was meant to be an expression piece.
|
| #11 Lost[135492] |
| GAU42-03.labs.uidaho.edu |
As to your assertion that "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen," (which is basically the jist of your comment that one should take the good and ignore the bad) I think that is completely assinine as well. Nothing is more personal that someone's writing or their art, and although constructive criticism can be beneficial, nit-picking and comments such as yours, which are submitted without a true understanding of the work, do nothing but discourage and demean. If a person is looking to improve, they will always ask for help.
|
| #12 Lost[135493] |
| GAU42-03.labs.uidaho.edu |
This paper was written solely in response to people who take it upon themselves to correct the world, needlessly. These people feel a superiority that is baseless, and flaunt an intelligence that is in reality as ethereal as a summer breeze. Your response showed that you either read the paper with a bias, and therefore put words into my mouth that were not there, or you simply misunderstood. Either way, I personally feel that your opposition to the idea that wholly negative, unasked for criticism should be discarded shows just how much you cling to your self-imposed English crusade, and how little you actually care for the people and the works that you degrade.
|
| #13 Lost[135494] |
| GAU42-03.labs.uidaho.edu |
Lastly, I feel I should make it clear that your designation of my paper as a "typical internet rant" also shows intellectual weakness, as you generalize a completely unique work by balling it up and placing it with every other piece which expresses disgust or a wish for change. Also, I made it quite clear what a paper genius's motive is. If someone is giving constructive criticism in a polite way, with an intention to help, then obviously they would not qualify. The parameters to be defined as a paper genius are actually quite small, and only seem broad if you fall within its confines. |
| #14 Lost[135495] |
| GAU42-03.labs.uidaho.edu |
Ender:
1. 20
2. This paper was not based upon anyone in particular, but it did take examples from some of the behavior that I have witnessed over the years on various forums. |
| #15 2e722[135509] |
| bbcache-231.singnet.com.sg |
| ya know what...this sorts of reminds me of the flame war .Praetor had with EMS...anyone remembers it? Pheonix chronicles...lol that was funny |
| #16 Nafarias[135527] |
| 216.169.198.9 |
| It is hard to tell if this is REALLY good satire or not. :) If it helps, my critique was not meant as a personal attack. #12: Saying that invalid criticism should be ignored is a stroke against the PG ‘crusade’ isn’t it? #13: I said “IF”. My points don’t apply to a rant. If this is a serious work then it could use some refinement. It comments on grammarians, families, morality, vocabulary, et al. In broad strokes, anyone who poses a moral concept, corrects grammar, mentions a solid family base, or uses uncommon wording to support an idea is a PG. That could mean almost anyone at any given moment depending on opinion. Heck – you said there were ‘hundreds’ of other traits you didn’t bother to list. It is also laden with too much invective language, and strawman attacks motives that no one could possibly know. I think a good look at the phenomenon would be interesting – but this work is a first draft, not the thesis. |
| #17 Lost[135534] |
| WAL20-14.labs.uidaho.edu |
Responding to your comment regarding #12:
You continue to amaze me. At the end of every segment, and also in a fairly large section of the 3rd segment, it is stressed that to ignore a PG is one of the best methods to eliminate them. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that to do so would be working against the thesis? Honestly, if you're going to comment, at least read the paper that you're commenting on.
|
| #18 Lost[135535] |
| WAL20-14.labs.uidaho.edu |
Responding to your comment regarding #13:
Yet again, a compete lack of understanding, which leads me to believe that in reality you just skimmed through and then headed straight to the comments section to draw attention to yourself. This paper does not comment on families at all. Nor does it specifically point to a person's vocabulary or mastery of grammar as a bad thing, but instead states that a person who uses their knowledge to demean others for the sole purpose of making themselves feel superior is bad. Your comment that anyone who poses a moral concept, corrects grammer, mentions a solid family base, or uses uncommon wording to support an idea is a PG is completely and utterly baseless, and cannot in any way be drawn from my submission.
|
| #19 Lost[135536] |
| WAL20-14.labs.uidaho.edu |
Finally, although I do say that there are many unique traits that I did not list, I also qualified that statement by describing the type of person that the traits would be evidenced by, with a very specific description. I find it very hard to believe that this paper would have been more convincing if I had gone through and listed every single PG phenomena. As for your first draft comment, you are correct in that, as I didn't even proof read these before I submitted them, since the idea is what is important. As long as the idea can be understood, I am satisfied.
P.S. If you do decide to reply, read what you're replying to first. I am tired of responding to comments which are based on a person's misunderstood perception of the paper, and not the paper itself. |
| #20 ThePalisade[135543] |
| s21.dial1.pro.nac.net |
genius
-Sven |
| #21 Nafarias[135548] |
| 216.169.198.9 |
| :) In brief 12 says I OPPOSE sloughing PG criticism, when 6 clearly shows I do not. (18) The submissions clearly say a PG will use family, grammar, morality, et al as their bludgeons. I'm saying it may be beneficial to provide more specifics so as to prevent the hasty from misapplying your labels. (19) Didn't say you should list them all - I'm saying your definition is too broad if you have 'hundreds' of points (but that was probably hyperbole). Winnow your definition to the 3/4/5 keys & focus like a laser on them. Lastly, I read the whole thing twice (skim then slow). I'll pass on the inaccurate 'you haven't understood/read what I said' fallacies. That's PG stuff. |
| #22 Nafarias[135549] |
| 216.169.198.9 |
| Signing out of this one! Gotta great weekend ahead & $3,400 in taxes coming back to me to upgrade my computer next week! Cheers & enjoy! The whole series' concept is an interesting one Lost - don't ignore some well-meant advice on how to make this opus better. Could be a fun paper if you focus it more and clean out the ad hominems. Again - as an internet rant (say 'editorial' if it makes you feel better) it is jim-dandy peaches fiat-accomplii. |
| #23 Newt[135628] |
| dsl3-63-249-85-66.cruzio.com |
| Your report was very nice. It looked odd. No pictures and probably as long as LinG's very sexy report. Acually I didn't even read your report and just wrote a reply for the heck of it. Oh yes, #23. :-) |
| #24 el_sux0r[140824] |
| pg2nt07.wam.umd.edu |
"Franky your post was just a lot of nothing wrapped up in some pretty words."
I couldn't resist ;) |
Home
Forum
Starcraft Tournaments
