Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

Ugh. this is stressing me out and im not even reading any of it

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

If you don’t feel like talking about this anymore, I don’t blame you, haha. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be fair to say you think HIMYM is a better show than True Detective, then? Like, that one technical aspect of TD is better than that one technical aspect in HIMYM in your opinion. You think TD has better cinematography than HIMYM. But why does that make TD “better” while you like HIMYM more? Shouldn’t art be judged as a package experience, not on terms of “good this” and “bad that”? Sure, there are things about TD that you admit are better than HIMYM. But as a whole, as a cohesive package, as an artistic experience, don’t you think it’s fair to say that HIMYM is better in your subjective opinion? Don’t you think it’s fair to say it’s connecting with you in a more satisfying way?

I feel like Vermin and I should have our own separate thread where we can hash this stuff out without cluttering the board and/or stressing out Stratapus. The last thing I want to do is stress out Strat.

Strat wrote:Ugh. this is stressing me out and im not even reading any of it

Just a friendly, civil conversation. Nothing to stress about.

Has this leaked yet?

i'm just itching for the durden/vermin battle between objectivity and subjectivity to expand to include the assessment of RM posters

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

If you don’t feel like talking about this anymore, I don’t blame you, haha. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be fair to say you think HIMYM is a better show than True Detective, then? Like, that one technical aspect of TD is better than that one technical aspect in HIMYM in your opinion. You think TD has better cinematography than HIMYM. But why does that make TD “better” while you like HIMYM more? Shouldn’t art be judged as a package experience, not on terms of “good this” and “bad that”? Sure, there are things about TD that you admit are better than HIMYM. But as a whole, as a cohesive package, as an artistic experience, don’t you think it’s fair to say that HIMYM is better in your subjective opinion? Don’t you think it’s fair to say it’s connecting with you in a more satisfying way?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying. However, most of what appeals to me about HIMYM is emotional and intangible. I would entertain any argument that many of the individual aspects of TD (cinematography, acting, writing) are far superior, there is something happening on an emotional level that makes HIMYM a more enjoyable experience. Yes.

That's why I think it's okay to separate "best" from "like most."

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

If you don’t feel like talking about this anymore, I don’t blame you, haha. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be fair to say you think HIMYM is a better show than True Detective, then? Like, that one technical aspect of TD is better than that one technical aspect in HIMYM in your opinion. You think TD has better cinematography than HIMYM. But why does that make TD “better” while you like HIMYM more? Shouldn’t art be judged as a package experience, not on terms of “good this” and “bad that”? Sure, there are things about TD that you admit are better than HIMYM. But as a whole, as a cohesive package, as an artistic experience, don’t you think it’s fair to say that HIMYM is better in your subjective opinion? Don’t you think it’s fair to say it’s connecting with you in a more satisfying way?

Your posts are objectively better than dct's.

Alex wrote:i'm just itching for the durden/vermin battle between objectivity and subjectivity to expand to include the assessment of RM posters

Is chud objectively better than thodoks?

Heathen wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

If you don’t feel like talking about this anymore, I don’t blame you, haha. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be fair to say you think HIMYM is a better show than True Detective, then? Like, that one technical aspect of TD is better than that one technical aspect in HIMYM in your opinion. You think TD has better cinematography than HIMYM. But why does that make TD “better” while you like HIMYM more? Shouldn’t art be judged as a package experience, not on terms of “good this” and “bad that”? Sure, there are things about TD that you admit are better than HIMYM. But as a whole, as a cohesive package, as an artistic experience, don’t you think it’s fair to say that HIMYM is better in your subjective opinion? Don’t you think it’s fair to say it’s connecting with you in a more satisfying way?

Your posts are objectively better than dct's.

See, Heathen can appreciate that you're objectively a better poster, but she likes me way more. This is exactly he point I'm making.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Alex wrote:i'm just itching for the durden/vermin battle between objectivity and subjectivity to expand to include the assessment of RM posters

Is chud objectively better than thodoks?

Absolutely. Thodoks is the worst.

I... It's not... I don't... No.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

Alex wrote:i'm just itching for the durden/vermin battle between objectivity and subjectivity to expand to include the assessment of RM posters

Is chud objectively better than thodoks?

while i have not yet resolved my own belief about the objectivity/subjectivity debate, i feel confident in saying no to that particular question

durdencommatyler wrote:

Heathen wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:I guarantee everyone that Gareth Edwards' spin-off SW movie is going to be miles better than any of the official new "episodes."

I guarantee you'll like it more regardless.

Liking It More = Better

Oh, I'll respectfully disagree there, bub.

I suppose this involves whether or not you believe in the concept of objective quality in art. I don't subscribe to that belief at all, and I think anyone who says the quality of any piece of art can be objectively determined is, well, objectively incorrect.

I've seen If Lucy Fell more than I've seen The Godfather. I enjoy watching If Lucy Fell more, which is why I've seen it more often. But I absolutely believe The Godfather is the better movie. Absolutely. I "like" If Lucy Fell more but it isn't better.

But by what standard? What makes The Godfather "better"?

The acting. The writing. The direction. The cinematography. The cultural impact. The thematic elements. The tone/mood. Virtually every aspect of film making is hands down better with The Godfather. But I'm a sucker for romantic comedies and for Sarah Jessica Parker. So, gun to head, I'd say that my pleasure center enjoys watching If Lucy Fell more than The Godfather. But on a technical level, everything about The Godfather is absolutely better. Hands down.

But you realize that every single aspect you just mentioned (except for cultural impact, which doesn’t dictate the quality of the movie) is totally subjective, right? All I’d have to do is say I think the acting, writing, direction, cinematography, and themes in If Lucy Fell are better than The Godfather, and we’re instantly at an impasse. Neither of us would be correct or incorrect. Hence, neither can just be called objectively “better.”

Sure, right, of course. But there's not question. The acting, the writing and the direction are objectively better in The Godfather.

Oh, durdster.

Just a little joke, friend-o.

Of course, you're right. But there's no real point in mentioning any of that in the context of these discussions. It all goes without saying. Of course it's subjective. If we keep coming back to that or getting hung up on that, what's the point of even talking about this shit?

At some point we have to agree that it goes without saying and then forge a lexicon beyond that.

Oh I 100% agree with that. But isn’t that what I’m saying? To me, in the lexicon I use to discuss art, “better” and “like more” are interchangeable, because subjectivity is assumed.

I gotcha. Then that's where we differ. I assume subjectivity but still distinguish between "better" and "like more." For me, they aren't the same thing. I can appreciate when something is (in my subjective opinion) technically better, but may not be something I enjoy as much as something that is (subjectively) technically worse.

Like, the cinematography in True Detective is top notch. It's fabulous and exceptional on a purely technical level. But I'd still rather watch How I Met Your Mother.

If you don’t feel like talking about this anymore, I don’t blame you, haha. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be fair to say you think HIMYM is a better show than True Detective, then? Like, that one technical aspect of TD is better than that one technical aspect in HIMYM in your opinion. You think TD has better cinematography than HIMYM. But why does that make TD “better” while you like HIMYM more? Shouldn’t art be judged as a package experience, not on terms of “good this” and “bad that”? Sure, there are things about TD that you admit are better than HIMYM. But as a whole, as a cohesive package, as an artistic experience, don’t you think it’s fair to say that HIMYM is better in your subjective opinion? Don’t you think it’s fair to say it’s connecting with you in a more satisfying way?

Your posts are objectively better than dct's.

See, Heathen can appreciate that you're objectively a better poster, but she likes me way more. This is exactly he point I'm making.

But Heathen wants to kill both of us anyway, so does it really matter?

LoathedVermin72 wrote:But Heathen wants to kill both of us anyway, so does it really matter?

Murder is the highest form of flattery, vermin.

Its all objective.

Its all inadvertent imitation

Strat wrote:Its all inadvertent imitation

A pattern in all verminkind.