The series was absolutely excellent when the first editor was in position; it has become a dumpster fire. (People who enjoy dumpster fires will insist that the series has maintained its quality or got still better. shrug ) Evidently, the first editor kept the author's worst tendencies in-check, and the later editor or editors have not done so.
He wouldn't be asking you why you're asserting it became a "dumpster fire" if he already knew what you meant.
Firstly, you don't have any present reason to believe that question was asked in bad faith.
My reason was that it queried the meaning of an assertion the meaning of which was rather obvious.
Yes, but you misrepresented his query as if it were about my remarks subsequent to his query.
No, merely as if people should understand the plain meaning of words. The two people who reacted positively to my comment before his query did not read my mind, and if mind-reading were necessary, then his query and your pontifications would be pointless, as all that we have here are words.
If the meaning is obvious, then there was no point in using more words to express the same idea with no actual elaboration.
There's no functional difference between your usage of the terms "catastrophic" and "dumpster fire". Again, you said the same thing twice, with more words the second time.
You know, instead of getting into some retarded argument on the internet, you could have just explained yourself. If you didn't want to answer the question, you could have saved the valuable joules it took for you to think of this stupid non-answer, type it out, send it over the internet, etc. and just stared at a wall or something.
Sadly, as you already know, refusal to explain the obvious usually provokes sophistry about the refusal. Further, the unlikely is not always impossible, perhaps he were genuinely cognitively impaired to the point that what were obvious to most people were not to him.
No, I don't know that (though, when I get to his next comment, I may learn as much). All that I have are his words. But, if he really didn't intend what his words meant, that increases the plausibility that he were not sincere.
First, note that you've tripped yourself up concerning your earlier claim
(even setting aside the anachronism about dumpster fires). Second, no, I didn't know that he didn't intend what he asked, I merely had some suspicion of a lack of sincerity.
No, “dumpster fire” is definitely more precise. A story can go badly in many ways, not all deserving of contempt. Some stories are even noble failures.
The reason that I'm in a retarded argument on the Internet is that you and Eighty-six want an argument and are conducting yourselves badly.
I did. I also expressed skepticism that you needed an answer for the question that you asked.
I answered the question that you asked.
What would be stupid would be asking a different question than you intend, or attempting a bit of cheap sophistry without any clue about your respondent.
Point-out the words that are too long, so that we can laugh at you.
It's telling that, even after what was asked was made certain, you still prefer playing dead-end games in the margins of reason rather than just answering-- or declining to answer-- a simple and clear question in a topical way.
Nah. I refuse to pretend that some question other than what was actually asked was clearly intended, in order to help either of you save face. It's just that simple. If either of you wanted a different discussion, then that one of you should have proceeded honorably from the outset.
Again, the intended meaning of the question has since been made clear to you, regardless of whether it was clear to you from the outset. You still refuse to answer the question instead of playing your games, presumably because you're ashamed of the opinions you somehow still want to let people know you have.
It was made clear not by your sophistry, but by a thoroughly insulting comment from BuyVelomobiles. So I'm supposed to answer it then because…? Let's recall what I said in my immediately previous comment:
You don't get rewarded for the behavior in which you've engaged.
No. Because I'm not helpful to people who behave as you have. Again, it's very simple:
Yall just oblivious about what working in the adult industry in Japan means and what is like. Firstly, because it's really restricted, and not everything is directly about sex.
It seems the other guys in this thread don't really know much about that lmao
From this comment, I can tell that there was a change of editors, and that the change resulted in negative (according to the commentor's opinion) shift in the manga's quality. The clarifications that could be asked for are either a) about some special insights on the change of editors (like, were there any circumstances that led to the change, was the first editor someone special etc) or b) about the commentor's opinion itself, i.e. which elements of the manga he now perceives as bad.
Well, I can only guess as to why the first editor left.
You could have answered the original question, which was completely unambiguous, and entirely neutral. The second post was also neutral, but again, you chose to take offense.
I mean...I know sex doesn't encompass all of adult entertainment. I could be putting words in his mouth like I said, but I don't believe Yokoi would be comfortable having Megumi do adult entertainment, sexual or not.
Regardless, Takamatsu's doing sex work-- she said as much in chapter 46, page 3.
