Talk:That Arrogant Jerk! - Revision history

Platypusrex256: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-05T07:35:42Z

‎character evaluation

Zoey at 05:29, 5 October 2007

2007-10-05T05:29:30Z

Platypusrex256 at 04:27, 5 October 2007

2007-10-05T04:27:35Z

Platypusrex256: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-05T04:27:14Z

‎character evaluation

Zoey: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-04T23:32:12Z

‎character evaluation

Zoey: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-04T23:31:24Z

‎character evaluation

Zoey at 23:31, 4 October 2007

2007-10-04T23:31:00Z

Platypusrex256: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-04T23:23:41Z

‎character evaluation

Platypusrex256: /* character evaluation */

2007-10-04T23:22:12Z

‎character evaluation

Zoey at 21:27, 4 October 2007

2007-10-04T21:27:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:35, 5 October 2007
Line 24:		Line 24:
	::::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning. if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms. granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science. but perhaps by a softer science? haha... but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now. i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4		::::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning. if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms. granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science. but perhaps by a softer science? haha... but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now. i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4
	Okay, but with your feminism you are talking about aspects of a plot. You say that insert video here could contain some aspects of feminism because... You are not quantifying the amount of feminism they have. You aren't saying this is the MOST feministic thing, ever. With your note about Sarah, you were saying that she was the MOST arrogant character. It was a judgement that you were passing on her character, that could not be backed up in any scientific way. With feminism, you are tying in a connection, but not quantifying the levels of feminismness (geez, that's not a word haha). --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 00:29, 5 October 2007 (CDT)		Okay, but with your feminism you are talking about aspects of a plot. You say that insert video here could contain some aspects of feminism because... You are not quantifying the amount of feminism they have. You aren't saying this is the MOST feministic thing, ever. With your note about Sarah, you were saying that she was the MOST arrogant character. It was a judgement that you were passing on her character, that could not be backed up in any scientific way. With feminism, you are tying in a connection, but not quantifying the levels of feminismness (geez, that's not a word haha). --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 00:29, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
		+	:now you're just trying too hard. the concept of feminism and the concept of arrogance are equal in abstractness. i could go through and point to any episode where a female is allowed to speak before spoken to and i could argue that it is feminism and i would be correct. feminism can also be measured in degrees. and if i had a doctorate, it would be a science. same goes for arrogance. if i was a psychologist, i could measure arrogance. but that would be ridiculous now wouldn't it? haha... but thats besides the point really. if i could re-word my note it would just be "it is somewhat hypocritical of sarah to scold jonas for his arrogance when in past videos, sarah has also acted out of arrogance." just that. is that objective enough for you? haha - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:29, 5 October 2007
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Arrogance is a {{wikipedia\|Hypothetical_construct\|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it. Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant"... any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring". There is no truly objective way to measure ''any'' hypothetical construct. And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character. Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia\|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29\|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)		:::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Arrogance is a {{wikipedia\|Hypothetical_construct\|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it. Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant"... any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring". There is no truly objective way to measure ''any'' hypothetical construct. And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character. Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia\|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29\|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
	::::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning. if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms. granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science. but perhaps by a softer science? haha... but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now. i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4		::::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning. if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms. granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science. but perhaps by a softer science? haha... but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now. i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4
		+	Okay, but with your feminism you are talking about aspects of a plot. You say that insert video here could contain some aspects of feminism because... You are not quantifying the amount of feminism they have. You aren't saying this is the MOST feministic thing, ever. With your note about Sarah, you were saying that she was the MOST arrogant character. It was a judgement that you were passing on her character, that could not be backed up in any scientific way. With feminism, you are tying in a connection, but not quantifying the levels of feminismness (geez, that's not a word haha). --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 00:29, 5 October 2007 (CDT)

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::you are dancing around the point.  sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself.  other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not.  jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group.  daniel has also apologized several times.  also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes.  sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters.  i disagree with your reasoning.  however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
 :::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  Arrogance is a {{wikipedia|Hypothetical_construct|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it.  Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant"... any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring".  There is no truly objective way to measure ''any'' hypothetical construct.  And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character.  Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
-:::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p  ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning.  if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms.  granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science.  but perhaps by a softer science?  haha...  but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now.  i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
+::::then the same also goes for my entire page dedicated to feminism ;-p  ...in literary analysis, we will use many terms that are abstract and possess arbitrary meaning.  if the wiki is here for viewers to draw connections and look past the surface level of the lg15 plot, we will need to use these vague terms.  granted, an attribute like arrogance cannot be measured by any hard science.  but perhaps by a softer science?  haha...  but this conversation is getting a tad bit absurd right now.  i believe we understand where our differences are and i'm ready to leave it be... - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 :: Whoa, whoa, I meant ''SARAH'' seems to hate arrogance in Daniel because she has been arrogant in the past - I wasn't making a statement about you. I don't know you at all, platy. -[[User:Theresa|Theresa]] 15:21, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
-:::i dont know where you got the impression that i got the impression you were making a jab at me but whatever. - [user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
+::: somewhere there was a comment made by someone saying that my note was itself arrogant so i was not talking directly to you.  i dont know where that comment went its gone now.  - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
 Platy, here is the note you posted, I will highlight certain aspects of it:
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::you are dancing around the point.  sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself.  other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not.  jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group.  daniel has also apologized several times.  also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes.  sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters.  i disagree with your reasoning.  however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
 :::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  Arrogance is a {{wikipedia|Hypothetical_construct|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it.  Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant"... any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring".  There is no truly objective way to measure ''any'' hypothetical construct.  And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character.  Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 Let's start with your bolded statement.  Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part.  Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact),  I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts."  How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed?  How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"?  Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster.  One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective.  While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page.  Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
 ::you are dancing around the point.  sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself.  other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not.  jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group.  daniel has also apologized several times.  also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes.  sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters.  i disagree with your reasoning.  however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256|platy]] oct 4
-:::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  Arrogance is a {{wikipedia|Hypothetical_construct|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it.  Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant" any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring".  There is no truly objective way to measure any hypothetical construct.  And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character.  Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
+:::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  Arrogance is a {{wikipedia|Hypothetical_construct|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it.  Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arrogant"... any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring".  There is no truly objective way to measure ''any'' hypothetical construct.  And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character.  Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:31, 4 October 2007
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Let's start with your bolded statement. Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part. Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact), I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts." How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed? How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"? Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster. One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective. While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page. Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)		Let's start with your bolded statement. Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part. Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact), I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts." How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed? How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"? Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster. One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective. While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page. Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
	::you are dancing around the point. sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself. other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not. jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group. daniel has also apologized several times. also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes. sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters. i disagree with your reasoning. however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4		::you are dancing around the point. sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself. other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not. jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group. daniel has also apologized several times. also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes. sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters. i disagree with your reasoning. however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4
		+	:::I'm sorry, but I disagree with you. Arrogance is a {{wikipedia\|Hypothetical_construct\|hypothetical construct}}, meaning there is no scientific way to measure it. Therefore, you there is no truly objective way to quantify someone as "more arogant" any more than you can quantify someone as "more loving" or "more caring". There is no truly objective way to measure any hypothetical construct. And since this is so, there is no way to objectively determine that Sarah is any more "arrogant" than any other character. Your argument is compelling, but the ability to provide a good argument to back up your beliefs does not equal an {{wikipedia\|Objectivity_%28philosophy%29\|objective}} belief. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 18:31, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 4 October 2007
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Let's start with your bolded statement. Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part. Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact), I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts." How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed? How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"? Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster. One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective. While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page. Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)		Let's start with your bolded statement. Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part. Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact), I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts." How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed? How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"? Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster. One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective. While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page. Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey\|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
−	::you are dancing around the point. sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself. other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not. jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group. daniel has also apologized several times. also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes. sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters. - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4	+	::you are dancing around the point. sarah is arrogant and yet she accuses others of arrogance without acknowledging the arrogance within herself. other characters have acted arrogant but they have admitted to their faults in ways that sarah has not. jonas has spent several episodes confessing to his mistakes of thinking for himself and not including the group. daniel has also apologized several times. also, they will never point at sarah and say "look at you, you make mistakes" and imply that they have never made mistakes. sarah's arrogance can be objectively quantified as greater than other characters. i disagree with your reasoning. however, if you said 'this note does not belong here because you are trying to make a point that is far more complex to be contained in a two or three sentence note' that would be fair. and with that i'm done with it. - [[user:platypusrex256\|platy]] oct 4

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Platy, here is the note you posted, I will highlight certain aspects of it:
-" It could be argued that it is hypocritical of Sarah to accuse Jonas of being an arrogant jerk when '''Sarah is the most arrogant and vain character in the LG15 series'''''. Many characters have made mistakes but ''Sarah is the one who dumped the documents from Spencer's dad into the water'' and ''Sarah is the one who lied about losing the serum'' and ''Sarah is the one who tried to ruin Daniel's relationship with Mallory because she was jealous''."
+" It could be argued that it is hypocritical of Sarah to accuse Jonas of being an arrogant jerk when '''''Sarah is the most arrogant and vain character in the LG15 series'''''. Many characters have made mistakes but ''Sarah is the one who dumped the documents from Spencer's dad into the water'' and ''Sarah is the one who lied about losing the serum'' and ''Sarah is the one who tried to ruin Daniel's relationship with Mallory because she was jealous''."
 Let's start with your bolded statement.  Saying that Sarah is the MOST arrogant and vain character in the series is CLEARLY a judgement on your part.  Who defines "most"? And while you do provide arguments (which are tainted with judgement as well... "Because she was jealous"... that is something you infered from the video, not anything that has been provided as fact),  I could just as easily provide arguments for any number of other characters and their "vain and selfish acts."  How about when Jonas slept with Bree because he wanted to be with her, even though he still had every reason to believe she was brainwashed?  How about when Daniel continued to pursue Aunt Alex even after Jonas made it clear that he wasn't comfortable with his "[[Uncle Dan]]"?  Whether you believe these arguements are as "convincing" as yours for Sarah or not, they are still debatable, and therefore a matter of the opinion of the poster.  One of the things we strive for on a wiki is notes that are relevant and objective.  While your note was relevant, it was truly not objective, and as such, I do not believe it has a place on this video page.  Feel free to post it on the talk page though, or in the LG15 Forums. --[[User:Zoey|Zoey]] 16:26, 4 October 2007 (CDT)