General & Others Next Strawhat Crew Members and the Grand Fleet
- Thread starter Guan Yu
- Start date
- Tags #carrot4prison #furries4carrot #larrot #yamato4nakama #yamatofansunite #yamatoisnakama carrot blows cry about carrot furries for nakama furries scurries i need my support carrot body pillow oni princess and the pirate king this thread stupid we're here for jew vs dizzy who wants rabbit stew yamato > carrot yamato best girl yamato finds the one piece yamato hype yamato is the last crew mate
- Status
I'm prepping the pan.. for the moment you will all get salty enough to cook you 
Your stubbornness is like that of a child. There's nothing good about that.
My friend, your entire argument is based on a misinterpretation. Read the detective example again. If they are fighting over whether the killer is captured or freed, it is NOT ENOUGH. Just because their goals are about the same thing does not mean they are the same goal. This is exactly what every single example you gave is. They are about the same thing, but they are not the same goal.
It goes on to say that for a compelling antagonist, they should be fighting over who controls what people believe. Of your examples, only Arlong fits the example. All of the others fail the test.
You're also making things up to try and force it to fit your already faulty premise. You can't really believe that Luffy's goal was control of Alabasta, or that either Spandam's goal was to control the knowledge of Ohara.
It goes on to say that for a compelling antagonist, they should be fighting over who controls what people believe. Of your examples, only Arlong fits the example. All of the others fail the test.
You're also making things up to try and force it to fit your already faulty premise. You can't really believe that Luffy's goal was control of Alabasta, or that either Spandam's goal was to control the knowledge of Ohara.
No, you are not understanding at all the whole point of this "method", sorry:
First, here I have never been talking about goals, but desire. I'm make a nuance between the two.
I think I understand the problem with your understanding of this rule, for you it's all about the surface. But.. even if yes, the protagonist - even in the detective stories - don't have the same goals (in Crime fiction for example, the detective wants to find the murderer, the murderer wants to stay free) .. what you are not understanding is what Truby is hammering here by sayin:
"Ask yourself "What is the most important thing they are fighting about?" "
It's that the two characters, DON'T NEED to have similar goal in surface, they need to have something SIMILAR to fight for in SUBTEXT. Something like a strong common desire. And that can take multiple form.
in other words the character must always fight for the same thing in the end, weither it's in surface or by subtext.
When I'm talking about the control over Alabasta or Wano, or the control of the knowledge of Ohara, I'm speaking not about the fact that Luffy would want to control the land, but to get it BACK from Kaido or Crocodile in order to restore it and make his friend happy again. In the case of Robin and Spandam, it's a control in a sence where Robin needs to keep safe those information while Spandam wants them for himself.
This would be a nice point to analyse
First, here I have never been talking about goals, but desire. I'm make a nuance between the two.
I think I understand the problem with your understanding of this rule, for you it's all about the surface. But.. even if yes, the protagonist - even in the detective stories - don't have the same goals (in Crime fiction for example, the detective wants to find the murderer, the murderer wants to stay free) .. what you are not understanding is what Truby is hammering here by sayin:
"Ask yourself "What is the most important thing they are fighting about?" "
It's that the two characters, DON'T NEED to have similar goal in surface, they need to have something SIMILAR to fight for in SUBTEXT. Something like a strong common desire. And that can take multiple form.
in other words the character must always fight for the same thing in the end, weither it's in surface or by subtext.
When I'm talking about the control over Alabasta or Wano, or the control of the knowledge of Ohara, I'm speaking not about the fact that Luffy would want to control the land, but to get it BACK from Kaido or Crocodile in order to restore it and make his friend happy again. In the case of Robin and Spandam, it's a control in a sence where Robin needs to keep safe those information while Spandam wants them for himself.
Post automatically merged:
This would be a nice point to analyse
A true opponent not only wants to prevent the hero from achieving his desire but is competing with the hero for the same goal.
Point me to the paragraph where it says they DON'T actually need to compete for the same goal, they just need to have SIMILAR goals in the subtext. It literally doesn't say this. It's a fucking textbook, so don't start with your usual "it's in the subtext" crap. This is informative non fiction. There is no sub text, there are only facts. In fact, this is the book that teaches you about subtext, not one that expects you to understand it in order to read. You are putting words in the author's mouth to fit your agenda.
Also let's get something straight. Having a degree > self studying for any ammount of time. I don't care if you've "disected" it for 10 years. I have grades on papers and exams and feedback from actual expert proffesors telling me I am right, and you disagree with even the most basic concepts that EVERY EXPERT I talked to for years explained.
I misunderstood parts at first too. But I got feedback from assignments, and recieved correction from professors AND HAD IT EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE ACTUAL AUTHOR. I changed my interpretation according to experts, and proved that I now understand it properly by recieving top grades on essays and exams about it.
It seems that what happened with you, is that you misunderstood parts just like me, but since you were dissecting the book yourself instead of taking classes on it, you recieved no feedback and proceeded to stick your head farther up your own ass with each subsequent read through, further rienforcing the incorrect interpretation you had to begin with, only changing your view when you decided you were wrong, not experts, and not FUCKING JOHN TRUBY HIMSELF. Then one day you decided you were an expert yourself because you read the book enough times, and now you pride yourself on expert analysis of fart jokes and fat, thong wearing dudes in cat suits.
Real expertise comes in the form of peer review. My understanding was reviewed when my article on literary analysis was picked by my university faculty to be published in their student literature magazine. Now I'm peer reviewing your work, and I'm telling you it is SUB PAR. I reccomend seeking a real teacher and opening yourself up to the posibility of being wrong.
Point me to the paragraph where it says they DON'T actually need to compete for the same goal, they just need to have SIMILAR goals in the subtext. It literally doesn't say this. It's a fucking textbook, so don't start with your usual "it's in the subtext" crap. This is informative non fiction. There is no sub text, there are only facts. In fact, this is the book that teaches you about subtext, not one that expects you to understand it in order to read. You are putting words in the author's mouth to fit your agenda.
Also let's get something straight. Having a degree > self studying for any ammount of time. I don't care if you've "disected" it for 10 years. I have grades on papers and exams and feedback from actual expert proffesors telling me I am right, and you disagree with even the most basic concepts that EVERY EXPERT I talked to for years explained.
I misunderstood parts at first too. But I got feedback from assignments, and recieved correction from professors AND HAD IT EXPLAINED TO ME BY THE ACTUAL AUTHOR. I changed my interpretation according to experts, and proved that I now understand it properly by recieving top grades on essays and exams about it.
It seems that what happened with you, is that you misunderstood parts just like me, but since you were dissecting the book yourself instead of taking classes on it, you recieved no feedback and proceeded to stick your head farther up your own ass with each subsequent read through, further rienforcing the incorrect interpretation you had to begin with, only changing your view when you decided you were wrong, not experts, and not FUCKING JOHN TRUBY HIMSELF. Then one day you decided you were an expert yourself because you read the book enough times, and now you pride yourself on expert analysis of fart jokes and fat, thong wearing dudes in cat suits.
Real expertise comes in the form of peer review. My understanding was reviewed when my article on literary analysis was picked by my university faculty to be published in their student literature magazine. Now I'm peer reviewing your work, and I'm telling you it is SUB PAR. I reccomend seeking a real teacher and opening yourself up to the posibility of being wrong.
Last edited:
Litterally this one:
"If you look at a number of good stories, it often appears, at first glance, that hero and opponent are not competing for the same goal. But look again. See if you can spot what they are really fighting about. [...] The trick to creating an opponent who wants the same goal as the hero is to find the deepest level of conflict between them. "
Here, he is litterally speaking of stories like One Piece. If you don't understand here that Truby is explaining that sometimes, the goal is not visible, must we have to seek DEEPER (ergo, subtext) then you have a real problem of comprehesion of this technique and this section.
Actually.. this would explain perfectly why you don't understand why Gin is Sanji's main antagonist and not Krieg, why would he? Following your point of view, they are both fighting for two different things and Krieg is hitting hard Sanji..
The problem is that if you only create goal on the surface, what you will only get is a shallow story. To create a deeper meaning through conflict, you actually need to make both character fight for the same thing, even if this is not obvious on a first read.
There is no subtext here, Truby is very clear.
You know what, this p*nis battle is actually a bit childlish for me. I told you that I had a degree also, I had the same "type" of interventions, sametype of exams and feedback.. Still.. at this time.. Because of that, the fact that I was young and because of the fact that my grade were also good, I thought that I knew everything at the end of my schooling days.
Spoiler: I knew NOTHING, I was too confident in my knowledge
Because to really understand the concepts Truby is highlighting here (and not just him), we must go through the trial by FIRE:
Writing
Only by writing (and doing this by yourself) we can really understand how powerful a story can become when you applies those concept. (this one included) and how shallow a storyline can be without proper conflict. You can be given 30 times an explaination by the actual author of the book, if you don't experiment failure on a blank page, it doesn't mean anything. So, only by failing, I understood that it was time for a deeper deconstruction of those concept. And oh boi.. was I soo above my head..
I'm not questionning your knowledge on litteratures analysis or your paper, you might have made some very good points, after all there is a lot to talk about. But we are not talking about your work there, we are talking about your understanding of AoS and a simple rule (or method, it's better), written clearly on the page in one of the sections of the book, that you litterally don't want to accept.
Never forget that everyone, even the most influent expert on earth, can be trapped by cognitive bias, like thinking you know something, when you actually don't (or at least in that case, don't want to accept it)
The problem is that this little method is primordial to create a good conflict (and it should have been highlighted a little bit more by Truby I think)
I do not need to seek a teacher, I'm way beyond that point. Here, I explained to you clearly why this method was important, how this method needs to be applied and where you can find it in popular stories (like One Piece).
So.. If you still denying everything after this point.. I can't do anything about you other than to say :
"good luck on your writings, you might need it."
Save me some popcorn
"If you look at a number of good stories, it often appears, at first glance, that hero and opponent are not competing for the same goal. But look again. See if you can spot what they are really fighting about. [...] The trick to creating an opponent who wants the same goal as the hero is to find the deepest level of conflict between them. "
Here, he is litterally speaking of stories like One Piece. If you don't understand here that Truby is explaining that sometimes, the goal is not visible, must we have to seek DEEPER (ergo, subtext) then you have a real problem of comprehesion of this technique and this section.
Actually.. this would explain perfectly why you don't understand why Gin is Sanji's main antagonist and not Krieg, why would he? Following your point of view, they are both fighting for two different things and Krieg is hitting hard Sanji..
The problem is that if you only create goal on the surface, what you will only get is a shallow story. To create a deeper meaning through conflict, you actually need to make both character fight for the same thing, even if this is not obvious on a first read.
There is no subtext here, Truby is very clear.
You know what, this p*nis battle is actually a bit childlish for me. I told you that I had a degree also, I had the same "type" of interventions, sametype of exams and feedback.. Still.. at this time.. Because of that, the fact that I was young and because of the fact that my grade were also good, I thought that I knew everything at the end of my schooling days.
Spoiler: I knew NOTHING, I was too confident in my knowledge
Because to really understand the concepts Truby is highlighting here (and not just him), we must go through the trial by FIRE:
Writing
Only by writing (and doing this by yourself) we can really understand how powerful a story can become when you applies those concept. (this one included) and how shallow a storyline can be without proper conflict. You can be given 30 times an explaination by the actual author of the book, if you don't experiment failure on a blank page, it doesn't mean anything. So, only by failing, I understood that it was time for a deeper deconstruction of those concept. And oh boi.. was I soo above my head..
I'm not questionning your knowledge on litteratures analysis or your paper, you might have made some very good points, after all there is a lot to talk about. But we are not talking about your work there, we are talking about your understanding of AoS and a simple rule (or method, it's better), written clearly on the page in one of the sections of the book, that you litterally don't want to accept.
Never forget that everyone, even the most influent expert on earth, can be trapped by cognitive bias, like thinking you know something, when you actually don't (or at least in that case, don't want to accept it)
The problem is that this little method is primordial to create a good conflict (and it should have been highlighted a little bit more by Truby I think)
I do not need to seek a teacher, I'm way beyond that point. Here, I explained to you clearly why this method was important, how this method needs to be applied and where you can find it in popular stories (like One Piece).
So.. If you still denying everything after this point.. I can't do anything about you other than to say :
"good luck on your writings, you might need it."
Post automatically merged:
Last edited:
You're a clown. Every time you open your mouth you prove that not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you also can't follow basic logic. This is literally my point. One Piece does not have the deeper meaning he is talking about. The examples you keep giving as "deeper meaning" in One Piece are literally EXACTLY THE SAME as Truby's example of SURFACE LEVEL goals that make for a poor antagonist.
"Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape"
Can you not see that these are the same thing? Yet you tout this as proof that One Piece has deeper meaning, ignoring the part where truby explains that in a good story, they would have the same goal and not conflicting ones. Then when I call you out on obviously not understanding the point since you point to Truby's example of a shallow antagonist as an example of a good one, you make up random shit about how Truby says they only have to have similar goals in the subtext, not actually the same goal. And when asked for proof, you bring it full circle by quoting the same goddamn paragraph I used to prove you wrong and repeating the same mistake of confusing the example of a shallow antagonist with a good one that you did the first time
You're like a hamster on a damn wheel, going round and round, completely unaware that you're never going to reach the cheese.
Yes, I'm aware of this concept since it's LITERALLY THE ARGUMENT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS WHOLE TIME. You're the one who thinks that killing someone and saving someone are the same goal, when anyone can tell you they're the opposite (and Truby says it literally in the next sentence).
Lmao, after months of calling yourself an expert and telling everyone they should just trust you because you're an "authority" who's aware of "high end literary concepts", someone touting their degree is a dick measuring contest
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
You're the one who doesn't want to accept what's written on the page. You even quote the line that proves you wrong and then claim it says the opposite of what it does. I don't know if you're actually this stupid, or if you're just a troll afterall, but man, if you're for real here then I overestimated you. And that's saying something because I thought you were delusional to begin with. You're clearly beyond help, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain high end literary concepts to a pidgeon who's too blinded by bias to understand. At least now you've displayed your incompetence in literary analysis for all to see, which is pretty much all I was expecting anyway. I'm not going to pretend to take you seriously anymore. Thanks for the laughs though
"Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape"
Can you not see that these are the same thing? Yet you tout this as proof that One Piece has deeper meaning, ignoring the part where truby explains that in a good story, they would have the same goal and not conflicting ones. Then when I call you out on obviously not understanding the point since you point to Truby's example of a shallow antagonist as an example of a good one, you make up random shit about how Truby says they only have to have similar goals in the subtext, not actually the same goal. And when asked for proof, you bring it full circle by quoting the same goddamn paragraph I used to prove you wrong and repeating the same mistake of confusing the example of a shallow antagonist with a good one that you did the first time
You're like a hamster on a damn wheel, going round and round, completely unaware that you're never going to reach the cheese.
Yes, I'm aware of this concept since it's LITERALLY THE ARGUMENT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS WHOLE TIME. You're the one who thinks that killing someone and saving someone are the same goal, when anyone can tell you they're the opposite (and Truby says it literally in the next sentence).
Lmao, after months of calling yourself an expert and telling everyone they should just trust you because you're an "authority" who's aware of "high end literary concepts", someone touting their degree is a dick measuring contest
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
You're the one who doesn't want to accept what's written on the page. You even quote the line that proves you wrong and then claim it says the opposite of what it does. I don't know if you're actually this stupid, or if you're just a troll afterall, but man, if you're for real here then I overestimated you. And that's saying something because I thought you were delusional to begin with. You're clearly beyond help, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain high end literary concepts to a pidgeon who's too blinded by bias to understand. At least now you've displayed your incompetence in literary analysis for all to see, which is pretty much all I was expecting anyway. I'm not going to pretend to take you seriously anymore. Thanks for the laughs though
Last edited:
You're a clown. Every time you open your mouth you prove that not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you also can't follow basic logic. This is literally my point. One Piece does not have the deeper meaning he is talking about. The examples you keep giving as "deeper meaning" in One Piece are literally EXACTLY THE SAME as Truby's example of SURFACE LEVEL goals that make for a poor antagonist.
"Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape"
Can you not see that these are the same thing? Yet you tout this as proof that One Piece has deeper meaning, ignoring the part where truby explains that in a good story, they would have the same goal and not conflicting ones. Then when I call you out on obviously not understanding the point since you point to Truby's example of a shallow antagonist as an example of a good one, you make up random shit about how Truby says they only have to have similar goals in the subtext, not actually the same goal. And when asked for proof, you bring it full circle by quoting the same goddamn paragraph I used to prove you wrong and repeating the same mistake of confusing the example of a shallow antagonist with a good one that you did the first time
You're like a hamster on a damn wheel, going round and round, completely unaware that you're never going to reach the cheese.
Yes, I'm aware of this concept since it's LITERALLY THE ARGUMENT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS WHOLE TIME. You're the one who thinks that killing someone and saving someone are the same goal, when anyone can tell you they're the opposite (and Truby says it literally in the next sentence).
Lmao, after months of calling yourself an expert and telling everyone they should just trust you because you're an "authority" who's aware of "high end literary concepts", someone touting their degree is a dick measuring contest
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
You're the one who doesn't want to accept what's written on the page. You even quote the line that proves you wrong and then claim it says the opposite of what it does. I don't know if you're actually this stupid, or if you're just a troll afterall, but man, if you're for real here then I overestimated you. And that's saying something because I thought you were delusional to begin with. You're clearly beyond help, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain high end literary concepts to a pidgeon who's too blinded by bias to understand. At least now you've displayed your incompetence in literary analysis for all to see, which is pretty much all I was expecting anyway. I'm not going to pretend to take you seriously anymore. Thanks for the laughs though
"Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape"
Can you not see that these are the same thing? Yet you tout this as proof that One Piece has deeper meaning, ignoring the part where truby explains that in a good story, they would have the same goal and not conflicting ones. Then when I call you out on obviously not understanding the point since you point to Truby's example of a shallow antagonist as an example of a good one, you make up random shit about how Truby says they only have to have similar goals in the subtext, not actually the same goal. And when asked for proof, you bring it full circle by quoting the same goddamn paragraph I used to prove you wrong and repeating the same mistake of confusing the example of a shallow antagonist with a good one that you did the first time
You're like a hamster on a damn wheel, going round and round, completely unaware that you're never going to reach the cheese.
Yes, I'm aware of this concept since it's LITERALLY THE ARGUMENT I'VE BEEN MAKING THIS WHOLE TIME. You're the one who thinks that killing someone and saving someone are the same goal, when anyone can tell you they're the opposite (and Truby says it literally in the next sentence).
Lmao, after months of calling yourself an expert and telling everyone they should just trust you because you're an "authority" who's aware of "high end literary concepts", someone touting their degree is a dick measuring contest
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
You're the one who doesn't want to accept what's written on the page. You even quote the line that proves you wrong and then claim it says the opposite of what it does. I don't know if you're actually this stupid, or if you're just a troll afterall, but man, if you're for real here then I overestimated you. And that's saying something because I thought you were delusional to begin with. You're clearly beyond help, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain high end literary concepts to a pidgeon who's too blinded by bias to understand. At least now you've displayed your incompetence in literary analysis for all to see, which is pretty much all I was expecting anyway. I'm not going to pretend to take you seriously anymore. Thanks for the laughs though
I've been patient with you until now, but if you start being as toxic as the other, I'll treat you with the same lack of respect. We had an open door for now, but it would be really dissapointing to destroy it completely. Don't you think ?
1. All your argument stands on one assertion: that One Piece would be 'not that deep". First. One Piece is not deep, it's crafted perfectly. Those are two different thing. You should know that as I already explained the difference:
2. You are showing again that you missunderstood the technique.
""Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape""
Those are conflicting goals only in surface. As Truby explained and as I explained it to you in the case of Ace:
- The Detective and the Killer are fighting ALSO for their own vision of reality (Truby puts it that way : in a detective story, it appears that the hero wants to catch the killer and the opponent wants to get away. But they are really fighting over which version of reality everyone will believe. "
- SAME goes for Akainu VS Ace, it appears that they both have conflicting goal when they are in fact fighting for their OWN vision of piracy.
You are litterally NOT understanding the technique here. When it is in fact pretty simple. So please, don't try to provoque me or to prove me wrong by searching to twist the wordings, you can't. Just accept that their is something you missunderstood, I won't taunt you on that. Like I said, I've made it through the same hell.
The paragraph :
"If you look at a number of good stories, it often appears, at first glance, that hero and opponent are not competing for the same goal. But look again. See if you can spot what they are really fighting about. [...] The trick to creating an opponent who wants the same goal as the hero is to find the deepest level of conflict between them. "
Is proving that their must ALWAYS be similar goal//hidden desire put in conflict and that they must be on the DEEPEST level of similarity in order to create a great antagonist/protagonist relationship.
There is nothing difficult nor deep about that, it's very clear. It's not rocket science. I understand that you don't want to accept that you are wrong, but the writing here is going MY way, not yours, in anyway. So accept it.
I have already found the cheese. It was not on the wheel.
No, Killing and Saving are not the same goal. But the similarity are deeper, as I and Truby said: in the version of reality that is being fought upon.
Once you understand the difference, everything will be clear, you'll see.
During all those month I said only one thing : I'm an analyst. Did I say more ? No. You are you little squad are telling the tale of the expert, not me ;)
Dude.. like I said.. those lines proves YOU wrong.. and you still don't understand why (because you don't understand the important of putting two similar goal deep in a conflict) But it will come.. After many example , you will start to understand it, I'm sure of it, you are not stupid.
The moment when you will all understand what I'm sayin will be delicious
1. All your argument stands on one assertion: that One Piece would be 'not that deep". First. One Piece is not deep, it's crafted perfectly. Those are two different thing. You should know that as I already explained the difference:
2. You are showing again that you missunderstood the technique.
""Akainu wants to kill Whitebeard and Ace wants to save him"
"the detective wants to capture the killer and the killer wants to escape""
Those are conflicting goals only in surface. As Truby explained and as I explained it to you in the case of Ace:
- The Detective and the Killer are fighting ALSO for their own vision of reality (Truby puts it that way : in a detective story, it appears that the hero wants to catch the killer and the opponent wants to get away. But they are really fighting over which version of reality everyone will believe. "
- SAME goes for Akainu VS Ace, it appears that they both have conflicting goal when they are in fact fighting for their OWN vision of piracy.
You are litterally NOT understanding the technique here. When it is in fact pretty simple. So please, don't try to provoque me or to prove me wrong by searching to twist the wordings, you can't. Just accept that their is something you missunderstood, I won't taunt you on that. Like I said, I've made it through the same hell.
The paragraph :
"If you look at a number of good stories, it often appears, at first glance, that hero and opponent are not competing for the same goal. But look again. See if you can spot what they are really fighting about. [...] The trick to creating an opponent who wants the same goal as the hero is to find the deepest level of conflict between them. "
Is proving that their must ALWAYS be similar goal//hidden desire put in conflict and that they must be on the DEEPEST level of similarity in order to create a great antagonist/protagonist relationship.
There is nothing difficult nor deep about that, it's very clear. It's not rocket science. I understand that you don't want to accept that you are wrong, but the writing here is going MY way, not yours, in anyway. So accept it.
You're like a hamster on a damn wheel, going round and round, completely unaware that you're never going to reach the cheese.
No, Killing and Saving are not the same goal. But the similarity are deeper, as I and Truby said: in the version of reality that is being fought upon.
Once you understand the difference, everything will be clear, you'll see.
Lmao, after months of calling yourself an expert and telling everyone they should just trust you because you're an "authority" who's aware of "high end literary concepts", someone touting their degree is a dick measuring contest
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
I'm sorry, a pen*s measuring contest, since apparantly this is 4th grade and we have to censor that word
You're the one who doesn't want to accept what's written on the page. You even quote the line that proves you wrong and then claim it says the opposite of what it does. I don't know if you're actually this stupid, or if you're just a troll afterall, but man, if you're for real here then I overestimated you. And that's saying something because I thought you were delusional to begin with. You're clearly beyond help, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain high end literary concepts to a pidgeon who's too blinded by bias to understand. At least now you've displayed your incompetence in literary analysis for all to see, which is pretty much all I was expecting anyway. I'm not going to pretend to take you seriously anymore. Thanks for the laughs though
Post automatically merged:
The moment when you will all understand what I'm sayin will be delicious
Last edited:
- Status