Same reply is just as unfitting.
That wouldn't be a speed-run. Delivering it in eight or fewer pages would be a speed-run.
Nope. The key is in the word “really”. If a story is complex or if it is nuanced or if it is novel then it may really need more pages. But giving any story more pages than it really needs is just padding.
Nope; quite the opposite. Your desire to have the familiar belabored reflects shallowness and a lack of imagination.
Um, ok. You seem convinced that some stories should be told efficiently or something. I don't think that's how art or entertainment works.
You need to understand words better. You could start by getting your head around the word “efficiency”, which of courrse means understanding the concept of efficiency. Art that is inefficient is less effective, ex definitione.
Wow I didn't know you were the authority on what constitutes "efficient art"...
Use a goddamn'd dictionary. Don't think that you know what “efficiency” means simply from hearing or reading the term used in various contexts. Whether I'm an expert at efficiency in art was not the issue; what was at issue was somebody incoherently claiming that art is not to be judged by its efficiency.
But the use of "efficiency" when discussing art makes little sense. Again this is manga, not programming code. What do you say when, for example, you go to an art museum and look at the art exhibits?
You're still relying upon an under-educated and thoughtless conception of “efficiency”. Again: Use a goddamn'd dictionary, so that you are not writing incoherently from the outset.
You know what I give up. If you're not willing to be civil and actually engage in the discussion then I'll just chalk it up to you being a complete idiot and moving on.
So, you open the dictionary, read the definition of “efficiency”, and thought “Uh oh!” So you go out with yet another blah blah blah comment. * shrug *
Yeah I did. The definition does not help explain your notion. So I ask again smartass: explain what you mean.
No, dumbass, you introduced the word into discussion, misusing so that your objection was incoherent from the outset. So, what we need here is an apology from you for claiming that effectiveness has nothing to do with the quality of art, and for your subsequent arrogant, ignorant pontification, and then a thoughtful comment, if possible, arguing that this protracted delivery of a seemingly stale story is actually accomplishing something of aesthetic value.
Was it not you who said someone was "incoherently claiming that art is not to be judged by its efficiency." I take that to mean that you do believe art should be judged by its efficiency. Hence the term "efficient art," which granted isn't what you explicitly said but what's the difference in this case?
Nope, the rudeness started with you, and as you have discovered yourself to be in error, you've just cranked that higher. You don't owe an apology just to me, but to the audience more generally.
you've just side-stepped the matter. Each bit of that warrants an apology to the audience.
With you bitching about rudeness, yes we are.
Oh, it would have been rude, if not in reply to your rudeness.
In response to
You two should stick with words that you know.
Then your first comment should have been civil; or, failing that, you should have apologized.
You need also to know what “civil” actually means. It does not refer to being pleasant to those whose behavior is corrosive to a social order, as yours has been.
Wrong. Had you begun civilly, my response would have been uncivil; but you didn't and it wasn't.
Yes, we are. Effectiveness in art is exactly correspondent to aesthetic value and vice versa.
The discussion began over exactly these issues.
Evidently, you cannot recognize the topic.
You mean your response would have been "civil" right? Maybe you need a "goddamn'd dictionary" yourself! Of course, knowing you you'd probably behave uncivilly as you say even if I came into the discussion as civil as I could be.
🤣
Ah, apparently you didn't look-up the definition of “efficiency”, because you're still using it incoherently. Well, you don't deserve to have your work done for you, but here's the definition from the SOED:
You two have been incoherently saying that art should not be judged by its effectiveness.
No, dumbass; you and then I were referring to my actual response, not to what other response I might have instead made.
Here is the definition in the SOED:
Now, before we get to your truly pitiful failure to understand a word, note that the definition reads “or of art”. We don't need to fret over the full and proper meaning of “beauty” (which would be too challenging for you). Let's just note that you don't know what “art” means.
No, the art under discussion has always been the art of story-telling. Writing is an art. The other fellow at least seems to have understood the word “art” just fine; he introduced it in discussion, in reference to the story-telling as such. The argument has been about the effectiveness of that art in this case. But because you two didn't know the meaning of “efficiency”, the discussion went of the rails and you felt licensed to be rude. And, because you [singular] didn't know the definition of “art”, of “aesthetics”, or of “civil”, things have only got worse.
You performatively contradict yourself in two ways with those three sentences. j
I've done that repeatedly; you just don't have the language skills that you should have developed as a child.
You began the rudeness, and you've never apologized.
He didn't need to be explicit, as all the antecedent remarks to which he was responding referred to the story-telling as such.
Yes, I have. But, because of your poor language skills, that discussion has gone right past you, and you've said things such as
When I've made remarks exactly about the story-telling as such instead of about the visual quality of the illustration, which you mistook for the other fellow and thence I meant by “art”.
