The Kiwi's Kinkily Knotted and Kookily Kickass Random Banter #114

[Fredthefighter]

Ah, but that's why she did it.

To mess with people. Because there's nothing more fun than being a prat.

Well, except for hitting a prat. Now that's fun.

[Illiterate Scribe]

You could've read my post or something.

Use your mind's eye. See the invisible. Do the impossible.

Row row fight da powah.

Your cunning plan: it be unveiled.

[Player_Zero]

Your cunning plan: it be unveiled.

"Last edited by Illiterate Scribe : Today at 08:30 PM. "

You had two whole minutes.

[Illiterate Scribe]

"Last edited by Illiterate Scribe : Today at 08:30 PM. "

You had two whole minutes.

I edited to bold it.

I just think that you're post should have been more clear initially; its better to indicate weather the initial person made the mistakes, or if they're post is unaltered.

[InaVegt]

I edited to bold it.

I just think that you're post should have been more clear initially; its better to indicate weather the initial person made the mistakes, or if they're post is unaltered.

For all your grammar nitpickery, you're not perfect yourself, are you?

I just think that your post should have been more clear initially; it's better to indicate weather the initial person made the mistakes, or if their post is unaltered.

"It's" vs "Its": It's stands for "It is", and is a contractions, like "he's", "Its" is a possessive pronoun and, like "his", doesn't get an apostrophe.

"You're" vs. "Your": See previous

"They're" vs. "Their": Ditto

[Fredthefighter]

For all your grammar nitpickery, you're not perfect yourself, are you?



"It's" vs "Its": It's stands for "It is", and is a contractions, like "he's", "Its" is a possessive pronoun and, like "his", doesn't get an apostrophe.

"You're" vs. "Your": See previous

"They're" vs. "Their": Ditto

For those about to rock, we salute you.

[Illiterate Scribe]

For all your grammar nitpickery, you're not perfect yourself, are you?



"It's" vs "Its": It's stands for "It is", and is a contractions, like "he's", "Its" is a possessive pronoun and, like "his", doesn't get an apostrophe.

"You're" vs. "Your": See previous

"They're" vs. "Their": Ditto

Bah. Nothing you say is going too effect my writing.

[Player_Zero]

I edited to bold it.

I just think that you're post should have been more clear initially; its better to indicate weather the initial person made the mistakes, or if they're post is unaltered.

Which is why I edited it. It's not my fault you didn't take the time to notice.

Bah. Nothing you say is going too effect my writing.

You best be joking.

[Phaedra]

Which is why I editted it. It's not my fault you didn't take the time to notice.

Oh dear. Unlucky.

[Fredthefighter]

You best be joking.

He isn't, because he's wonderboy and you're nastyman.

[Player_Zero]

Oh dear. Unlucky.

Nothing to see here, move along.

In fact, I propose we stpend the rest of this thread correcting grammar in true OCD fashion.

[CurlyKitGirl]

Ah, but that's why she did it.

To mess with people. Because there's nothing more fun than being a prat.

Here's where my vocabulary and (apparently extensive) knowledge of literature and criticism comes in rather handy:

Rowling is a "vain, giddy, shallow" woman with no apparent literary technique beyond that of a moderately accomplished college student, an affected ass; her imagination is as "dry as the remainder of a biscuit after a voyage" and the little original material present in her atrocious books is presented a the most brilliant and awe inspiring works possible when it clearly isn't.
Her dialogue is sometimes flat and she has no idea of how children speak, the premise behind the story is hackneyed, albeit possibly one of the few twists of cliched material that is actually interesting or novel.
Diagon Alley, depite the heavy pun damage, is one of the best settings of the book, and personally, I'd rather have her as a set designer/set creator as it seems to be her best talent. Characters are often flat or 2D and in fact some approach The Wesley, Scrappy or Woobie status. Some of what could be her best characters are remarkably underdeveloped to the point of barely being cameos despite being present (often in a fairly major role) in all seven books. Don't even get me started on Teen!Harry of book five. Truly, I've seldom seem so much condensed wangst in a book. Most interesting part of the book was that a teenager got spots.
Overall her work is a "huge translation of hypocrisy, vilely compiled [of] profound simplicity". But I did like the Dementors and Sirius Black.

I think I'll end my ranting again.


EDIT:

@Gezina and P_Z: I'm surprise you didn't pick up the 'weather' as in the climate versus the 'whether' as a conjunction indicating two or more possible related choices.

[Phaedra]

Nothing to see here, move along.

In fact, I propose we stpend the rest of this thread correcting grammar in true OCD fashion.

I see that crafty edit you did. But it's too late, mon cher.

We could spend (note spelling ) our time doing corrections, but perhaps instead we could, y'know, discuss stuff?

Which, um, requires a topic. Hmmm.

Bananas. Discuss.

[Fredthefighter]

I see that crafty edit you did. But it's too late, mon cher.

We could spend (note spelling ) our time doing corrections, but perhaps instead we could, y'know, discuss stuff?

Which, um, requires a topic. Hmmm.

Bananas. Discuss.

Bananas are a good source of potassium. Which means if you had enough of them you could make an explosive with them.

[Player_Zero]

I see that crafty edit you did. But it's too late, mon cher.

...

Bananas. Discuss.

Bananas are not nice.

Both my parents were murdered by one and now they're after me.

Also, 'my dear'? Oh ho.

[Dallas-Dakota]

The truth is,

Death is one of them.

[Rutskarn]

My recent order of a large sum of assault bananas aside, I'd just like to say this is why you don't talk grammar on the internet dammit.

Everyone trips up sometime, and if you've got a reputation as a grammar nazi, the hordes will descend upon you like eager soldier ants, leaping at the chance to scythe away on your ego. You retaliate, until eventually it becomes the Grammar Cold War: both sides poised, careful not to put even one foot out of place for fear that they will not survive the holocaust that follows.

[UncleWolf]

*snip*

*unveils hidden panel of judges*

And the scoring of the rant is:
10

10

10

2

Pesky Russian judges.

Good rant.

[eidreff]

Banananananas, a food without a correct ending. Pleasantly free of pips. Sadly bananannana flavoured, reminding me of childhood antibiotics. Not great with steak.


I hope we all feel enlightened, i have however failed to put my quotes in the appendix.

[Phaedra]

Bananas are not nice.

Both my parents were murdered by one and now they're after me.

Also, 'my dear'? Oh ho.

Oh ho? Fine, no more French for you. Which... is probably best since that pretty much exhausted my knowledge of the French language. Kids, a GCSE in a subject doesn't mean you're competent in it.

I like bananas. Good for the very old, very young and the sick, according to the European Court of Justice. Who says the legal system doesn't decide anything useful?

[Fredthefighter]

Oh ho? Fine, no more French for you. Which... is probably best since that pretty much exhausted my knowledge of the French language. Kids, a GCSE in a subject doesn't mean you're competent in it.

I like bananas. Good for the very old, very young and the sick, according to the European Court of Justice. Who says the legal system doesn't decide anything useful?

I'm doing french at GCSE. Don't plan on doing it at A-level though. I might take special courses when I'm older but that'll be it.
And yes, bananas are very good and so is the legal system, long live the county and crown courts!

[UncleWolf]

Bananas are not nice.

Both my parents were murdered by one and now they're after me.

Also, 'my dear'? Oh ho.

That is why you need to watch this:

Self-Defence Against Fruit

[wadledo]

*Snip*

Sheesh, I just say it sucks, but you have to actually use the English language for one of its two original purposes.
Berating people and things.

[eidreff]

Sheesh, I just say it sucks, but you have to actually use the English language for one of its two original purposes.
Berating people and things.

I find that berating random objects on street corners is good for at least a night in a nice warm cell. The beds are a bit hard and room service shocking, but its cheap

[Rutskarn]

Here's where my vocabulary and (apparently extensive) knowledge of literature and criticism comes in rather handy:

Rowling is a "vain, giddy, shallow" woman with no apparent literary technique beyond that of a moderately accomplished college student, an affected ass; her imagination is as "dry as the remainder of a biscuit after a voyage" and the little original material present in her atrocious books is presented a the most brilliant and awe inspiring works possible when it clearly isn't.

While I'd on the surface disagree with several of these statements, I acknowledge that my thoughts are mere opinions, just as yours are.

Her dialogue is sometimes flat and she has no idea of how children speak,

I'd strongly disagree here. The dialogue is, in fact, representative of teenage socialization.

the premise behind the story is hackneyed, albeit possibly one of the few twists of cliched material that is actually interesting or novel.

I'm not about to say that Harry Potter has the most dazzlingly brilliant story of all time, but it's not bad, no. It manages to catch the reader's attention and hold it throughout the novels.

Characters are often flat or 2D and in fact some approach The Wesley, Scrappy or Woobie status.

While many of the minor characters do sacrifice depth for color, occasionally we get a surprising amount of insight into their personality and motivations. Slughorn, who could easily have been just another buffoonish pseudo-antagonist, was revealed to have far more complicated motivation than simple greed and slothfulness.

Some of what could be her best characters are remarkably underdeveloped to the point of barely being cameos despite being present (often in a fairly major role) in all seven books.

I hate to ask people for examples, because I always have trouble coming up with specific ones myself, but you seem to have someone in mind here. For the sake of debate, who?

Don't even get me started on Teen!Harry of book five. Truly, I've seldom seem so much condensed wangst in a book. Most interesting part of the book was that a teenager got spots.

Okay, but his angst is pretty damn justified. When the most evil and powerful wizard of the past centuries is out to get you, a war is about to begin that will cause chaos and death, you're at the center of all of it and nobody will tell you anything about what's going on, and you're a bag of teenage hormones, you're going to be angry and moody.

Overall her work is a "huge translation of hypocrisy, vilely compiled [of] profound simplicity". But I did like the Dementors and Sirius Black.

Hypocrisy? Kind of begs the question: what hypocrisy?

I want to be clear here: I don't really love these novels, but I do like them. I can acknowledge that someone would hate them, and can even see why, but some of your complaints seem a little overblown.

[Fredthefighter]

While I'd on the surface disagree with several of these statements, I acknowledge that my thoughts are mere opinions, just as yours are.


I'd strongly disagree here. The dialogue is, in fact, representative of teenage socialization.



I'm not about to say that Harry Potter has the most dazzlingly brilliant story of all time, but it's not bad, no. It manages to catch the reader's attention and hold it throughout the novels.



While many of the minor characters do sacrifice depth for color, occasionally we get a surprising amount of insight into their personality and motivations. Slughorn, who could easily have been just another buffoonish pseudo-antagonist, was revealed to have far more complicated motivation than simple greed and slothfulness.



I hate to ask people for examples, because I always have trouble coming up with specific ones myself, but you seem to have someone in mind here. For the sake of debate, who?



Okay, but his angst is pretty damn justified. When the most evil and powerful wizard of the past centuries is out to get you, a war is about to begin that will cause chaos and death, you're at the center of all of it and nobody will tell you anything about what's going on, and you're a bag of teenage hormones, you're going to be angry and moody.



Hypocrisy? Kind of begs the question: what hypocrisy?

I want to be clear here: I don't really love these novels, but I do like them. I can acknowledge that someone would hate them, and can even see why, but some of your complaints seem a little overblown.

Rutskarn does make a rather compelling argument there.
Seconds out, round 1, DING!

[Coidzor]

Here's where my vocabulary and (apparently extensive) knowledge of literature and criticism comes in rather handy:

Rowling is a "vain, giddy, shallow" woman with no apparent literary technique beyond that of a moderately accomplished college student, an affected ass; her imagination is as "dry as the remainder of a biscuit after a voyage" and the little original material present in her atrocious books is presented a the most brilliant and awe inspiring works possible when it clearly isn't.
Her dialogue is sometimes flat and she has no idea of how children speak, the premise behind the story is hackneyed, albeit possibly one of the few twists of cliched material that is actually interesting or novel.
Diagon Alley, depite the heavy pun damage, is one of the best settings of the book, and personally, I'd rather have her as a set designer/set creator as it seems to be her best talent. Characters are often flat or 2D and in fact some approach The Wesley, Scrappy or Woobie status. Some of what could be her best characters are remarkably underdeveloped to the point of barely being cameos despite being present (often in a fairly major role) in all seven books. Don't even get me started on Teen!Harry of book five. Truly, I've seldom seem so much condensed wangst in a book. Most interesting part of the book was that a teenager got spots.
Overall her work is a "huge translation of hypocrisy, vilely compiled [of] profound simplicity". But I did like the Dementors and Sirius Black.

I think I'll end my ranting again.

Rawr.... I must say I enjoyed it though.

And Rutskarn's making me enjoy it all the more.

V: The rant. Don't ask me why. I'm probably still out of it. I'm smiling though, which is pretty good considering how close to bad times I am right now. Ha-hah!

I enjoyed the series, they held my attention well enough, but I can see where there are problems with her as a writer and with the series itself.

Like I always wondered why they never commented on the utter lack of security measures in the ministry of magic. Since Harry and Hermione at least would be shocked and appalled at such laxity, being of the muggle world. I at least imagine that they'd be familiar with the british tradition of 24-hour armed guards... and alarm systems.. and death traps... and security clearance...

But mostly I hope I'm going to enjoy the rest of this.

[Fredthefighter]

Rawr.... I must say I enjoyed it though.

The book or the rant? Which do you mean?

[Dallas-Dakota]

Here's where my vocabulary and (apparently extensive) knowledge of literature and criticism comes in rather handy:

Rowling is a "vain, giddy, shallow" woman with no apparent literary technique beyond that of a moderately accomplished college student, an affected ass; her imagination is as "dry as the remainder of a biscuit after a voyage" and the little original material present in her atrocious books is presented a the most brilliant and awe inspiring works possible when it clearly isn't.
Her dialogue is sometimes flat and she has no idea of how children speak, the premise behind the story is hackneyed, albeit possibly one of the few twists of cliched material that is actually interesting or novel.
Diagon Alley, depite the heavy pun damage, is one of the best settings of the book, and personally, I'd rather have her as a set designer/set creator as it seems to be her best talent. Characters are often flat or 2D and in fact some approach The Wesley, Scrappy or Woobie status. Some of what could be her best characters are remarkably underdeveloped to the point of barely being cameos despite being present (often in a fairly major role) in all seven books. Don't even get me started on Teen!Harry of book five. Truly, I've seldom seem so much condensed wangst in a book. Most interesting part of the book was that a teenager got spots.
Overall her work is a "huge translation of hypocrisy, vilely compiled [of] profound simplicity". But I did like the Dementors and Sirius Black.

I think I'll end my ranting again.

Hmm, I love it when you go like that.
I'm agreeing with you on this one, though.

Also a complaint of mine, she can't seem to keep a plot for more then one book, for batmans sake. Unless you think that the diary-horcrux thing was all planned out(which would be reaally weird since she didn't mention any of that in book 2-5).

[InaVegt]

I would classify prose under three different categories.

1. Literature: Prose with layers beneath layers, a message threaded between the words, this message is usually implicit, rather than explicit. (Example: 1984)
2. Amusement: Prose aimed to amuse as many people as possible. (Example: Harry Potter)
3. Crap: Mostly unreadable and at most barely amusing. If there is a message inside, it's not usually found. (Example: Lord of the Rings)