Grant

Neither holds a candle to Arrested Development, though.

I thought the new Family Guy was pretty good, although it's ridiculous that Arrested Development was bumped for the pathetic American Dad.

Hah, I hear ya. I work in radio and I occasionally work Saturday night shifts, from 7pm-2am (where I'm at right now). I can feel my social life eroding already.

I didn't want to debate with you because, as I will show you, you either missed the point I was trying to make or you made a downright terrible argument against mine. Here's the post in question broken down: First of all, an author doesn't "have to fill the gaping holes between facts" because that's their objective in the first place. Similar to novels/films "based on a true story," it's that promise that this really happened that can initially draw a reader in to the story the author wants to tell. And why do we tell stories? It's to make a point. Dan Brown draws in the reader because the story is "based on true things" and, with the understanding that the novel is "fik-shun," he proceeds to tell the story he wants to tell to make the point he wanted to. Because the story is "fik-shun" that does not take away from his point. Obviously, no one in their right mind would use Dan Brown's novel as a source of fact; I'm not disputing that, although I'm beginning to think you think I am. This was the meat of your post, the only time when you were coming close to articulating your thoughts. If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that "I don't care or I don't like what point Dan Brown was trying to make because everyone has beliefs that they want to advance. Graham Greene had points that he wanted to forward, but that is not why I enjoyed his work. I like them because they are "good" [by "good" I'm assuming you mean that the plot interested you (perhaps because you identified with his "agenda" but perhaps not) and the author used a compelling narrative]. Since their work was fiction, though, I knew that the books were absolutely meaningless and disposable (based on my earlier definition of 'fik-shun')." First of all, we need to understand that there is a difference between a person's agenda and the specific point of an author's novel. The agenda is the peron's beliefs that they want to forward. The specific point is exactly that - whatever the purpose of the story is. You may know the specific point as "morals," if that makes it easier for you. Your implication is that you dislike Dan Brown's work because you disagree with his point/moral, and you like Graham Greene's work because you agree with his point/moral, which is completely fine. However, the problem is with your final sentence of that stanze in which you dismiss both authors because they write fictional books. Would you have been able to better accept the argument/point/moral that the author was trying to convey had it been written as a nonfictional essay? Why do the fictional elements detract from the author's argument/point/moral? And when I read this, I realized you had no grasp of any of the concepts we were arguing about. Hopefully you can read my comments above and understand why I don't need to repeat myself again here. But, what the hell, I'll just do it briefly. Even the Cat in the Hat is not without merit, because - again - like every work, the author has a purpose. The point/moral of The Cat in the Hat is that children do not need to go outside to have fun, they can do it inside - so long as they don't make a mess. Seuss uses the fictional elements (the Cat in the Hat, his cohorts, etc) to make this point. But since cats cannot talk, does that mean Seuss's point is less credible than if he had written an essay about how children can have fun indoors? I think that the basic problem is that you (and others) view fiction as something that is meant merely to entertain and nothing more, when that is sadly inaccurate. It is important to distinguish that fiction is not fact, but that does not mean that fiction can't be just as powerful as nonfiction in conveying arguments.

As you'll notice if you re-read the posts, I wasn't defending beausox - rather, I was pointing out that the bashing of the poster (which, while we're on the subject, was extraneous and, as I notice so often on PPP, doesn't know when to quit; how old are you guys?) was missing the point, as admittedly mangled as beausox made his own point (or what I thought was his point - I'm probably giving him too much credit). In any case, more than one poster attempted to make fun of beausox's comments by dismissing Dan Brown's work as completely illegitimate because it's "fik-shun." Which, of course, is short sighted and ought to have been pointed out. Not only is it incorrect, but it discredits fiction as a legitimate form of commentary. Furthermore, I didn't turn the argument into anything that it wasn't already, and certainly not a "sorta-kinda-maybe, because the author has an agenda and you people are too stupid to understand that" thing as you describe my thoughts (again misinterpreting what I was getting at). If anything, I brought the thread slightly more back on topic as opposed to the "omg lolz beausox is dUMBB WE R SMARRTTT" it had become.

Do I need to restate the quoted post in my own words? Would that make you happy? The person I quoted covered the bases pretty well - the basic point being that authors use fiction (or "make believe" if you need) to make points about the "real world," which Dan Brown does through the use of "make believe" - but I can break it into smaller words for you if necessary.

And the thing is, the "Bills - Champions" thing looks so... natural.

What amazes me is how often you can completely miss the point. First of all, "even though it's fiction some people take it as gospel" is not at all what I said nor implied in the other thread (although it is what you have tried to interpret it as). The point is that fiction is used by authors to make "real" points - just because it's "fik shun" does not mean it's irrelevent. Duh, no one ever contested that Dan Brown made up many things in the novel to make it more interesting - but he used these "made up" things to make "real" points. It is NOT that hard. Secondly, even if that were what I was saying, how would this be inconsistent? Third, learn to use the word "ironic" properly.

ohnoes that maekes mee a child mulestar m ir rite?!?!?!?!?!11 I feel somewhat strange defending MJ, but that's completely inaccurate and you know it. Whether or not you liked his music, it's impossible to deny that the man had friggin' talent, regardless of what the man has become.

WE MUST NEVER JOKE. THIS IS AMERICA, DAMMIT.

This is on a separate tangent, but I somehow happened to listen to the Thriller album a week or so ago and it reminded me what a damn shame Michael Jackson's become. I mean really. You listen to his albums in the early 80s and they still hold up today; they're phenomenal. But now, he's nothing more than a disfigured pervert. Imagine what his reputation would've been had he been hit by a bus in 1989...

Because this is relevant to the discussion.

joke n. 1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line. 2. A mischievous trick; a prank. 3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation. And we heard you the first time.

Wow. And you people believe what you say.

Quoted again for emphasis, because certain "board leaders" trying to be smartasses are looking pretty foolish, if you ask me.

Too bad graphics in a football game are basically meaningless. What EA ought to do is make playing Madden a bit more balanced on both sides of the ball.

Anyone that thinks abstinence only education has any chance of working was obviously never a teenager.

Wait, who?

So, what's the message of this article? "The Blazers might be losing, but at least you're alive to watch"? "Be thankful you can watch games at all"? "It doesn't matter if the entertainment product provided sucks as long as you have someone you can love so don't blame us if you're unhappy"?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mitch_Hedberg A lot of good quotes courtesy of Wikipedia. 'Tis a shame.

Also, Travis Henry has been traded for Plaxico Burress and a number one pick.

My Yahoo!: Bills announce uniform changes for '06 season.

From "the next Bruce Smith" to "the next Chidi Ahanotau"...

For the record, the Monkees were pathetic back then and they're pathetic now. The real genesis of N'Sync types. To say that even the friggin' Monkees, who couldn't even play their own instruments for much of the time they were a "band", were better than today's music is way too idealized of the past. The fact is, there's a lot of good music out today. It takes a little more looking around, but it's there.

Buffalo, NY!