Eragon Vs Drizzt

Eragon Vs Drizzt

Suggested by aceofqueens

Here we have Eragon going up against one of my personal favorites in Drizzt.

The rules are:
Eragon doesn’t get death words or Saphira, because that would be unfair. He gets wards and anything else he can think of, like fireballs.
Drizzt doesn’t get Guenhwyvar or any allies but has the ability to use his darkness globes.

Who wins?

Related Posts:

SHARE THIS POST

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author: admin View all posts by
Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion.

Comments being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion can lead to the banhammer getting used. You can read more about our comments policy here.

509 Comments on "Eragon Vs Drizzt"

  1. Messmaker March 24, 2012 at 1:13 am -      #401

    Fine.
    I concede.

  2. Commander Cross March 24, 2012 at 1:19 am -      #402

    @Mess

    The fight itself is far from over, all that’s asked is a JIC regard, trust me, you have my word.

  3. Messmaker March 24, 2012 at 1:29 am -      #403

    Ok.
    Have we reached a conclusion yet?

  4. Commander Cross March 24, 2012 at 1:33 am -      #404

    @Mess

    So far Drizzt’s winnng, but best to secure the position by providing citations, JIC, actually.

  5. ptaine March 24, 2012 at 2:28 am -      #405

    ”So far Drizzt’s winnng, but best to secure the position by providing citations, JIC, actually”
    .
    See the reason I disagree with this is this quote from homeland:
    .
    ”…”Kill!” Malice roared, and this time the word carried the weight of a magical command. “Thrust!” Briza likewise commanded. Drizzt felt their words compelling his hand to action. Thoroughly disgusted with the thought of murdering a helpless foe, he concentrated with all of his mental strength to resist. While he managed to deny the commands for a few seconds, Drizzt found that he could not pull the weapon away. “Kill!” Malice screamed. “Strike!” yelled Briza. It went on for several more agonizing seconds. Sweat beaded on Drizzt’s brow. Then the young drow’s willpower broke. His scimitar slipped quickly between Byuchyuch’s ribs and found the unfortunate creatures heart….”
    .
    And this other one.
    .
    ”…With the innate magical talents of the dark elves also came a resistance to magical attacks, and that is where Zaknafein had recognized the wizards’ greatest weakness. A wizard could cast his most powerful spells to perfection, but if his intended victim was a drow elf, the wizard may well have found no results for his efforts….”
    .
    So a fairly innocuous magical command Drizzt could resist for a moment, albeit at the beginning of his instruction, and then later it is stated about the magical resistance. My problem is no one has actually correlated how all this is related. So simply stating that drow are magically resistant and Drizzt per his D&D stats can stave off level 9 spells, is getting rather close to a No Limits Fallacy.

  6. Messmaker March 24, 2012 at 2:30 am -      #406

    No, that was before he recieved all of his anti-magic shtuff

  7. Messmaker March 24, 2012 at 2:34 am -      #407

    Plus, that was a command from a figure of ultimate command in his life, in a tone that brooked no argument (thats what salvatore means by magical command) that drizzt was psycologically unable to resist.

  8. Kytheros March 24, 2012 at 2:44 am -      #408

    Ptaine, you’re using a quote that looks at Drizzt when he was a kid. Drow magic resistance increases with age/experience/power.
    -
    -
    The point I’m making, or most recently wanted to make here, was that Eragon’s attempts to directly affect Drizzt with magic are likely to fail. Attempts to directly affect Drizzt with magic require both proper tracking, aim, and lead, whilst the combination of Drizzt’s stealth, innate magics, speed, and agility make Eragon’s ability to succeed in his attempts to directly affect Drizzt exceedingly difficult.
    -
    Out of 100 matches (or enough to be statistically significant), I believe the evidence is that Drizzt will win the majority of the matches. Therefore, the winner of this match is Drizzt.

  9. Commander Cross March 24, 2012 at 3:10 am -      #409

    @Kytheros

    Pretty much what you just said.

  10. Messmaker March 24, 2012 at 3:49 am -      #410

    Yay kytheros! My hero!
    (bats eyelashes seductively)

  11. ptaine March 24, 2012 at 11:17 am -      #411

    ”Ptaine, you’re using a quote that looks at Drizzt when he was a kid. Drow magic resistance increases with age/experience/power”
    .
    I understand that which is why I said as much, and I’m also not using that to prove anything in regards to magic actually affecting him. The problem is no one is really explaining how this works though. Everyone is essentially saying “He’s magically resistant!” So Eragon’s attacks will fail? Or only sometimes? Because he isn’t magically immune is he?
    .
    For instance I can look at the evidence and realize Drizzt is immune to fire because of Icing Death. But if he loses Icing Death how much of that immunity is the resistance of the drow?
    .
    So essentially what you are saying is that Eragon won’t be able to hit Drizzt so that becomes a moot point? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

  12. Commander Cross March 24, 2012 at 11:28 am -      #412

    @Ptaine

    Doesn’t Drizzt’s Magic-tanking get more powerful, the more older and fight-worthier he gets?

  13. rekder March 25, 2012 at 12:15 am -      #413

    @Messmaker
    .
    “No, that was before he received all of his anti-magic shtuff.”
    .
    Like what? Drizzt doesn’t have any equipment that aids in his general magic resistance. Except for his piwafwi, which was destroyed when he went to the surface. In fact, I can’t find anything in the forgotten realms wiki that says Drizzt (or the whole drow race for that matter) is resistant to magic at all. Remember, Salvatore’s version of Drizzt is different that DND’s version.
    .
    “That’s what Salvatore meant by magical command.”
    .
    No, the quote specifically says “and this time the word carried the weight of a magical command.” It means she magically forced Drizzt to kill. Not sure how you came to think ‘magically’ somehow means ‘unable to argue with’. You’re just making shit up. Again.

    @Kytheros
    .
    “Drow magic resistance increases with age/experience/power.”
    .
    Proof please? As I stated before, it seems the forgotten realms Drizzt isn’t resistant to magic after all. And even if he is, magic resistance is a trait. Much like eye color or skin color. How can he change it with experience?
    .
    “Eragon’s attempts to directly affect Drizzt with magic require both proper tracking, aim, and lead…”
    .
    Except that Eragon can make his magic “lock on” to Drizzt with just a few words. I suggest you read my conversation with rorocor. I explained that Eragon will use his magic to control other matter, thus not directly affecting Drizzt.

  14. rekder March 25, 2012 at 12:35 am -      #414

    @ptaine
    .
    “Why is it immoral for him to do so?”
    .
    It’s just not right to say someone sucks when they most obviously don’t. Ramanujan surely knows Hardy doesn’t suck, so he doesn’t have any right to say he sucks. Maybe immoral isn’t the right word, but I couldn’t think of a better fit.
    .
    “And why is “success” the barometer you are using to differentiate the moral line?”
    .
    Because someone who is successful is almost always talented. Hardy, Ramanujan, CP, and JB are all talented. There are some cases where talented people aren’t successful (this is because of marketing or similar things). And those who are successful but not talented, like William Hung, I believe are just a joke. Everybody knows William Hung isn’t the greatest singer, but a lot of people loved him because it was funny as hell.
    .
    “how many people who are more talented than Bieber get passed up because they don’t have the marketability.”
    .
    I get what you are trying to say. To be successful, all you have to do is get people to like you. True, especially for Gallagher. But don’t you think getting that many people to like you is a talent in and of itself? I mean, not everyone can do that as you yourself said.
    .
    So, I’ll say it again. Without the other, marketability and talent do not promote success (except in certain cases).

  15. Messmaker March 25, 2012 at 1:03 am -      #415

    @rekder:
    Ever heard of a metaphor?

    Drizzts blade icingdeath is part of it, and his innate growing magic reststance, as kytheros said.

  16. Messmaker March 25, 2012 at 1:04 am -      #416

    Resistance*

  17. Messmaker March 25, 2012 at 1:05 am -      #417

    The metaphor part refers to the command.

  18. rekder March 25, 2012 at 4:24 pm -      #418

    @Messmaker
    .
    What the hell kind of a metaphor would that be? Salvatore literally meant Malice used magic. In fact, it says in the passage that Drizzt used all of his mental ability to resist it, but couldn’t. If the word wasn’t supported by magic, Drizzt would have easily been able to resist.
    .
    You really need to read ALL of the posts since the last time you posted. I said that because Drizzt’s magic resistance is a trait, there’s no reason it can grow with experience. Unless you can prove otherwise, then that’s the case. Nowhere in any of the books does it say Drizzt’s magic resistance gets more powerful. In fact, I can’t think of anywhere in the books that says he has any magic resistance at all.
    .
    And Icingdeath doesn’t help him resist magic. Only fire.

  19. ptaine March 31, 2012 at 11:29 pm -      #419

    ”I get what you are trying to say. To be successful, all you have to do is get people to like you. True, especially for Gallagher. But don’t you think getting that many people to like you is a talent in and of itself? I mean, not everyone can do that as you yourself said.”
    .
    Perhaps you do get it, but by your responses I don’t think you are putting it all together though in terms of what you and Blood Dancer were talking about.
    .
    Say Blood Dancer isn’t successful, but he is more talented than Paolini. Paolini is successful but say it’s 99% marketing and 1% talent. Now Blood Dancer says Paolini sucks at writing and further qualified that statement despite his lack of success. That was what I was trying to get across with Ramanujan, you have no idea what Ramanujan would say, but either way comparatively Hardy does suck, so if he did say so Ramanujan has every right to that stance. Just because Hardy is a successful mathematician doesn’t change that fact.
    .
    Furthermore with Justin Bieber, my entire point there is that if I say he sucks “musically” his talent in other areas has no bearing on the argument. I do not begrudge him his success, but if he is successful by pandering to the masses (like Hung and Gallagher) then his musical talent is more questionable since pop culture is….less than stellar shall we say.
    .
    So if Paolini’s success is less dependent on his so called talent, simply stating he obviously doesn’t suck because there has to be some talent present isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of his abilities. The point is that there is a difference between having an average aptitude in an area and having a more refined talent. And saying they suck doesn’t take away from their success, just as saying they are successful doesn’t automatically mean they are talented enough to not be criticized.

  20. rekder April 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm -      #420

    But CP’s success is more than 1% due to talent, you and I both know that. There are plenty of people in this world that he is a really talented writer, more than that say he is not. The point with Blood Dancer is that he says CP sucks at writing out of spite. At the most, Blood Dancer is as good of a writer as CP. If he was better, then people who read his work would do what they could to get him published, as it was with Paolini. So, if Blood Dancer is not better than CP, then by saying he sucks as a writer is in a sense cutting on himself. So, not only is Blood Dancer in a position to say CP sucks, but he isn’t exactly helping himself either.
    .
    “just as saying they are successful doesn’t automatically mean they are talented enough to not be criticezed.”
    .
    I never said that. I never said you couldn’t criticize people more talented then you. For example, Blood Dancer says CP doesn’t always use correct grammar. That may be true, but why should that mean CP sucks? I can criticize a pro soccer player for holding the ball too long, but that doesn’t mean they suck either.
    .
    The point is that CP does have talent, more than most. Just because Blood Dancer doesn’t like his writing style and seems to be jealous does not mean he is in a position to say CP sucks.

  21. Blood Dancer April 11, 2012 at 7:23 pm -      #421

    I write for fun, Yonga. That and because I need to hone my english – which as you might have noticed, is rather faulty. Sociology is what I want to do in my life, and as I said before, I have had PHD’s in Sociology telling me that it’s always a pleasure to read my tests and essays, not only am I clear in what I mean but my vocabulary is rich and my writing flowing and toned with the right amount of pace. Then again, they only read my sociological work, per se.

    .

    I have had a writer commend me on what I have written and the style in which I write in particular.

    .

    I am what I am Paul and I call it like I see it, the same way that you do when you assume that I am jealous of CP. Jealous of a homeschooled boy whose social interaction was limited to his central family and maybe bears and moose? Please, my life, while not the most thrilling, has had a bit of everything. I have played Football, I have been on a swim team, I dropped three years of physics, maths and chemistry to take history, economics and psychology and now I am getting a bachelor’s degree in Sociology.

    .

    Compared to other authors he (CP) borders on average or even mediocricy. And yes, I am a literary elitist. Balthazar and Blimunda, The Little Prince, The Stranger, LOTR, Love in The Time of Cholera, The Alchemist, A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist or The Year of The Death of Ricardo Reis were just some of the books I grew up with: hearing about them, reading them and re-reading them time and again. So when I buy a book or get one from the public library I expect it to be good and to live up to a certain standard. Roger Ebert himself is not an actor, is not a director and yet he is regarded as THE critic to listen to. And no, I am not comparing myself to Ebert, it’s just that if you consider what I am doing wrong, then I’d like to see you tell that to him.

    .

    So Yonga, I know my literature. You on the other hand don’t seem to, but I shouldn’t be surprised, the social world is not exactly fair and just when it comes to the cultural capital that each and everyone of us have access to.

    .

    And if you must know, my mother is a published author, poetry being her medium. She has only published one book and it fared reasonably well. Unfortunately, Mozambican authors in general tend not to be known outside the country. Mozambique is country in Africa, just so you know. Oh, now I see why I know so much about literature, I grew up in the surrounded by it.

  22. rekder April 11, 2012 at 9:17 pm -      #422

    I never said you didn’t know your literature Neves, on the contrary actually. You seem very knowledgeable. But that’s not what I was saying. I’m saying you are in no position to say CP sucks. I think you must be confusing that with criticizing certain traits, his word choice for example. I don’t see anything wrong with you pointing out that he doesn’t always use the best words, but in no circumstances does that mean he sucks as a writer. I don’t have to be very knowledgeable in literature to know that, that’s common sense.
    .
    You will notice that when Roger Ebert criticizes films, he criticizes certain parts of them. For example lighting, camera angle, even the acting. But he never outright says the movie sucks (maybe once or twice, I didn’t find any though). He rates the movies on a scale fit for only Hollywood movies.
    .
    Oh, and when I said you were jealous of CP, I didn’t say of him, but of his success as a writer.

  23. Blood Dancer April 12, 2012 at 5:31 am -      #423

    “I never said you didn’t know your literature Neves”

    .

    Neves is not my name, Yonga. Neves is the guy who commended me for my writing.

  24. ptaine April 12, 2012 at 8:33 pm -      #424

    Man, where did all the Drizzt supporters go? Anyway…
    .
    ”But CP’s success is more than 1% due to talent, you and I both know that. There are plenty of people in this world that he is a really talented writer, more than that say he is not. The point with Blood Dancer is that he says CP sucks at writing out of spite. At the most, Blood Dancer is as good of a writer as CP. If he was better, then people who read his work would do what they could to get him published, as it was with Paolini.”
    .
    There are a few things here, but the most important thing is you need to figure out the differentiation between what is opinion and what is fact, and how to qualify an opinionated statement to make it more factual. Now, with the first sentence, I don’t know that Paolini’s success has anything to do with his “talent,” but further qualifying that statement in the manner you did doesn’t show anything. For instance if I take a sample of you, Blood Dancer, and myself, that is 66% of people who say that Paolini isn’t a good writer. Obviously you can attack the sample size, but my main point is that I’m not going to believe anything without some concrete evidence to support something. Otherwise we’re just going to have to agree to disagree as Blood Dancer pointed out earlier.
    .
    Now from my perspective, I don’t think that Blood Dancer was saying the Paolini sucks out of spite. I believe he was speaking more to the miasma of abysmalness that permeates much of popular culture now, where success doesn’t necessarily translate over to talent, and lamenting the fact that other authors who are clearly more talented then Paolini aren’t as successful because talent doesn’t necessarily translate to success. Saying that Paolini sucks isn’t exactly comparing him to my 1 year old cousin who has a hard time coloring in between the lines, so the written word is a little out of her grasp at the moment. Not to mention the complexities of thought required to cogently express ideas that are more than baby burbles. He obviously possesses a certain aptitude in being able to write a novel and tell a story, but how much and what that actually means is the question.
    .
    ”I never said that. I never said you couldn’t criticize people more talented then you. For example, Blood Dancer says CP doesn’t always use correct grammar. That may be true, but why should that mean CP sucks? I can criticize a pro soccer player for holding the ball too long, but that doesn’t mean they suck either”
    .
    See the thing is because of HOW you said that I would totally understand what you meant if you did say a pro soccer player sucks. If you have a problem with that, that’s fine, but it seems to me that you are getting hung up on the verbiage, as Blood Dancer pointed out before, instead of looking more in depth into the context to see if there is more to it beyond jealousy and spite.
    .
    I for one think Paolini sucks, for a multitude of reasons among which is grammar. Pacing would be another reason….I could go on, but the idea is that it doesn’t take away from his success or whatever marginal aptitude he does possess.

  25. rekder April 13, 2012 at 12:42 am -      #425

    @Blood Dancer
    .
    Oh well, it was worth a try :P

  26. rekder April 13, 2012 at 1:11 am -      #426

    @ptaine
    .
    “you need to figure out the differentiation between what is opinion and what is fact.”
    .
    Whether or not CP is a good writer is opinion, and opinion only. There is no way to make that a fact.
    .
    “I don’t think that Blood Dancer was saying the Paolini sucks out of spite. I believe he was speaking more to the miasma of abysmalness that permeates much of popular culture now, where success doesn’t necessarily translate over to talent, and lamenting the fact that other authors who are clearly more talented then Paolini aren’t as successful because talent doesn’t necessarily translate to success.”
    .
    It is probably true that Blood Dancer is ‘lamenting’ the fact that more talented writers aren’t succesful. But if that’s truly what he was mad about then why didn’t he say something like “it’s a shame he is more successful than other, more talented writers.” When he says CP sucks he’s not comparing him to the more talented writers. He’s just attacking him as if he has a grudge against him. Not many things other than spite will cause someone to do that. You may say that maybe he meant something other than what he said, but from what I can tell, Blood Dancer is very good at portraying his thoughts through words.
    .
    “talent doesn’t necessarily translate to success.”
    .
    I know, I’ve said it many, many times. Marketing and talent together make success. But by themselves, they can’t do anything except in some extreme cases. Paolini isn’t one of those extreme cases. He has talent, so many credible people around the world have said it (I’m not going to look up specifics, but I think that’s pretty believable), but without marketing, he wouldn’t be anywhere either. And the truth is, a lot of successful people get their marketability from their talent itself.
    .
    “you are getting hung up on the verbiage,”
    .
    Damn right I am. Saying someone sucks because of a certain fault or a dislike of them is excessive. If you mean to criticize that fault or express your dislike then do just that, don’t say they suck. I’m sure you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of a comment like that. It hurts. For example, I’m a pole vaulter. I’m pretty sound as far as technique goes. Except that my plant is not always consistent, when that happens, the rest of my vault goes to shit. My coach and I both get frustrated when this happens. But instead of saying I suck, she says you need to work more on your plant. Much easier to hear from someone who is supposed to be mentally supporting you than “you suck”.

  27. rekder April 13, 2012 at 1:13 am -      #427

    @ptaine
    .
    I agree, it was much more fun trying to explain to people how Eragon would win.

  28. Blood Dancer April 13, 2012 at 6:14 am -      #428

    ““it’s a shame he is more successful than other, more talented writers.” ”

    .

    I did several times in the last post. I brought names several names of people who are immensely more talented than CP. It’s not even funny.

    -

    “You may say that maybe he meant something other than what he said, but from what I can tell, Blood Dancer is very good at portraying his thoughts through words.”

    .

    No, I did mean that CP is not a good writer but I am not stupid and as a connoisseur of literature, I am able to tell that a writer is good or not good, sometimes by reading just one chapter of a book. The first time I heard of GRRM was in 2008 when I was on the public library. I took a book from the shelf, sat down and read the first chapter, I was amazed, after researching I found out that he was a pro-writer for more than a decade. A pleasant surprise. With Eragon it was the opposite. When I say Paolini sucks, I do not compare him to an average Joe, I compare him to his peers and his peers also include nobel prize recipients like Saramago, Garcia Marquez or Henryk Sienkiewicz. All of which are (Marquez) or were (Sienkiewicz and Saramago) brilliant writers and conveyers of thoughts through words. I don’t do things half-assed.

    .

    It’s the same with Valdes, he is a good Goalie, he plays for the best team in the world but he also spends most of the time as a spectator because Barcelona are the masters of keeping possession and when that possession is lost, Valdes tends to let them in…a lot. That’s Valdes alone and in the context of Barcelona. Now, let’s bring Oliver Kahn into the mix…oops, I am not going there, Kahn was a man on his own level, far superior to Valdes. There are keepers like Van Der Saar, Kahn and Buffon and then you have Valdes, Adler or Weidenfeller. The number of accolades Valdes has received since 2009 certainly indicate quality, just like the praises Paolini receives but if I bring in Kahn to compare him to Valdes or Saramago to compare him to Paolini, then I will safely say: “they suck”. That is what I mean when I say it, I do not do it out of spite, that’s not how my mother raised me.

  29. ptaine April 13, 2012 at 9:54 pm -      #429

    ”Damn right I am. Saying someone sucks because of a certain fault or a dislike of them is excessive. If you mean to criticize that fault or express your dislike then do just that, don’t say they suck. I’m sure you know how it feels to be on the receiving end of a comment like that. It hurts. For example, I’m a pole vaulter. I’m pretty sound as far as technique goes. Except that my plant is not always consistent, when that happens, the rest of my vault goes to shit. My coach and I both get frustrated when this happens. But instead of saying I suck, she says you need to work more on your plant. Much easier to hear from someone who is supposed to be mentally supporting you than “you suck”.”
    .
    Eh, I’m a little more old school than that, so I don’t know if that was the best example. Belichick, the coach from the Patriots, motivates his players by showing how they sucked during the previous game by making a montage of clips. He then proceeds to belittle those players, BUT he also throws in clips from previous games, from as far back as years before, and no one is safe. Tom Brady probably gets it the most. But the motivation is that you better not suck, otherwise Belichick is going to let you know about it.
    .
    ESPN article on the Pats
    .
    It’s kind of hard to argue with success, even if the Pats can’t beat the Giants in the Superbowl…
    .
    Now, I’m not going to say I don’t ever get pissed or emotionally invested if someone says I suck, I generally don’t though, and my friends and I where I work have a little spiel we give to new people who come in (I work in a restaurant). If someone insults you there are only two possibilities, either it’s true or it’s not, and neither should offend you. So if someone tells me I suck, I should, and do, have the wherewithal to analyze that statement and come to a conclusion based on those options. It it’s true I need to do something to change it. If it’s not, well, more often it tells me more about the other person than anything else depending on the vein in which it is said.
    .
    The thing is in your case, you are a little more emotionally invested and are probably more pissed at yourself for not doing what you know you need to do, so someone telling you that you suck, when you are sucking, is just adding fuel to the fire. It’s a lot harder to be objective in that situation, but that isn’t exactly the same thing as saying Paolini sucks though. For my case (and what Blood Dancer is explaining as well) I am incredibly more pragmatic then that when I am on a debating website dedicated to logical discourse. I am not going to be emotionally invested whatsoever, and I am certainly not going to view any debate on an egocentric level. Which is essentially what you are telling me. You don’t think it is nice to say Paolini sucks because it basically hurts your feelings when someone does so to you. In doing that you are focusing on the word and not the intent, and missing the intent because of that. And that leads me to this:
    .
    ”But if that’s truly what he was mad about then why didn’t he say something like “it’s a shame he is more successful than other, more talented writers.”
    .
    Just because he didn’t say it….”nicer”…..doesn’t mean that wasn’t the intent. The thing is, yes, people could stand to be nicer, but on the same token people could also be a little less sensitive about things. Especially when all the pieces were there to deduce the intent.
    .
    ”Whether or not CP is a good writer is opinion, and opinion only. There is no way to make that a fact.”
    .
    But there is a way to make it more factual which is the main point I was getting at. It’s how you qualify the statement. Say I have two dudes and they have two separate conversations, one is on physics the other is on soccer. Now, one of those guys is Stephan Hawking and the other guy is one of those soccer players you and Blood Dancer are talking about (I don’t know much about soccer sadly). Whose opinion are you going to trust more in either conversation? That doesn’t necessarily mean that their opinion is correct, BUT the opinion of each is going to carry different weight depending on which conversation it is.
    .
    ”He has talent, so many credible people around the world have said it (I’m not going to look up specifics, but I think that’s pretty believable), but without marketing, he wouldn’t be anywhere either.”
    .
    Right, but what you call “talent” I call “average aptitude.” And here is the funny thing about our little discussion. Where on the spectrum of the harsh scale is saying some sucks, compared to where on the skill scale their talent lies in terms of opinion? It’s kind of amusing to me that it is the degree in usage of two words that we are essentially arguing about.

  30. ptaine April 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm -      #430

    ”I agree, it was much more fun trying to explain to people how Eragon would win”
    .
    To be honest, not that I don’t enjoy that, it’s the things on this site that have nothing to do with the characters that I actually enjoy more. Like our little side discussion. I enjoy the interactions with the people and figuring out things about them that have nothing to do with who would win. Your one of the few whose actually indulged my curiosity for longer than a week, so that in and of itself is rather fun for me.
    .
    That being said, I still want to know about Drizzt’s magical resistance and how that would actually apply here. Nobody on the Drizzt side seems to know though which is rather unfortunate…

  31. Commander Cross April 13, 2012 at 10:05 pm -      #431

    @Ptaine

    Drizzt may still win this in the end, only via the skin of his teeth, though.
    I’m just saying.

  32. ptaine April 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm -      #432

    You could be right, Commander, you could be right…

  33. rekder April 16, 2012 at 12:14 am -      #433

    @Blood Dancer
    .
    “I did several times in the last post. I brought up names several names of people who are immensely more talented than CP. It’s not even funny.”
    .
    True, and you’ve listed them multiple times. But after you said he outright sucks, which he does not.
    .
    “When I say Paolini sucks, I do not compare him to the average Joe.”
    .
    Then say that, say he is not as good as other great writers like GRRM and Gemmell. When you say he sucks, it means he is absolutely horrible, even compared to average Joe’s.

  34. rekder April 16, 2012 at 12:38 am -      #434

    @ptaine
    .
    “Eh, I’m a little more old school than that, so I don’t know if that was the best example.”
    .
    Actually, pole vaulting is much, much older than football. It was a perfect example. Pole vaulting takes WAY more technique than football, and writing takes a fair amount as well.
    .
    About the Belichek thing, I read the article and not once does he say his players suck. He repeatedly points out their mistakes, its his way of telling them not to make them again. If he thought they sucked, he wouldn’t have drafted them in the first place. Same with pole vaulting, my coach tells me my mistakes, not that I suck, because I don’t.
    .
    “so someone telling you that you suck, when you are sucking, is just adding fuel to the fire.”
    .
    But the thing is I’m not sucking. I’m having an off-day or what have you. Even when I’m having one of those days, I am still able to beat a lot of people. And college pole vaulters do not suck. So how is it that I suck?
    .
    “You don’t think it is nice to say Paolini sucks because it basically hurts your feeling when someone does so to you.
    .
    I said that as an additional reason of why I don’t think it’s right to say he sucks. Also, it is not just me who gets their feelings hurt when someone tells me I suck. EVERYONE on the whole planet does, no matter how well they hide or deal with it.
    .
    “Just because he didn’t say it….”nicer”….doesn’t mean that wasn’t the intent.”
    .
    But the way he said it changes his intent, as I said before.
    .
    “Right, but what you call “talent” I call “average aptitude.”
    .
    So people like Rowling, Messi, and Elton John have a lot of “average aptitude”? Sucks would be basically on the bottom of the harsh scale and the talent scale. It basically means no talent present whatsoever in that particular area. For example, I have never played polo before. I am not experienced at riding horses and am not very good at golf or croquet. Therefore, it would be safe to say that right now I probably am very close to or even sucking at it. However, I am rather athletic so I’m going to guess that I would be better than others will less athleticism and the same amount of experience, but that’s a relatively small amount of people. Now, lets take that same scale but change it to writing and put Paolini on it. Even if he had an “average aptitude” he would most likely be on the upper half of the scale, which means he does NOT suck.

  35. rekder April 16, 2012 at 12:43 am -      #435

    @ptaine
    .
    The only thing I can find that seems reliable is that Drizzt is 82% resistant to magic, and it seems to be sleep spells in particular. Also, those are the stats for the DND version of Drizzt. I haven’t found anything saying the book version of him is (unfortunately I don’t have any books with me to look for examples) so I’m not sure his book version does at all. Even if he had resistance, I doubt he would be able to keep out all of Eragon’s magic since he could not even resist Matron Malice’s spell. I feel like Eragon is more powerful magician than her, especially with all of his energy reserves.

  36. rekder April 16, 2012 at 12:44 am -      #436

    @Commander Cross
    .
    So simply by you saying that he will win by “the skin of his teeth” means Drizzt WILL win? I don’t think so.

  37. Messmaker April 16, 2012 at 1:17 am -      #437

    Didn’t say that.
    -
    Eragon is in no way special physically to Drizzt, he takes on similar beings all the time (Obould, Arthrogate).
    -
    He even takes on ppl that are just as smart (entire menzoberanzan)

  38. Commander Cross April 16, 2012 at 1:22 am -      #438

    Drizzt’s used to fighting painful odds, before, and more times than not he came up waving the victory flag as lady victory smiles on him, to underestimate Drizzt would be akin to having your head dropped very hard as a child!
    Trust me, I know.

  39. Blood Dancer April 16, 2012 at 5:47 am -      #439

    “But after you said he outright sucks, which he does not.”

    TO me he does, Yonga. And I have stated why, several times. Unless you want to tell me that I should hold Paolini in the same light as Saramago, Sienkiewicz or Rowling? If so, then please stop reading and dedicate yourself to Football because that’s something you seem to be good at. Literature, you seem to know as much about it as I do about pot.

    .

    “But the way he said it changes his intent, as I said before.”

    .

    Really? You trying to figure out my intent? Who are you? Freud? Jung? Bandura? Weber? Goffman? Unless you carry one of these names, do NOT even go there.

  40. ptaine April 16, 2012 at 7:20 am -      #440

    ”Actually, pole vaulting is much, much older than football. It was a perfect example. Pole vaulting takes WAY more technique than football, and writing takes a fair amount as well”
    .
    That wasn’t what I was talking about. I was talking about motivational methods.
    .
    ”About the Belichek thing, I read the article and not once does he say his players suck. He repeatedly points out their mistakes, its his way of telling them not to make them again. If he thought they sucked, he wouldn’t have drafted them in the first place. Same with pole vaulting, my coach tells me my mistakes, not that I suck, because I don’t.”
    .
    You must have missed this: “The Belistrator is an equal-opportunity humiliator. He doesn’t care if you are a young safety or a first-ballot Hall of Famer; if you mess up, he’s going to hold you accountable. And then he’s going to degrade you.” So, let’s get some definitions:
    .
    Humiliate to reduce to a lower position in one’s own eyes or others’ eyes
    .
    Degrade 2a to bring to low esteem or into disrepute
    .
    Suck 4 slang : to be objectionable or inadequate
    .
    And let’s get your next statement as well: ”But the thing is I’m not sucking. I’m having an off-day or what have you. Even when I’m having one of those days, I am still able to beat a lot of people. And college pole vaulters do not suck. So how is it that I suck?”
    .
    You are sucking, you are performing inadequately compared to the level you are actually capable of performing. Just because you can still win doesn’t matter, and just because your coach chooses another method of motivation other than humiliation doesn’t matter either. What you qualify as having an off day, I qualify as sucking. Again, you are paying attention to what you think the word means instead of looking at the context the word is used in because that doesn’t automatically mean that sucking equals worst.
    .
    ”I said that as an additional reason of why I don’t think it’s right to say he sucks. Also, it is not just me who gets their feelings hurt when someone tells me I suck. EVERYONE on the whole planet does, no matter how well they hide or deal with it.”
    .
    I don’t. Sometimes I do get upset, but the only reason I get upset if someone tells me I suck it’s because I know they’re right. I’m already upset with myself in that situation because of my inability to live up to my own expectations. I play guitar and I bowl competitively, I’m not the greatest at either but I also don’t suck, BUT there are days when I suck at both. Do you get the difference in context?
    .
    ”So people like Rowling, Messi, and Elton John have a lot of “average aptitude”? Sucks would be basically on the bottom of the harsh scale and the talent scale. It basically means no talent present whatsoever in that particular area.”
    .
    And that is what I am trying to explain to you because it doesn’t. Blood Dancer said he sucks in the vein that he is inadequate comparatively. Saying someone sucks does not in any way mean that they are the lowest of the low, you interpreted it that way and therein lies problem.

  41. Blood Dancer April 16, 2012 at 7:41 am -      #441

    “Blood Dancer said he sucks in the vein that he is inadequate comparatively. ”

    .

    Exactly, Paolini fans seem to hold him as the second coming of High Fantasy. Not only is this notion dispelled when comparing him to his peers – which, I will stress again, includes Nobel Recipients – but it does indeed leave you with the impression that he does suck. His ability to spin a tale is not in question – despite the blatant plagiarism – for he managed to do it but his sentences, his style, it’s dry, without pace and not at all gripping. You don’t want to keep turning the pages, I dragged myself throughout the book and then erased it from memory for that is how bad it was.

  42. Lightning April 16, 2012 at 8:08 am -      #442

    Christopher Paolini sucks. Plain and simple. There. All summarized. He’s a complete plagiarist.

  43. rekder April 16, 2012 at 9:25 pm -      #443

    @ptaine
    .
    “You are sucking, you are performing inadequately compared to the level you are actually capable of performing.”
    .
    Again, you’re comparing to the wrong thing. If I was inadequate in pole vaulting, then I would lose the whole damn event. Perhaps you don’t understand how good the rest of the competition is. In fact, the definition of inadequate means lacking the quality or quantity required. When I have an off-day, I still am not that much worse than when I have a good day. That means I am still plenty adequate, this is supported by the fact that I still can beat a lot of people. That’s been my point all along, compared to a lot of people, I’m extremely good at pole vaulting. Even compared to the elite vaulters in the olympics, I still don’t suck. Now bring in CP. He is me, and writing is pole vaulting. Compared to most of the world, he is very good. Compared to the elite vaulters (Rowling, GRRM, Gemmell, King, Tolkein etc.) he STILL does not suck. Then there are people just as good as him (Blood Dancer claims he is). Now, let’s get some more defintions of the word suck:
    .
    suck :9. (intr) Slang to be contemptible or disgusting
    .
    suck: to be bad at a particular subject or action.
    .
    Now we both have agreed that CP is not bad at writing. You yourself said he has an “average aptitude”. So, according to all of these definitions of suck (even the one for inadequate), CP does not. As is supported by his success and numerous compliments on his writing.
    .
    “I don’t. Sometimes I do get upset”
    .
    See? You just said you did. Being upset is one of the emotions resulting from getting your feelings hurt.
    .
    “I’m not the greatest at either but I also don’t suck, BUT there are days when I suck at both. Do you get the difference in context?”
    .
    Yes I get the difference. But just because you are having an off-day does not mean you are sucking at it. Because you most likely are not, even if you are comparatively not doing as well as you can do. You are having an off-day an only that. Trust me, I’m an athlete, I deal with these kinds of things every single day.
    .
    “You interpreted it that way and therein lies problem.”
    .
    That’s my point. The way he said it is the reason it is interpreted that way. He he meant it the other way then he should have said it the other way. That’s what I have been trying to tell you two. Blood Dancer said he sucks, and he doesn’t. So instead of saying that and meaning something else, say what you mean.

  44. rekder April 16, 2012 at 9:30 pm -      #444

    @Blood Dancer
    .
    I do not think CP is the second coming of High Fantasy. But I know that he does not suck. When I, along with millions of others, read his book, I couldn’t put it down (I have read countless books and will put it down if it doesn’t interest me). I found it gripping and with a pace that I ripped through Inheritance in a couple of days. Yes the fact that it was an easy read helped, but that’s beside the point. It is true he has his flaws, bad grammar, misuse of words, plagiarism etc. but that does not change the fact that he can write. So what if his story doesn’t have a secret message that may never truly be understood. He can entertain his readers very well, and that Blood Dancer, is talent.

  45. rekder April 16, 2012 at 9:32 pm -      #445

    @Messmaker
    .
    Guess what? Eragon is faster than both Arthrogate and Obould, he’s an elf. And he’s nearly (if not as) strong as them.

  46. rekder April 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm -      #446

    @Commander Cross and Lightning
    .
    Oh, ok. I forgot that just because you say something is true that it is. I’ll be sure to remember this from now on.

  47. ptaine April 21, 2012 at 11:00 am -      #447

    ”That’s my point. The way he said it is the reason it is interpreted that way. He he meant it the other way then he should have said it the other way. That’s what I have been trying to tell you two. Blood Dancer said he sucks, and he doesn’t. So instead of saying that and meaning something else, say what you mean”
    .
    I know what your point is, and I disagree with you 110%. He does suck, he is inadequate comparatively. Plain and simple. When I say he sucks, I mean exactly what I say. YOU are interpreting that in a way I don’t intend. That is MY point. Blood Dancer and I shouldn’t have to say it differently just because you are confusing the issue, IN YOUR OPINION he doesn’t suck. IN MY OPINION he does, and your view of the world is why you interpreted what Blood Dancer said in the vein you did because I interpreted what he said completely different.
    .
    ”Yes I get the difference. But just because you are having an off-day does not mean you are sucking at it. Because you most likely are not, even if you are comparatively not doing as well as you can do. You are having an off-day an only that. Trust me, I’m an athlete, I deal with these kinds of things every single day”
    .
    Look, I’m not trying to change your mind per se, or turn this into some sort of clinic on self-esteem and motivational rhetoric. But, again, I disagree with you. When I am not comparatively achieving something I know I can do, most especially when I know what it is that I am doing wrong, I am sucking at it. Plain and simple. No amount of hedging, or “good for you!” word play changes that fact. And frankly, it annoys me more when someone is afraid of hurting my feelings, so they use positive motivational speech instead of just telling me I suck and what I can do to fix the issue. You need someone to build you up which is fine, but my worldview in this instance is not the same because I am incredibly more pragmatic.
    .
    ”See? You just said you did. Being upset is one of the emotions resulting from getting your feelings hurt.”
    .
    My entire point in my conversation with you had to do with using contextual clues in discerning meaning beyond what you think it should mean. So, don’t attempt to put words in my mouth when that isn’t remotely what my intent was at all. My being upset, if I do get upset, has nothing to do with my feelings being hurt, which I assure you in this context is impossible to do. The reason I get upset in that situation is because I am already angry with myself. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone else hurting my feelings. Usually in that situation, do you know what I do? I take a deep breath, tell myself to stop sucking, and go through the correct motions of what I need to do in my head. Do you know what happens after that? I stop sucking. Which is why I said before that this was probably a bad example.
    .
    ”Again, you’re comparing to the wrong thing. If I was inadequate in pole vaulting, then I would lose the whole damn event.”
    .
    And you are using a barometer of measure that I am not. I didn’t say you suck in general, nor did I say that your suckage will result in losing even though it could result in that. The point is you are performing inadequately compared to what you or other “elite” pole vaulters are capable of. That is all. Either way though I know precisely what I mean, you just think I should say it nicer because you’re still better than others and can still win. You are making this a black and white thing when it’s a matter of shades of gray.
    .
    When I was growing up my mother would yell at me if I told me sister to shut up. I needed to say be quiet because that was “nicer.” However, when I told my sister to “be quiet” my tone implied “shut up” and she was well aware of that fact. It mollified my mother though and my sister shut up so everything worked out rather well for me. But this is why I consider getting hung up on verbiage incredibly……dumb, I guess…….So when I give you all the tools to figure out my meaning, when it is still applicable to the word usage and definition of the word, I find the whole thing a little silly, but I’ll further explain inadequate for you:
    .
    ”Compared to most of the world, he is very good. Compared to the elite vaulters (Rowling, GRRM, Gemmell, King, Tolkein etc.) he STILL does not suck.”
    .
    Not really, I went back and read Eragon before Inheritance came out. I can assure you after reading Martin, Sanderson, and several other authors besides, that book is awful and doesn’t hold up at all comparatively. He did get a little better as the series went on, sort of, but I’ve read better stuff from fifth graders and I wish that I was kidding. So, he is inadequate at writing compared to other authors whose skill surpasses anything Paolini could hope to achieve. So, I understand where Blood Dancer is coming from.
    .
    ”Now we both have agreed that CP is not bad at writing. You yourself said he has an “average aptitude”. So, according to all of these definitions of suck (even the one for inadequate), CP does not. As is supported by his success and numerous compliments on his writing.”
    .
    And that average aptitude is bad in comparison to those who are skillful at writing. Which means he is inadequate at writing comparatively, and that means he sucks. His success and positive compliments aren’t ringing endorsements of actual ability as we have already discussed.
    .
    But here is the crux of the entire thing, I don’t take exception to your opinion of Paolini, if you think he is good, that’s your opinion and that’s fine. But, when you tell someone else they have no right to their own opinion because obviously he doesn’t suck, you are being close-minded by trying to force your own opinion onto someone else while not listening to the qualifications and reasons for that opposing stance. Because what is obvious to you in qualifying your own opinion is further based on opinion. He obviously does suck to me and Blood Dancer, and I am attempting to explain to you why I personally hold that opinion. I am also trying to explain that I know that Blood Dancer’s opinion wasn’t because of jealousy or spite because of how he qualified his stance.

  48. ptaine April 21, 2012 at 11:01 am -      #448

    As far as the match is concerned, I don’t think Drizzt would resist all of Eragon’s magic either, but how that applies to the 82% magic resistance I am still unsure of. On top of the fact that Drizzt was attacked by Illithids on two separate occasions (I think), so I don’t really know how that would apply to the resistance and Eragon’s abilities there either.
    .
    For strength I provided this on page 3: ”…He charged Vanir, and the field rang with a furious din as they strove against each other, raging back and forth upon the trampled grass. The force of their blows created gusts of wind that whipped their hair into tangled disarray. Overhead, the trees shook and dropped their needles….”
    .
    And this is something new from Inheritance for stregth, Dras Leona: ”…Then he helped in the construction of a siege tower. His greater-than-normal strength allowed him to shift beams that otherwise would have taken several warriors to move; thus, he was able to speed the process…”
    .
    Now as for speed this is two different characters, but it displays similar characteristics, from Inheritance, Muscle Against Metal: “…Never had Roran seen such a fight. The blows from both Islanzadi and Barst were to fast to follow—only a blur was visible when they struck—and the sound of their weapons clashing was louder than all of the other noises in the city. Again and again, Barst tried to crush Islanzadi with his mace, even as he had crushed the other elves. But she was too fast for him to catch, and she seemed, if not his equal in strength, at least strong enough to knock aside his blows without difficulty. The other elves, Roran thought, must be aiding her, for she appeared not to tire, despite her exertions….”

  49. Lightning April 21, 2012 at 11:29 am -      #449

    “@Commander Cross and Lightning
    .
    Oh, ok. I forgot that just because you say something is true that it is. I’ll be sure to remember this from now on.”
    Good boy. Now sit.
    -
    Seriously though, ptaine summed everything up.

  50. Blood Dancer April 21, 2012 at 7:25 pm -      #450

    @Ptaine
    .

    Well, you summed up my stance. I have no more say in this debate.

    -

    @Rekder

    .

    What Ptaine said.

  51. rekder April 29, 2012 at 10:48 pm -      #451

    @ptaine
    .
    “YOU are interpreting it in a way I don’t intend.”
    .
    See, this is what pisses me off. When did the meaning of suck go from “being absolutely horrible” to “not as good as the best of them”? People do this all the time, and they’re almost always referring to professionals.The very first time Blood Dancer started arguing with me on this topic, he said Paolini sucks. Later, after I said CP is better than a lot of people in this world (meaning he does not suck), did he compare him to other very skilled, professional writers. That’s when I said compared to them, he does not have their skill, but that does not mean he sucks.
    .
    “And frankly, it annoys me more when someone is afraid of hurting my feelings, so they use positive motivational speech instead of just telling me I suck and what I can do to fix the issue.”
    .
    Okay so tell me this. If my plant isn’t strong in a pole vault competition, my coach should say “you suck”? Are you kidding? That is not at all what he should say is “your plant needs work”. He could even say “your plant sucks today” (since you seem to be lingering on saying it nicely) and then tell me what I need to do to fix it. Him saying “you suck” is completely false and is counter-productive to helping identify and fix the problem. It sound like in your case, a coach saying that would make you want to do better (it does for me too) but that won’t help fix what needs to be fixed (especially if you don’t know what’s wrong).
    .
    “but I’ve read better stuff from fifth graders and I wish that I was kidding.”
    .
    I find that very hard to believe. Writing isn’t even incorporated into a normal fifth grade agenda. Considering they don’t have the experience, vocabulary, grammar, or matured mind they cannot compare to him. That statement is ridiculous.
    .
    “But, when you tell someone else they have no right to their own opinion”
    .
    I’m not doing that at all. You and Blood Dancer obviously don’t like CP, I’m not trying to force you like him. I’m telling you he doesn’t suck and that you are using the word incorrectly.

  52. rekder April 29, 2012 at 10:54 pm -      #452

    “but how that applies to the 82% magic resistance I am still unsure of.”
    .
    I don’t fully understand either. But, I don’t think we need to worry about it. We are using the incarnation of Drizzt from the Forgotten Realms series and as far as I can find/remember he doesn’t seem have magic resistance at all.
    .
    It is obvious Eragon is stronger than Drizzt. Drizzt is described as being “ripped”, but he has no feats of great strength as Eragon does.
    .
    As far as speed, I think Eragon is faster. They both have elven abilities, but Eragon is taller, has longer legs, and can propel himself faster with the aid of his magical reserves. Drizzt I think is quicker. He is shorter and is aided by magical anklets. Plus his motions are described as a blur. Oh, and if you say speed and quickness are the same thing like Rorocor did, I won’t talk to you ever again :P

  53. Blood Dancer April 30, 2012 at 6:12 am -      #453

    “Writing isn’t even incorporated into a normal fifth grade agenda. Considering they don’t have the experience, vocabulary, grammar, or matured mind they cannot compare to him. That statement is ridiculous.”

    .

    In your country perhaps, where I come from, we wrote mini-essays in every portuguese, french or english test. So, no it is not. Then again, I am not sure about your background. So,yes, It is possible for a fifth grader to be able to write very well. Don’t MAKE the mistake of generalizing your experience to that of others.

    -

    “When did the meaning of suck go from “being absolutely horrible” to “not as good as the best of them”?”

    .

    Do you have self-esteem issues, Yonga? It’s beginning to look like it. Get a grip.

    -

    “I’m telling you he doesn’t suck and that you are using the word incorrectly.”

    .

    I am not going to take this interpretation crap from you. The same way that you say that I cannot criticize Paolini, I am not going to allow you to even criticize or opine on the meaning that I attribute to you. I take enough crap as it is from my Professors (Masters and PHDs) as it is.

    -

    “That’s when I said compared to them, he does not have their skill, but that does not mean he sucks.”
    .

    Compared to them he sucks, compared to you he is a deity. Are you actually suggesting that I have to hold him in the same regard I hold Saramago, Gemmell or Rowling?

  54. Blood Dancer April 30, 2012 at 6:14 am -      #454

    **** EDIT: “I’m telling you he doesn’t suck and that you are using the word incorrectly.”

    .

    I am not going to take this interpretation crap from you. The same way that you say that I cannot criticize Paolini, I am not going to allow you to even criticize or opine on the meaning that I attribute to the WORD. I take enough crap as it is from my Professors (Masters and PHDs) from TIME TO TIME as it is.

    .

  55. ptaine April 30, 2012 at 11:06 am -      #455

    ”See, this is what pisses me off. When did the meaning of suck go from “being absolutely horrible” to “not as good as the best of them”?”
    .
    Uh? The definition from Merriam-Webster I provided in post 440 says “to be objectionable or inadequate” Nothing in that definition indicates “absolutely horrible” as the sole way to use the word. That is how YOU interpreted it. I realize that you interpreted it that way from the definitions you provided, but how does that invalidate the meaning I provided? Or the way I used it? It doesn’t at all, which is why the meaning of the word didn’t change nor did my application of it, especially when I said this to Blood Dancer after his post about Paolini from the Topia: “That opinion doesn’t take away from his inadequacies as a writer, so you’ll get no argument from me there” I have always qualified my stance in the vein that he is an inadequate writer because of what I know about writing, and what I’ve read from other authors. That is why I believe he sucks. And is why this: ”That’s when I said compared to them, he does not have their skill, but that does not mean he sucks” is an incorrect statement because this is one of the reasons I think he does.
    .
    ”Okay so tell me this. If my plant isn’t strong in a pole vault competition, my coach should say “you suck”? Are you kidding? That is not at all what he should say is “your plant needs work”.”
    .
    I’m not even remotely telling you what your coach should say to you. I am telling you that if I had a coach that told me I sucked I wouldn’t take exception to that depending on the context of the situation.
    .
    ”Him saying “you suck” is completely false and is counter-productive to helping identify and fix the problem. It sound like in your case, a coach saying that would make you want to do better (it does for me too) but that won’t help fix what needs to be fixed (especially if you don’t know what’s wrong).”
    .
    But you said you already knew what the problem was…….Here let me go with the bowling thing since I know that better. In terms of the approach motion there is a timing involved and you want your foot and the ball to be at the beginning of the lane (the foul line) at the same time when you release the ball. I have a tendency to yank the ball to the left sometimes (I’m right handed) and it’s almost always because my foot gets to the line before the ball, so I end up compensating by dropping my shoulder, which causes my swing motion to finish across my body and push the ball to the left. I know I do this because the guy I bowl with has told me as much (he isn’t my coach, but he coaches me if that makes sense….and the guy has an 877 series which is one frame shy of a perfect 900 series…..incidentally he won’t hesitate to tell you he sucks when he’s sucking), but he also will tell me I suck when I’m screwing up. Especially since he already told me the problem before, I know the problem, AND I know what to do to fix it. I also know that if he tells me I suck that it doesn’t mean that I am somehow incapable of throwing the ball down the lane or some other comparison to being absolutely horrible. I’m just performing inadequately, that is all. OR, sucking, as per the definition of the word.
    .
    ”I find that very hard to believe. Writing isn’t even incorporated into a normal fifth grade agenda. Considering they don’t have the experience, vocabulary, grammar, or matured mind they cannot compare to him. That statement is ridiculous.”
    .
    Your incredulousness doesn’t change the fact that I am being completely serious. There were times when I was re-reading Eragon that I thought a fifth-grader could do this, and it was specifically because the vocabulary and the grammar exemplified the inexperience and mindset indicative of that age group.
    .
    ”I’m not doing that at all. You and Blood Dancer obviously don’t like CP, I’m not trying to force you like him. I’m telling you he doesn’t suck and that you are using the word incorrectly.”
    .
    By telling us he doesn’t suck when I am not using the word incorrectly is doing exactly that though.
    .
    To the match!
    .
    ”I don’t fully understand either. But, I don’t think we need to worry about it. We are using the incarnation of Drizzt from the Forgotten Realms series and as far as I can find/remember he doesn’t seem have magic resistance at all.”
    .
    The reason I am hesitant about that is specifically what Kytheros said in an earlier post, and the fact that Drizzt rarely gets hit by magic to actually verify the validity of whatever magical resistance he does possess.
    .
    ”As far as speed, I think Eragon is faster. They both have elven abilities, but Eragon is taller, has longer legs, and can propel himself faster with the aid of his magical reserves. Drizzt I think is quicker. He is shorter and is aided by magical anklets. Plus his motions are described as a blur. Oh, and if you say speed and quickness are the same thing like Rorocor did, I won’t talk to you ever again “
    .
    To be honest I skimmed over that part of your argument with him, but I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at with the distinction. Not that I want to delve into that aspect of anything because I personally think they are rather even in any case here.

  56. Kytheros April 30, 2012 at 4:13 pm -      #456

    “”I don’t fully understand either. But, I don’t think we need to worry about it. We are using the incarnation of Drizzt from the Forgotten Realms series and as far as I can find/remember he doesn’t seem have magic resistance at all.”
    .
    The reason I am hesitant about that is specifically what Kytheros said in an earlier post, and the fact that Drizzt rarely gets hit by magic to actually verify the validity of whatever magical resistance he does possess.”

    -
    Drow in the Forgotten Realms setting do indeed have innate magic resistance that improves with their age/power/experience.
    As regards something that rekder said earlier about that resistance applying solely to sleep magic … they are outright immune to sleep magic.
    -
    And, as ptaine says, that doesn’t get demonstrated much in the novels, since Drizzt rarely gets targeted by magic in that fashion – he’s a drow, effectively every spellcaster is aware of the fact that drow have spell resistance => why waste spells against the guy with spell resistance?

  57. rekder May 6, 2012 at 4:39 pm -      #457

    @blood dancer
    .
    “Do you have self-esteem issues, Yonga? It’s beginnin to look like it. Get a grip.”
    .
    Have you looked at my stats? My career? Does it look like I would have self-esteem problems? I’m saying suck is not the right term to use.
    .
    “The same way that you say that I cannot criticize Paolini,”
    .
    I have never said you cannot criticize him. Saying he sucks and criticizing certain techniques and such are two completely different things.
    .
    “Compared to them he sucks,”
    .
    Then say that. Instead of just saying ‘he sucks’.
    .
    “Are you actually suggesting that I have to hold him to the same regard I hold Saramgo, Gemmell or Rowling?”
    .
    Not at all. Your opinion of who you think is a better writer is exactly that, your opinion. But just because you think CP isn’t as good as them, does NOT mean he SUCKS.

  58. rekder May 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm -      #458

    @ptaine
    .
    “And is why this: “That’s when I said compared to them, he does not have their skill, but that does not mean he sucks” is an incorrect statement because this is one of the reasons I think he does.”
    .
    So tell me this. Jim Brown and Walter Payton are considered to be the two best running backs in history. According to yours and Blood Dancers reasoning, Emmit Smith sucks because his skill level is inadequate to either of theirs. That is totally incorrect. Everybody knows Faulk was a great running back and I can qualify that because he played professional football, holds many records, and is himself considered to be in the top ten greatest backs of all time. Yet, according to your logic, he sucks.
    .
    “There were times when I was re-reading Eragon that I thought a fifth-grader could do this”
    .
    As I recall, you said you have read better stuff from fifth-graders. That is totally different from thinking that fifth-graders could do better.
    .
    “but I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at with the distinction.”
    .
    The difference is that rorocor kept saying Drizzt was faster. I kept telling him that Drizzt is quicker, not faster. And then I would continue to tell him the difference, but he kept saying they were the same. Drizzt has demonstrated his quickness a lot (drawing swords, acrobatic fighting maneuvers etc.) but he has never demonstrated outright speed like Eragon has (outrunning horses and Urgals). The outright speed will not help Eragon much in a swordfight which is one of the reasons Drizzt would win in that area. He’s quicker than Eragon, but not by much.

  59. Blood Dancer May 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm -      #459

    “Have you looked at my stats? My career? ”

    .

    A college Career, you mean? Tell you what, do better than Clint Dempsey – Arguably your country’s best player – and then we will talk about a career. Actually beat Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan and Clint Dempsey and then TALK about a career.

    -

    “Saying he sucks and criticizing certain techniques and such are two completely different things.” and “Then say that. Instead of just saying ‘he sucks’.”

    .

    You are putting too much emphasis on language here whereas I am using in a completely relational way. If you don’t get it, then here it is: I am not giving the word any substance. It’s a word that I am using to describe someone that is not good enough.

    -

    “But just because you think CP isn’t as good as them, does NOT mean he SUCKS.”

    .

    But he does, in comparison to all the others. Now FUCK OFF!

  60. rekder May 6, 2012 at 5:06 pm -      #460

    @Kytheros
    .
    “Drow in the Forgotten Realms setting do indeed have innate magic resistance that improves with their age/power/experience.
    .
    If you could prove that, I would believe you. But as I said before, magic resistance is a trait. So is hair color, height, body type etc. Traits can’t be improved with experience.
    .
    “As regards something that rekder said earlier about that resistance applying solely to sleep magic … they are outright immune to sleep magic.”
    .
    In the DND setting, not Forgotten Realms
    .
    “why waste spells against the guy with spell resistance?”
    .
    Because magic is the only form of defense/attack spellcasters have, they have to use it. Plus, he is only resistant. There is a chance magic will get through.

  61. rekder May 6, 2012 at 5:14 pm -      #461

    @Blood Dancer
    .
    “A College Career, you mean?”
    .
    A Division 1 College, started all games as a freshman and a sophomore. I have had many professional scouts interested in me. I’m just getting started, for all you know I could turn out to be better than Dempsey. Oh, and beating Babe Ruth and Michael Jordon (considered to be the GREATEST ATHLETE of all time) is more extreme than beating Pele and Maradona. That made you sound pretty dumb.
    .
    “It’s a word that I am using to describe someone that is not good enough.”
    .
    Then fucking say that. Say ‘not good enough’. Because here, in America, that’s a hell of a lot different than ‘sucks’. So, you fuck off.

  62. Blood Dancer May 6, 2012 at 5:47 pm -      #462

    “beating Pele and Maradona”

    .

    So you can actually score more than a thousand goals like Pele did? Or perhaps, single-handedly, lead your country to a World Cup victory or maybe turn a second division side like say, Torino, and have them win European competitions? Really, Jordan? Dude, Phelps? Bolt? Cristiano Ronaldo? Hell, Ronaldo is at the moment the best Athlete in World Football. No-one beats Bolt in a straight line and Phelps will be the best Olympian in history this summer. Jordan was fantastic, a living, walking legend but let’s not get carried away – after all he failed at baseball. Many football players change to futsal or beach football afterwards and still make their mark.

    -

    “That made you sound pretty dumb.”

    .

    Says the guy who considers Paolini a good writer. Unbelievable.

    -

    So let’s agree to disagree…You keep on trying to beat Dempsey – I seriously doubt you’ll do it – while I keep on reading Nobel Recipients while trying to make my mark as a sociologist. Hopefully, I’ll be good enough to even be quoted in the same text as Pierre Bourdieu or Anthony Giddens.

    -

    So, yeah, good evening.

  63. Kytheros May 6, 2012 at 6:45 pm -      #463

    /facepalm.
    @rekder
    ““As regards something that rekder said earlier about that resistance applying solely to sleep magic … they are outright immune to sleep magic.”
    .
    In the DND setting, not Forgotten Realms”

    -Forgotten Realms IS a D&D setting.
    Also, you seem to have missed the quote provided by ptaine indicating that Drow do, indeed, have magic resistance.
    D&D is a system not a setting – Forgotten Realms is a campaign setting for the D&D system, also called Faerun. The Drizzt novels, along with all the other Forgotten Realms novels, exist in the D&D campaign setting and universe of Forgotten Realms.
    -
    ““Drow in the Forgotten Realms setting do indeed have innate magic resistance that improves with their age/power/experience.
    .
    If you could prove that, I would believe you. But as I said before, magic resistance is a trait. So is hair color, height, body type etc. Traits can’t be improved with experience.”

    -Drow magic resistance is a racial quality that improves as a given drow improves in terms of age/power/capabilities/abilities/etc.; it is magic – it doesn’t follow the same rules as hair color.
    Try thinking of it as … a tolerance to pain instead of hair color. One can develop one’s pain tolerance and improve it; and one can have a naturally high pain tolerance.
    Also, one’s body type? One can change that, albeit it usually requires the application of effort towards that end.
    -
    In terms of game mechanics, it improves with level. Outside of game mechanics, that’s typically described as being related to one’s age/experience/power, which is how I described it.
    -
    Are Forgotten Realms drow racial traits/qualities/abilities identical to Greyhawk drow racial traits/qualities/abilities? No. Forgotten Realms drow have basically everything the Greyhawk drow have, and then some extra on top of that.
    -
    -
    ““why waste spells against the guy with spell resistance?”
    .
    Because magic is the only form of defense/attack spellcasters have, they have to use it. Plus, he is only resistant. There is a chance magic will get through.”

    -There is a reason why evil spellcasters tend to be either melee powerhouses in their own right (such as devils/demons or through self-buffing spells, or being evil gish types) and/or have minions, underlings, henchmen, bodyguards, and/or magically created summons, constructs, or undead at their command. Also, typically, Drizzt has non-drow companions that are available to be targeted with magic.
    -
    Given the available targets of a drow(highly resistant to magic), and a couple of humans (not resistant to magic), as a spellcaster I, personally, would target my magic that magic resistance would apply to, against the targets that aren’t resistant to magic and/or casting buffs on myself/friendlies, and task my bodyguards with beating the crap out of the (magically resistant)drow.
    Call me crazy, but using magic against the targets that aren’t magically resistant and having one’s bodyguards/attendants stick a blade through the magically resistant target if one isn’t skilled in physical combat, sounds far more like the spellcastery thing to do.
    Furthermore, D&D spellcasters, unless they’ve been particularly foolish or narrow in their selection of spells have an array of options beyond simply hurling magical energies in various forms at a target to use their magic against one. Admittedly, hurling magical energies in various forms is traditionally and usually effective, as well as tending towards being excellent against multiple targets. A D&D caster (including one from FR) can use magic to summon or genuinely create an entity or entities to fight for them (Eragon can’t do that, so far as I know), use magic to create or conjure something else real (not magical energies) and then direct it against one, etc., use magic to lay buff spells upon themself or an an ally and then use those buffs to hand out a beating – D&D spellcasters have a wide array of options.
    -
    -
    I’m going to repost what I said in #408 here:
    “The point I’m making, or most recently wanted to make here, was that Eragon’s attempts to directly affect Drizzt with magic are likely to fail. Attempts to directly* affect Drizzt with magic require both proper tracking, aim, and lead, whilst the combination of Drizzt’s stealth, innate magics, speed, and agility make Eragon’s ability to succeed in his attempts to directly affect Drizzt exceedingly difficult.”
    *Should be “indirectly”, not “directly” at the asterisk; but it seems my point got across to most people anyways.
    -
    Rekder, you’ve said that Eragon will use magic to propel rocks at Drizzt; that requires the aim, tracking, and lead that Drizzt’s abilities make extraordinarily difficult.
    You’ve also said that Eragon will use magic to make those rocks home in on Drizzt, negating the need to aim – first of all, I want to see where Eragon has ever done that or something like that, secondly, that would require a magical connection to Drizzt or a magical detection system, the former definitely runs into Drizzt’s magic resistance, the latter might or might not, depending on how it was set up, but if it didn’t, it would still need to properly locate, track, and then hit Drizzt (which will be difficult at best).
    As I said in post #408, out of 100 matches, or enough to be statistically significant (allowing for a degree of possible randomness/chance in bypassing Drizzt’s magical resistance), I believe the available evidence indicates that Drizzt will win the majority of the matches; thus, Drizzt is the winner.
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    I’ve stayed out of the side discussion on the quality of Paolini’s writing so far, but because it’s getting on my nerves …
    As a published professional author of fiction, Paolini sucks. That is not to say that there are not worse authors/writers than him – there are.
    To go with the American football metaphors being tossed around, the offensive line of the Chicago Bears has sucked the past couple seasons. Put them in a good high school or college game and they’d own, but you don’t assume a comparison between the professionals and the amateurs unless it’s specifically stated.
    In a baseball metaphor, the Chicago Cubs? They suck. They’ve sucked for years. They have some good players (Paolini has some good moments), but those don’t make up for the rest of it. The Cubs should beat a good high school or college team (well, maybe not, it is the Cubs, after all), but again, you don’t assume to be comparing the professionals to the amateurs unless that’s specifically stated.
    -
    Blood Dancer has been comparing Paolini to other published professional authors, except where he’s stated otherwise.
    Rekder, you’ve been consistently assuming that Dancer is comparing Paolini to everyone(aka amateurs), not professionals.

  64. ptaine May 6, 2012 at 7:47 pm -      #464

    ”So tell me this. Jim Brown and Walter Payton are considered to be the two best running backs in history. According to yours and Blood Dancers reasoning, Emmit Smith sucks because his skill level is inadequate to either of theirs. That is totally incorrect. Everybody knows Faulk was a great running back and I can qualify that because he played professional football, holds many records, and is himself considered to be in the top ten greatest backs of all time. Yet, according to your logic, he sucks.”
    .
    One that isn’t my logic at all, because it’s making an incorrect comparison and there are other factors besides that I am including in my determination, and two what the hell are you talking about?
    .
    Walter Payton
    .
    12 years, 16,726 yards, 3838 attempts, averaged 4.4 yards per carry, 110 touchdowns, hall of fame, 1 superbowl
    .
    Emmitt Smith
    .
    14 years, 18,355 yards, 4409 attempts, averaged 4.2 yards per carry, 164 touchdowns hall of fame, 3 superbowls
    .
    Marshall Faulk
    .
    12 years, 12,279 yards, 2836 attempts, averaged 4.3 yards per carry, 100 touchdowns, hall of fame, 1 superbowl
    .
    (I left receiving out of the equation) But you’ll have to excuse me when I disagree that Emmitt Smith is somehow inferior to Walter Payton on some level, or that Faulk is somehow inferior to either as well. I would never say any of these guys suck, because I enjoyed watching them play (well except Payton because I was too young), and they have incredibly similar stats besides. As well as accolades, superbowls, etc…
    .
    A running back who I won’t hesitate to tell you sucks is Cadillac Williams.
    .
    He’s played 7 years, with only 4038 yards, averages 3.8 yards a carry, and has only 21 touchdowns. Now I’ve grown up in Central Florida and Tampa Bay (and Orlando for Basketball) are my teams, so I tell you he sucks based on my own experience in watching football, and more specifically watching guys on the Bucs. Now the reason I say he sucks is compared to other Running Backs his stats are rather low. He also was injured a lot which affected his stats, BUT how often does conditioning factor in? (which is another reason he sucks comparatively).
    .
    Now for someone who I would say doesn’t suck, Mike Alstott He was the Fullback on the Bucs for awhile.
    .
    He played 10 years, had 5088 yards on 1359 attempts, averaged 3.7 yards a carry, and scored 58 touchdowns. While winning 1 superbowl.
    .
    What about Emmitt Smith’s fullback Daryl Johnston? He had 753 yards on 232 attempts, averaged 3.2 yards a carry and had only 8 touchdowns over 10 years. In terms of these stats he isn’t as good as Alstott, but the dude blocked for Emmitt Smith and was on a few superbowl winning teams.
    .
    That is why your comparison to why I say Paolini sucks doesn’t hold water here. Comparatively Paolini sucks with respect to his peers, BUT I also have the ability to discern how those abilities compare in terms of everthing else involved. BIG difference in application.
    .
    ”As I recall, you said you have read better stuff from fifth-graders. That is totally different from thinking that fifth-graders could do better.”
    .
    I have read better stuff from fifth graders, AND I have thought that fifth graders could do better because of that.
    .
    ”The difference is that rorocor kept saying Drizzt was faster. I kept telling him that Drizzt is quicker, not faster. And then I would continue to tell him the difference, but he kept saying they were the same. Drizzt has demonstrated his quickness a lot (drawing swords, acrobatic fighting maneuvers etc.) but he has never demonstrated outright speed like Eragon has (outrunning horses and Urgals). The outright speed will not help Eragon much in a swordfight which is one of the reasons Drizzt would win in that area. He’s quicker than Eragon, but not by much”
    .
    Ah, so the distinction you are making is in regards to reaction times as opposed to outright running. Quickness and speed are the same thing, BUT in the application you are using them they are different because you are applying them differently. Like I said because of the blur description I think both are roughly equal in “quickness” in regards to how you are applying it.

  65. Blood Dancer May 6, 2012 at 7:52 pm -      #465

    “That is not to say that there are not worse authors/writers than him – there are.”

    .

    Robert Newcomb, Robert Stanek or the guy who wrote “The Eye Of Argon”…AKA Terrible, abhorrent and appaling

  66. ptaine May 6, 2012 at 7:52 pm -      #466

    well for some reason those links don’t work, but i got them from the website pro-football-reference

  67. rekder May 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm -      #467

    @Blood Dancer
    .
    “So you can actually score more than a thousand goals like….”
    .
    Wtf? Where did I say I was as good as Pele or Maradona? I didn’t. I basically said beating them is impossible. If it’s one thing I’ve noticed Blood Dancer, you sure like to put words in my mouth.
    .
    “Really, Jordan?”
    .
    Jordan being the best athlete of all time isn’t just my opinion. By popular vote he is considered the greatest athlete of all time. Just type in ‘top ten athletes of all time’ into google. 9 times out of 10 you will find Jordan on top.
    .
    “Phelps will be the best Olympian in history this summer.”
    .
    That’s arguable. Phelps is definitely the best swimmer of all time, but maybe not the best olympian. Bolt already has almost half his number of gold medals, and he’s only appeared in one Olympic games (Phelps has been in 3). And Bolt isn’t even considered the greatest track athlete of all time. That honor belongs to Carl Lewis or Michael Johnson.
    .
    “Says the guy who consideres Paolini a good writer.”
    .
    Never said that. Just said he doesn’t suck. There you go putting words in my mouth, again.

  68. rekder May 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm -      #468

    @Kytheros
    .
    “Forgotten Realms IS a D&D setting.”
    .
    Somewhere out on the internet is a quote from R.A. Salvatore that says his version of Drizzt is not related at all to the D&D version of Drizzt. I can’t find it, so you’ll just have to trust me. So, as I said before, you’re going to have to PROVE that he is magic resistant in the books. I can’t remember/find any circumstances where that ability is evident.
    .
    “one can develop one’s pain tolerance and improve it;”
    .
    False.
    .
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_tolerance
    .
    In the second main point, it says that you cannot improve pain tolerance, repeated exposure only makes it worse in the future. The best we can do is learn to cope with the pain. However, pain tolerance is a trait. Some are born with higher pain tolerance than others. Just like magic resistance, it doesn’t make sense that it could be improved.
    .
    “Also, one’s body type? One can change that,”
    .
    That’s wrong too. There are three different body types. Ectomorph, Endomorph, and Mesomorph. You can change your body appearance to look like another body type, but you can’t actually change types.
    .
    “Call me crazy, but using magic against the targets that aren’t magically resistant and having one’s bodyguards/attendants stick a blade through the magically resistant target if one isn’t skilled in physical combat, sounds far more like the spellcastery thing to do.”
    .
    Considering the fact that Drizzt’s companions should be wiped out easily by experienced spellcasters, and the fact that none of his ‘minions’ are going to slow Drizzt down (much less stick a blade in him), I’m willing to bet any spellcaster is going to turn his attention to Drizzt way-laying his forces and attempt to stop him with the only thing he can: his magic. And, Drizzt is pretty famous in Faerun, so I’m guessing the spellcaster will know about his reputation and target him first in hopes to slow him down or distract him.
    .
    “Eragon can’t do that as far as I know”
    .
    I don’t think he can either, but he can control the elements and seek the help of animals and such through the use of the ancient language.
    .
    “that requires the aim, tracking, and lead, that Drizzt’s abilities make extraordinarily difficult.”
    .
    Eragon will be able to find Drizzt easily with his mind, no matter darkness globes or anything like that. His mind will find Drizzt, and then all he has to do is tell the pebble to hit Drizzt in an exact spot. Since Eragon’s magic is affecting the rock, Drizzt’s magic resistance won’t do shit.
    .
    “first of all, I want to see where Eragon has ever don that or something like that,”
    .
    In Eragon, he kills rabbits with the pebble method. He quotes “it was impossible to miss.” This is because he can ‘lock on’ to his target with his mind, and I’m going to go out on a pretty safe limb and say that rabbits are more agile than even Drizzt. They can cut on the dime. Plus, just because Eragon hasn’t used that method to kill an enemy before, doesn’t mean he won’t this time. Eragon is great at improvising for different sorts of enemies. That’s how he was able to kill Galbatorix, Durza. the Ra’zac etc. Therefore, with the numerous ways around Drizzt’s magic resistance, I should think the match’s tables have turned.
    .
    “As a published professional author of fiction, Paolini sucks.”
    .
    Right, but when others say he ‘sucks’ that means he sucks in general. That’s what I’ve been trying to explain the whole time. They say he sucks but there are millions of people in this world that he is better than. So, if they are going to say he sucks, then they need to do it correctly and say he sucks compared to other great authors.
    .
    “but you don’t assume a comparison between the professionals and the amateurs unless it’s specifically stated.”
    .
    So then why should I assume they AREN’T comparing to amateurs? All I’m saying is if they’re gonna say he sucks, then they need to specify what they mean. Especially since context doesn’t always give a clear understanding (ptaine, that was mainly for you).

  69. rekder May 9, 2012 at 3:46 pm -      #469

    @ptaine
    .
    “One that isn’t my logic at all,”
    .
    Faulk was a typo, I meant to say Smith. That said..
    Sounds just like your logic to me. According to the definition of ‘suck’ that you chose, Emmit Smith is inadequate to Jim Brown and Walter Payton. Therefore Emmit Smith sucks because he is inadequate compared to them.
    .
    “and two what the hell are you talking about?”
    .
    Considering that Jim Brown played for only 8 seasons, and the first half of that consisted of 12 games per season and the second half had 14, his average was 5.2 yards/carry, and he has more total rushing yards than Faulk, I’d say none of them compare to him. Payton played his first three years with only 14 games and 2 less years than Smith, has a little bit higher average yards/carry, and somehow still holds his own with Smith’s stats. You call them equal?
    .
    A running back who I won’t hesitate to tell you sucks is Cadillac Williams.”
    .
    You did say at the bottom of the paragraph that he sucks comparitively. That might be true, but he does not completely suck. He plays in the NFL for god’s sake.
    .
    “Quickness and speed are the same thing, BUT in the application you are using them they are different because you are applying them differently.”
    .
    No, quickness and speed are never the same thing. When we’re talking about fighting, we can only include quickness, because speed doesn’t really come into play or apply much in this circumstance.

  70. ptaine May 10, 2012 at 10:22 pm -      #470

    ”Sounds just like your logic to me. According to the definition of ‘suck’ that you chose, Emmit Smith is inadequate to Jim Brown and Walter Payton. Therefore Emmit Smith sucks because he is inadequate compared to them”
    .
    Then you haven’t been listening and understanding what I am explaining to you. Given the stats absolutely not, given the intangibles and what they mean to the team, absolutely not. Compared to less elite running backs, no way. That, right there is key. As I said in my previous post and what you chose to ignore: ”because it’s making an incorrect comparison and there are other factors besides that I am including in my determination” You’re major problem is that YOU are starting off with the assumption, in your comparison here, that Paolini is somehow comparative to the elites of the genre which is something I am in no way doing, as I have stated numerous times and is incidentally something you already conceded. INCORRECT COMPARISON. Furthermore, I also have the ability to discern the abilities of those they are in league with (the pros) and everyone else, again something else you chose not to listen to in telling me what my logic is. OTHER FACTORS. So when you say this: ”Especially since context doesn’t always give a clear understanding (ptaine, that was mainly for you).” ESPECIALLY, when YOU are hellbent on convoluting my logic into something I don’t mean at all because of your lack of understanding, your own personal experiences or whatever, but let me explain a little more:
    .
    ”Considering that Jim Brown played for only 8 seasons, and the first half of that consisted of 12 games per season and the second half had 14, his average was 5.2 yards/carry, and he has more total rushing yards than Faulk, I’d say none of them compare to him. Payton played his first three years with only 14 games and 2 less years than Smith, has a little bit higher average yards/carry, and somehow still holds his own with Smith’s stats. You call them equal?”
    .
    Again, this is veering off topic a little because of the incorrect comparison, BUT YES, they are equalish. Now the reason I say ish is because you are assuming everything else is equal as well: level of competition, blocking schemes, defensive schemes, etc… BUT here is the key ingredient you are missing completely, none of these guys are “inadequate” in the vein that I am stating for Paolini’s suckage, they are among the elites at their position from different eras, they excelled to the point where they have all been inducted into the hall of fame, won superbowls (well not Jim Brown just a championship) and whatever else. On the field, amongst their peers, they excelled, which is something that Paolini can’t do in the same regard becaues the competitin is different. Simply because he sold a bunch of books doesn’t really mean a whole lot, and simply because you are trying to compare the “elites” with what you think my logic is doesn’t mean a whole lot either. Because I am comparing him to not only the professional published authors, but people who I know who write a hell of a lot better than him, PLUS what I know about the subject as well. This isn’t a one on one comparison.
    .
    ”You did say at the bottom of the paragraph that he sucks comparitively. That might be true, but he does not completely suck. He plays in the NFL for god’s sake”
    .
    And if he doesn’t have what it takes to succeed in the NFL simply being there does not take away from the fact that he sucks, whether it be because of conditioning, ability, or whatever else. He is simply inadequate to the task of performing with the pros. Simply being there (being a published author selling a bunch of books) does not exactly translate into success on the field (abilities as a writer). THAT is a much better comparison to what my logic is.
    .
    ”No, quickness and speed are never the same thing. When we’re talking about fighting, we can only include quickness, because speed doesn’t really come into play or apply much in this circumstance.”
    .
    UGH. I want you to understand that I am aware of precisely what you are talking about so I’m not disagreeing with the concept you are referring to, BUT in using the English language I can use both words to describe the same phenomena, from thesaurus.com
    .
    Speed - Rate of motion, often a high rate
    .
    SYNONYMS: acceleration, activity, agility, alacrity, breeze, briskness, celerity, clip, dispatch, eagerness, expedition, fleetness, gait, haste, headway, hurry, hustle, legerity, lick, liveliness, momentum, pace, precipitancy, precipitation, promptitude, promptness, quickness, rapidity, rapidness, readiness, rush, rustle, snap, steam, swiftness, urgency, velocity

    .
    Quickness - swiftness
    .
    SYNONYMS: agility, celerity, fleetness, haste, speed

    .
    Now as to the quickness you are referring too. The article states ”Quickness is defined as rapid reaction and movement time in relation to a given stimulus.” I can say the speed at which I react to something, OR I can react to something with quickness. I can use both words to describe the phenomena you are talking about. Now the distinction that you are making is that the final speed attained because of the quickness is different. As the article states: “Training for quickness is not the same as training for absolute speed.” The concepts you are describing are different, the words in and of themselves are not.

  71. rekder June 3, 2012 at 9:42 pm -      #471

    @ptaine
    .
    “because it’s making an incorrect comparison and there are other factors besides that I am including in my determination.”
    .
    No, I don’t really think it is an incorrect comparison. Given the fact that CP has nowhere near the experience as the people you and Blood Dancer are comparing him to. Not to mention you and Blood Dancer seem to only be comparing CP to elite authors when they were in their primes. That’s an incorrect comparison also, because by the definition you chose of suck, everybody sucks except their equals. That’s the reason I chose Emmit Smith instead of some other decent running back. Because it is considered by many surveys and articles that Payton and Brown are untouchable by all others. That’s not just my opinion. Those are people who have seen them play and know a bunch more about football than you or I. So don’t tell me that they’re equal based on their stats. There’s a lot more to them than that. And everybody in the world knows Emmit was a great running back (considered to be 4th best ever). The same comparison could be used with Michael Jordan and Dwayne Wade. Or Wayne Gretzky and Bobby Orr. Jordan and Gretzky were unreal, untouchable. Wade and Orr are/were considered to be outstanding players of their time. Yet, by comparing them to the best (what you and Blood Dancer are doing with CP), they suck according to the definition you chose.
    .
    “And if he doesn’t have what it takes to succeed in the NFL simply being there does not take away from the fact that he sucks”
    .
    Again, he DOES NOT suck. He is in the NFL for a reason. Scouts recruited him from a division 1 university. That in and of itself takes talent, something that usually means someone doesn’t suck. If he did suck, he would not have played for the university and the NFL scouts would not even have been interested in him, let alone sign him. And yes, compared to the elites, he probably does suck. But that isn’t really a fair comparison. That’s why I don’t think anybody should be compared to the elites. Plus, all that does is degrade the elites anyway.
    .
    “BUT in using the English language I can use both words to describe the same phenomena,”
    .
    See, there’s a problem with that. There are examples in the dictionary where words are synonyms only in certain circumstances; making them not synonyms at all really. For example, in the definition from thesaurus.com, a synonym of speed is promptitude. The definition of which is: being on time; punctual. Those two words could only possibly be used as synonyms in a few circumstances. Your example of using quickness and speed as synonyms could work sometimes. Possibly in a fight. However, the difference lies in the original meaning of the words. If Drizzt were fast in a fight, that would mean he could swing his sword at a high top speed. If he were quick, he could get to his top speed in a very short amount of time. So when Rorocor said Drizzt was faster than Eragon, that is incorrect. Seeing as Eragon is much stronger, he can obviously swimg his sword at a higher top speed. However Drizzt is quicker, that is a much more correct statement.

  72. ptaine June 6, 2012 at 8:50 pm -      #472

    ”See, there’s a problem with that. There are examples in the dictionary where words are synonyms only in certain circumstances; making them not synonyms at all really”
    .
    Indeed. The problem you are stating here, however, is entirely the point I am making. Look at the lists again and notice which words are duplicates: “Agility, celerity, fleetness, haste, speed, and swiftness” EVERY single one of those words is duplicated in both lists which gives us a clearer understanding of how the words are used with respect to one another, and we can clearly see that speed has a greater range of application. Look at the synonyms list for speed, what are the first and last words? Acceleration and Velocity. Both distinct concepts which are not interchangeable, and yet I can use the word speed in CONTEXT to IMPLY both. Which is why I asked you how you are making the distinction, simply stating that quickness and speed are never the same thing isn’t true. The concepts you are representing can never be the same, THAT is true, the words however, depend on the meaning we give them in respect to their actual definition and HOW they are used. Does the difference in verbiage change the concepts themselves, or my ability to understand what that difference is? Not at all, nor should it.
    .
    However, simply saying Drizzt is faster is something else altogether. If, for example, I say Drizzt runs faster than Eragon, can I not also say he runs quicker as well? If I say Eragon has faster reaction times than Drizzt does can I not also say he has quicker reaction times as well? There is no difference in application, just in qualification, so if I say Drizzt is faster and in reply I get “no, he is quicker” without any qualification, there is no incorrectness to either statement simply because there is no way for me to actually discern the difference.
    .
    Now, I don’t know if your response here was incidental or not, but I did deliberately put this in hopes that you would see the similarities between this and what is going on with the word “suck” which leads me to this:
    .
    ”No, I don’t really think it is an incorrect comparison. Given the fact that CP has nowhere near the experience as the people you and Blood Dancer are comparing him to.”
    .
    If you had paid attention to the implication of the incorrect comparison I mentioned you should have realized I was talking specifically of making Paolini analogous to an elite such as Emmitt Smith. I cannot stress to you enough that I am in no way SIMPLY comparing Paolini to the “elites” in terms of experience (or anything else for that matter), even if I would argue that 10 years is plenty of experience to gain a better knowledge of his craft. The thing is I have qualified my statement on several occasions that there is more going into my determination of saying Paolini sucks beyond a one on one comparison, which is why your analogy is incorrect. I also have compared Paolini to “lesser” authors, since your own criterion for lack of suckage in this instance is simply being published. FURTHERMORE, I have compared Paolini to people I know who aren’t published (since I have adamantly disagreed that this is adequate proof of discerning any modicum of ability) who I think write a hell of a lot better than he does, not the least of which is Blood Dancer himself. And last but not least I have the ability to observe and differentiate between all of those comparisons <—-THAT, right there, is the most important piece of my logic that you refuse to acknowledge. Which brings me to this little gem.
    .
    “So don’t tell me that they’re equal based on their stats.”
    .
    I’m not entirely sure what part of any of my responses led you to believe that I was making my determination of equality simply based on stats. In fact I went out of my way to state that I would never say they suck comparatively because stats don’t paint the whole picture for any of these guys. Sure “experts” have given their OPINION as to who is better than who, but that doesn’t in any way change MY OWN ABILITY to discern what I deem as suckage in respect to ALL the factors involved. The simple fact of the matter is Emmitt Smith is in no way inadequate in terms of playing football (which is the correct way to use my logic), and the ONLY way to really have an accurate comparison is to have both players switch places and see if they have similar careers, that is the only for sure way of knowing if Smith is truly inadequate to Brown and sucks in comparison. In terms of writing though, I have never said that Paolini is inadequate at writing compared to George RR Martin and simply left it at that. I have said that Paolini sucks at writing period, and then used that particular comparison, among all the other examples I have provided as qualification, to support why IN MY OPINION that is true.
    .
    I want to remind you, that my ONLY issue here is that you are telling me that my own opinion is incorrect based on fallacious reasoning and despite the fact that it is an opinionated stance to begin with. You have implied that there is no way that Paolini can suck simply because he is a published author. I have provided several examples where that reasoning doesn’t hold up and simply being published is not solely indicative of level of talent in a way that validates your own opinion over my own.
    .
    ”Again, he DOES NOT suck. He is in the NFL for a reason.”
    .
    And here is the crux of your position. I have explained on several occasions that this reasoning in and of itself is not an adequate reason or level of proof for me not to be able to call someone out for sucking. Matt Leinart was selected number 10 in 2006 by the Cardinals, the dude sucks…..IN THE NFL, since you apparently need the qualification. Does that take away from his success at USC? Absolutely not, but it does show that his level of talent, despite being drafted by people who thought he was good enough to be in the NFL, could not hack it in the NFL. What about the converse? Kurt Warner entered the 1994 draft, wasn’t picked, and was subsequently cut after being signed as an undrafted free agent. Despite that he went on to have a rather successful career. So, who was a better quarterback for the Cardinals? Despite what the pundits thought of either (going back to the experts thing), Warner had what it took to succeed in the NFL, Leinart has yet to show similar talent. There is the glaring flaw in your logic and your incorrect use of mine; by being selected as a pro those who enter that realm of the public eye open themselves up to greater scrutiny in terms of their talent. Is it fair? Maybe not, but the point is I’m not even comparing them to the elites, I’m comparing them to everyone else who is a pro. YOU say they don’t suck because they made it to the NFL, ok I get it, they put a lot of work into honing their talent to even be there. However, I say they suck for the very same reason when they don’t display the competency indicative of that level, that doesn’t take away from their previous accomplishments whatsoever. If Leinart didn’t go into the NFL I wouldn’t compare him to NFL caliber players and I would say he doesn’t suck (even if Vince Young outplayed him, but don’t even get me started on that crazy guy), BUT he did go into the NFL and so far he is inadequate to that level of play. I shouldn’t have to qualify that because that is an implicit assumption.
    .
    Now, put it all together. When I say I suck what does that mean? I am performing inadequately to my expected level of ability. When I say a sports player sucks what does that mean? They are performing inadequately to my expectations of their ability based on the level they are at. So why don’t I say that Smith sucks compared to Brown? Because he meets (and far surpasses) my expectations of players at the NFL level and there is no way to accurately gauge how the intangibles affect the comparison. For all you know Smith could blow Brown’s stats out of the water if he was on the same team Brown was or Brown’s stats could be less if he was on the same team that Smith was. Is the converse also true? YES, absolutely, and that is entirely the point here. Do you get the incorrect comparison yet? When I say Paolini sucks it is because he doesn’t meet my expectations of a writer, nothing more, nothing less. And I have said this numerous times already.

  73. Commander Cross June 6, 2012 at 9:08 pm -      #473

    So is the Italics session gone, yet?

  74. rekder June 15, 2012 at 6:13 pm -      #474

    @ptaine
    .
    “If, for example, I say Drizzt runs faster than Eragon, can I not say he runs quicker as well? If I say Eragon has faster reaction times than Drizzt can I not also say he has quicker reaction times as well?”
    .
    Want to know how I can tell that you are not an athletic person when I know nothing about you? Because you turn to the dictionary on the differece between quickness and speed. Any real athlete KNOWS there is a difference. No matter the circumstances. Saying Drizzt runs faster and saying he runs quicker are two completely different things. Saying Drizzt runs faster means he has a higher top speed. Saying he runs quicker means he reaches his top speed in a shorter amount of time. You can’t substitute the words there. As far as the reaction times go, quicker/faster are not the correct words to describe them. Since times are not an athletic ability, different words should be used. Shorter or longer are more correct words. However, Drizzt/Eragon’s ability to swing a weapon faster/slower or quickly/less quickly will have effect on the length of the reaction times.
    .
    “since your own criterion for lack of suckage in this instance is simply being published.”
    .
    No, you’re wrong. I have NEVER said that if an author is published that means that they automatically do not suck. Autobiographies, biographies, informative books etc. require no talent in order to be published because they are simply restating events that have already happened. I simply listed being published as one of many reasons that CP does not suck. I said he has written a bestselling SERIES (the first of which he wrote with essentially no experience), many other professional writers have complimented his work, and Eragon was made into a movie (they don’t make movies out of unsuccessful books). Simply accomplishing these things takes TALENT, something you and blood dancer are saying he does not have by stating that he sucks.
    .
    “Sure “experts” have given their OPINION as to who is better than who,”
    .
    Going back to an earlier post you wrote about opinions being factualized, this is an example of that. These experts have done simulations of every possible scenario to discern who is the better. And they come up with the same result every time: Jim Brown. Sure, you could say a simulation isn’t completely accurate, but based on their overall performance throughout their career, it is actually the most accurate we can get.
    .
    With that said…
    .
    “The simple fact of the matter is Emmit Smith is in no way inadequate in terms of playing football (which is the correct way to use my logic),”
    .
    Actually, your logic doesn’t make any sense here. When I used your logic previously, I said that compared to JIM BROWN, Emmit Smith is inadequate and therefore sucks by your logic. I did not say he sucks in terms of football. That was my whole point. By the definition you chose, and a comparison to Jim Brown, Smith DOES suck. But I know as well as you do he does not suck at football; a statement you just qualified in the quote above. The same argument can be used with CP. Compared to Rowling, Tolkein etc, he DOES suck. But he, IN MY OPINION, does not suck at writing. Two completely different things and the point I am making.
    .
    “since you apparently need the qualification”
    .
    I know what you mean, and I’m telling you that the way you are saying it is incorrect because it gives an incorrect meaning. Sure, he may be inadequate in the NFL but he does not suck and that needs to be specified, like you did above. That has been my whole argument .
    .
    “I say they suck for the very same reason when they don’t display the competency indicative of that level,”
    .
    And you are not in the position to say that. Because, compared to them, you horribly suck. It’s just like on my soccer team. When I try a certain move to beat an opposing defender, and it doesn’t work, I get some shit from teammates saying I should not have tried that. Then minutes later, they try something similar. They are in no position to try that because A) they just called me out on the same thing, and B) they, usually, are not at the same skill level as I am (I’m not meaning to brag if it sounds like it). So because you are no where near the skill level of Matt Leinart and you would probably do worse in the NFL than he, you are in no position to say he sucks.
    .
    So when I say Paolini does not suck, it is because he is a better writer than millions of other people, and if you are comparing him to better writers than that needs to be said (although I don’t think that is a good way to judge suckage, because then everyone except the best would suck), otherwise just saying he sucks means he sucks in general. And why does Paolini have to meet YOUR expectations of a writer for you to say he sucks. For all I know only the best could meet your expectations, that would mean that even the very good writers would suck in your opinion. I don’t find that a good way to judge.

  75. ptaine June 16, 2012 at 3:55 pm -      #475

    ”Want to know how I can tell that you are not an athletic person when I know nothing about you? Because you turn to the dictionary on the differece between quickness and speed. Any real athlete KNOWS there is a difference”
    .
    Oh dear. I was wondering when you would pull the “athlete” card. You should understand this an unbelievably idiotic stance to take. In part because of this fallacy:
    .
    46. False attribution This is when someone cites a source out of context, or a source that does not even exist, to support their argument.
    .
    The problem is that you’re acting as if “athletes” are privy to some sort of knowledge, in terms of the English Language mind you, that the general populace is not aware of. Because we are dealing with the English Language, however, the dictionary and thesaurus are essentially the highest authority in that regard, not some sort of elitist “athletic” application which in all actuality doesn’t even exist. Unless you’re telling me that there is an athletic dictionary which legitimizes your claim here? Simply because you as an athlete “know” there is a distinction does not mean the words themselves aren’t interchangeable, because they are, nor does it change the fact that the context is what is important to the distinction, not the word itself. Which leads me to this:
    .
    ”Saying Drizzt runs faster and saying he runs quicker are two completely different things. Saying Drizzt runs faster means he has a higher top speed. Saying he runs quicker means he reaches his top speed in a shorter amount of time.
    .
    So you’re telling me that I can’t say that a top speed is achieved faster by one person over another? Or that a top speed is quicker than another? THAT is probably one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. My athleticism has no bearing whatsoever on how a word is applied, so I will ask you, do you really think I don’t understand the distinction you are making? And if you think otherwise I will point you to the velocity/acceleration bit in my previous post because that is precisely the difference you are describing here (and also the reason I brought it up to begin with).
    .
    Furthermore this is the definition of fast from Merriam-Webster: 3a : characterized by quick motion, operation, or effect: (1) : moving or able to move rapidly : swift (2) : taking a comparatively short time (3) : imparting quickness of motion (a fast bowler) (4) : accomplished quickly (5) : agile of mind; especially : quick to learn (a class for fast students).…..So in resorting to the book that defines the words we use to communicate (which incidentally, does indeed include athletes as well) THE VERY DISTINCTION YOU ARE MAKING IS THE DEFINITION! How ridiculous is that huh?
    .
    As far as being an athlete though, I may not attend a university for athletics BUT I have attained a black belt in Soo Bahk Do, my friend and I spar on a regular basis and he is in Jiu Jitsu, my other friend is into Parkour and I free run with him on occasion, plus I work out three times a week and do yoga every morning. So if you mean that I don’t compete on an athletic level then yes, you would be correct I am not an athlete (even though, again, that has no bearing on my ability to understand concepts because of that). If you mean that I am not athletic or can’t understand athletic concepts because of a distinction you are making then you are sorely mistaken. What you did with your fallacious false attribution is akin to me asking: Do you know how I know you aren’t an intelligent person? Because you resort to a non-existent athletic description of a word to validate a faulty premise. Not only is that incredibly ignorant, it is also rather pretentious as well because none of that actually proves the premise in the question.
    .
    ”No, you’re wrong…Simply accomplishing these things takes TALENT, something you and blood dancer are saying he does not have by stating that he sucks”
    .
    I didn’t want to quote the entirety of this passage but I am responding to it all. LOOK at what I said, “in this instance” is a key indicator that should show I am talking about a comparison in terms of being an NFL football player and a published author. Criterion, NOT criteria. I showed a comparison based on AN ASPECT of your reasoning NOT ALL. Your other points I have provided reasoning showing why they don’t even remotely show that TALENT is involved either because marketing, pop culture, and several other factors which don’t even remotely indicate talent play a role, but that wasn’t the issue being discussed. Now pay attention, this is a debate site and you have provided not only circular logic here but also several nonsequiters as well. You’re fallacious reasoning does not take precedent over my own opinion here and that is a key point I have been trying to get you to for awhile now. Unfortunately, you are hellbent on missing the contextual clues I give you that are helpful for comprehension. You’re right though I don’t think Paolini possesses talent, and nothing you have provided actually PROVES he does because every one of your points can be attributed to another factor.
    .
    ”Actually, your logic doesn’t make any sense here. When I used your logic previously, I said that compared to JIM BROWN, Emmit Smith is inadequate and therefore sucks by your logic. I did not say he sucks in terms of football. That was my whole point”
    .
    My logic doesn’t make sense to you because you are incorrectly applying it, like I have said SEVERAL times already. I said that compared to Jim Brown, Emmitt Smith DOES NOT SUCK, BECAUSE THAT ISN’T MY LOGIC! That is your fallacious interpretation of what my logic entails based on the definition of inadequate, because my logic is precisely in terms of football not a one on one comparison for the umpteenth time (or writing since it’s analogous to Paolini). PAY. ATTENTION. There are only so many ways I can show you the mistake you are making before I think you are a complete moron. THe bottom line is that even in the one on one comparison there is nothing concrete that you have provided that shows me that Jim Brown is truly superior to Emmitt Smith because it isn’t available. Yes, experts may have provided some sort of metric for comparison, BUT later in my previous post I provided an example showing that experts don’t always get it right when it comes to a completely subjective stance (Leinert and Warner)
    .
    YOU are starting off with the assumption that since experts have placed Smith in a lower place on the all time greats Smith is inadequate, when that doesn’t take into account anything else in the equation, nor does it mean that I would say he sucks because of an arbitrary relative placement in terms of greatness.
    .
    I know what you mean, and I’m telling you that the way you are saying it is incorrect because it gives an incorrect meaning. Sure, he may be inadequate in the NFL but he does not suck and that needs to be specified, like you did above. That has been my whole argument
    .
    It doesn’t give it an incorrect meaning, BUT it is interesting that you would use an athletic comparison for speed and quickness, and also an athletic application in terms of suckage here…..or maybe not. Since THAT has been a point of mine for some time. YOU are using an elitist interpretation in terms of a specific area, then applying it to an entirely different form of TALENT, and then fallaciously comparing the concepts inherent in either. I am not incorrect in my verbiage or application. It does however require a level of astuteness to decipher the implied meaning, and a level of intelligence to not be so close-minded about an opinionated stance. Especially once the implied meaning has been expressly stated and further qualified.
    .
    ”And you are not in the position to say that. Because, compared to them, you horribly suck.”
    .
    SO WHAT! Going back to my buddy who Parkours, I suck compared to him. No question whatsoever, BUT I have the ability to watch him based on my understanding of the mechanics involved and tell him where he is sucking. I can watch his body position when he performs a move and see WHY he isn’t performing adequately to his expectations. Going back to your athletic elitism YOU are telling me because I am not as good as Leinert or you that I can’t discern an inability to perform to a certain standard? That is absolutely ludicrous and rather disingenuous considering the amount of coaches who cannot perform to the level of their star players.
    .
    ”So when I say Paolini does not suck, it is because he is a better writer than millions of other people, and if you are comparing him to better writers than that needs to be said (although I don’t think that is a good way to judge suckage, because then everyone except the best would suck), otherwise just saying he sucks means he sucks in general.”
    .
    I am aware of why you think Paolini does not suck. The difference is I have never said that your opinion is wrong simply because I disagree with it. I do think you are wrong with the reasoning inherent in your qualifications for telling me I AM WRONG in my own opinion and how I state something. It is a key distinction. YES, I am saying Paolini sucks in general, BUT that is because he is inadequate to what I deem a published author who has achieved what he has entails. I don’t know how many times I can say that before you understand that saying he sucks implies that and is not an incorrect way to express that sentiment. Which then leads me to this:
    .
    And why does Paolini have to meet YOUR expectations of a writer for you to say he sucks. For all I know only the best could meet your expectations, that would mean that even the very good writers would suck in your opinion. I don’t find that a good way to judge.
    .
    BECAUSE IT’S MY OPINION! You don’t think he sucks because of what your expectation are, which you qualified in terms of being published, bestselling author, movie, etc…I don’t think you are wrong for thinking those things are indicative of nonsuckage, I just happen to disagree that those things are actually indicative of talent. That’s all. You, however, are saying I am wrong for saying he sucks, without taking into account that my criteria for determining that isn’t the same as what you use, and then incorrectly applying what my logic and definition of the word suck is. And if “for all you know” my opinion is that only very good writers would suck you’re simply not listening and incorrectly applying what I am saying.

  76. fallstar thief June 16, 2012 at 4:00 pm -      #476

    so what are people arguing about know?

  77. Commander Cross June 16, 2012 at 4:03 pm -      #477

    @NKB

    Probably the fact of the matter that Eragon is fighting Harry Dresden and Lord Soth, the former of which doesn’t even need any Camp Half-Blood resident’s built-in amplifiers from direct attempts of the True Speech to destroy Eragon with, and the latter Eragon is trying and failing to shoot between the knees, methinks.

  78. ptaine June 16, 2012 at 4:05 pm -      #478

    nothing really. Rekder has a post to Kytheros that is on topic between Eragon and Drizzt, but no one else seems to want to argue for Drizzt.
    .
    Rekder and I are still discussing Paolini’s writing prowess, or lack thereof.

  79. fallstar thief June 16, 2012 at 4:08 pm -      #479

    what are the arguments for eragon? or wich post
    i guess ill argue for drizzzt

  80. Commander Cross June 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm -      #480

    @NKB

    Thanks a lot! :)

  81. ptaine June 16, 2012 at 4:56 pm -      #481

    468 is rekder’s response to Kytheros. I don’t exactly know the specifics.
    .
    I personally think that Eragon wins because of his mind powers. The tracking I’m not so sure about since Drizzt’s magical resistance hasn’t exactly been quantified.

  82. fallstar thief June 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm -      #482

    “I personally think that Eragon wins because of his mind powers. The tracking I’m not so sure about since Drizzt’s magical resistance hasn’t exactly been quantified.”
    alright ill look it over
    as for mental attacks drizzt iirc has fended off the mental attacks of an illithid (mind flayer)
    incredibly powerful psionic monsters that can consider mindrapeing people into drooling thralls childsplay
    ill also try to look for feats for drizzts bow wich should shred through eragons wards

  83. rekder July 5, 2012 at 10:25 pm -      #483

    @ptaine
    .
    “So you’re telling me that I can’t say that a top speed is achieved faster by one person over another?”
    .
    That right there is the definition of quickness: a measure of the amount of time it takes in order for top speed to be reached. The fact that you used the word ‘fast’ in a roundabout way to define it does not mean that they mean the same thing. I could use two words that are complete antonyms in the same manner that you did and make the same argument. Just because you use wordplay to support your argument does not mean that it’s true. The next sentence you said was ‘Or that a top speed is quicker than another?” No, that would be an incorrect statement. A top speed cannot be quicker than another because that would mean it can reach its top speed faster than the other. That does not make sense at all. Top speed is a statistic, not a living thing. The correct way to state it would be to say one has a HIGHER top speed than the other. Saying one is faster may also be used because that is stating the same thing. So, I will say it again. Your ‘ability’ to use word play does nothing to convince me that you know what you’re talking about in this aspect.
    .
    “the very distinction you are making is the definition!”
    .
    So, you will agree then. They ARE different. The very definition of the word says so. And again, just because you can use wordplay to try and show me that the words can be interchanged does NOT mean that they mean the same thing. Also, you said in your last post (talking about Brown and Smith) that experts don’t always get it right. Well, the dictionary is just that. A book written by ‘experts’. As I have pointed out before, there are some ‘mistakes’ in the dictionary, especially when it comes to synonyms. Ask your friend who does parkour, ask him if quickness and speed are the same. See what he says. I don’t care if you try and convince him that they are, but do so after he answers the question straight away.
    .
    “As far as being an athlete though…”
    .
    Not to cut on you or the martial arts, but one of my good friends earned his black belt in karate after about 2 years in the program, and he is one of the most un-athletic, un-coordinated kids I know. 5 more people that I know have similar cases, some in different forms of martial arts. So, it seems to me that the martial arts no longer lives up to the reputation it used to if these kids I have just mentioned were able to earn their black belts. It takes away from the hard work and skill it should take to earn it and therefore the respect black belts get from people like me: who is very experienced in recognizing and respecting something that takes true hard work. Also, weight lifting takes strength, and yoga takes some strength and a good amount of flexibility. Neither of them require any real athleticism to participate in. If you were in a sport that takes a combination of strength, speed, agility, flexibilty, coordination etc. instead of just one or a few of them, then you would surely understand from experience that speed and quickness are different. You can even use martial arts for that. But again, F your word play on this one.
    .
    So you think I’m a moron? I attend UW-Madison, am an AP scholar, a physics major while participating in two collegiate sports, and scored a 32 on my ACT. Still think I’m a moron?
    .
    “and nothing you have providd actually PROVES he does because every one of your points can be attributed to another factor.”
    .
    Funny, your logic can be used against you here. Because your points can be attributed to another factor as well. In fact, they all could be attributed to TALENT, not a different factor for each point. The fact that Paolini’s books sold so well might not be as a result of marketing. It might be because they are good books written by an author with a lot of TALENT. Justin Beiber could be a successful musician because he appeals to a particular type of people. Which may be some of the reason, or it could be mostly because he has a lot of TALENT. I think you get my point.
    .
    “The bottom line is that even in the one on one comparison there is nothing concrete that shows me that Jim Brown is truly superior to Emmitt Smith.”
    .
    Fine, because you are being so stubborn about this, I will choose another professional running back to make my point. Ahman Green: a retired running back for the Green Bay Packers. There is no way in hell he is even near as good as Jim Brown (if you think so then I give up and will never talk to you again). Based on your definition of suck, Green does suck compared to Jim Brown because he is inadequate at the game of football compared to Brown. Now, most people will agree that Green does not suck, even in the NFL.
    .
    “BUT I have the ability to watch him….”
    .
    Sure, you can watch him and try and decipher what he is doing wrong, but you should keep your mouth shut instead of pointing it out to him. Especially if it is in a critical way (like the way you and Blood Dancer say CP sucks). Here’s an example of my thinking. I play intramural sand volleyball at school. Every once in a while I try a ridiculous play that is normally very difficult to accomplish, mostly just for fun. Another player on my team who is not very good (compared to anyone) always criticizes me if I cannot pull of the play. And then later in the game he tries something similar and NEVER accomplishes it. He is in no position to try a play like that because 1. he is not good enough and it has never worked before for him and 2. He just called me out for the same thing. I also don’t believe he has the right to criticize me on a play like that when he himself tries it and cannot accomplish it.

  84. rekder July 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm -      #484

    @fallstar thief and ptaine
    .
    Eragon won’t have a problem tracking Drizzt because his mind can easily locate any living thing. It literally looks like Drizzt’s infrared vision: all living things glow. Drizzt’s magic resistance won’t be able to do anything against it because I don’t think Eragon’s ability to do so is magic, and if it is, it isn’t a spell-like ability.
    .
    I do agree, Eragon’s mental attacks won’t do much but maybe cause Drizzt to hesitate (which could be dangerous). Unless of course Eragon’s mid is stronger than an illithid’s (we’ll never know).
    .
    Taulmaril won’t get through Eragon’s wards because the few that hit Eragon will be stopped by the wards which are fed by the power stored in Brisingr’s pommel, the Belt of Beloth the Wise, and Aren.

  85. ptaine July 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm -      #485

    ”Ask your friend who does parkour, ask him if quickness and speed are the same. See what he says. I don’t care if you try and convince him that they are, but do so after he answers the question straight away.”
    .
    I did actually before I started debating you about it. Guess what he said?….“What do you mean?”…..I had to clarify the context for him. Which is my entire point here, those words do not implicitly mean what you say they do WITHOUT the context.
    .
    ”Your ‘ability’ to use word play does nothing to convince me that you know what you’re talking about in this aspect.”
    .
    Really? Let’s look at your arbitrary, unsubstantiated definition of “quickness” shall we? ”That right there is the definition of quickness: a measure of the amount of time it takes in order for top speed to be reached”
    .
    Top speed. If Speed and Quickness are truly different, as you so adamantly insist, you wouldn’t have to clarify that it is the top speed reached which is important to the distinction you are making. In fact there hasn’t been a true definition provided yet which even shows that. YOU “word-played” at the very start of this in giving “context.” Let’s go to Merriam-Webster for further clarification, especially since you are continually changing between three words: Quckness, Speed, and Fast. You tend to jump between them pretty easily.
    .
    Quick: 2: acting or capable of acting with speed: as a(2) : reacting to stimuli with speed and keen sensitivity c : marked by speed, readiness, or promptness of physical movement……(nothing which indicates top speed even in the definitions that I left out)
    .
    Speed:2 a : the act or state of moving swiftly : swiftness b : rate of motion: as (1) : velocity 1 (2) : the magnitude of a velocity irrespective of direction
    .
    So let’s get to this since I already provided the definition of fast in my previous post: “A top speed cannot be quicker than another because that would mean it can reach its top speed faster than the other”
    .
    NO! When a top speed is quicker then another it means that all things being equal (distance, starting point, starting time, acceleration etc) whatever is traveling the faster speed will reach the target destination before the slower speed based on that particular instant of measurement.
    .
    So then to this: “So, you will agree then. They ARE different.” No. No I do not agree, because when a word is defined by the other word in question, the distinction simply is not there. You’ve made a distinction and yet fast is defined as quickness. I worded the sentence poorly, not entirely intentionally so I apologize for the mix-up, but it’s interesting that you didn’t acknowledge that the actual definition which I provided doesn’t make the distinction you are. I was trying to say more abstractly (and obviously failed at making the proper connection because of a terribly constructed sentence) what I just did in the sentence after the quote, not that the distinction you made is actually the definition because that is patently false.
    .
    The bottom line is you can call it wordplay if you want, and you don’t have to like it either. That doesn’t in any way change the validity of the statements based on the actual definitions of the words (not simply the synonymous nature of those words) and the context which those words are presented in. And also, if you had stopped and considered it you clarified the context even more by calling it an “athletic” use of those words.
    .
    ”So you think I’m a moron? I attend UW-Madison, am an AP scholar, a physics major while participating in two collegiate sports, and scored a 32 on my ACT. Still think I’m a moron?”
    .
    I actually don’t think you are a moron (and nothing in my previous post said you were), but none of those things you just listed really matter a whole hell of a lot to me (and really the only slightly impressive thing is scoring a 32 on the ACT). You can achieve all those things and still behave moronically though, it’s not like they’re mutually exclusive or anything. If I did think you were a moron I would base it on your behavior here and my interactions with you. Speaking of:
    .
    ”Funny, your logic can be used against you here. Because your points can be attributed to another factor as well. In fact, they all could be attributed to TALENT, not a different factor for each point.”
    .
    Uh?….Seriously? Take a step back and look at what I’m actually arguing before you “use my logic against me.” Indeed, you are more than welcome to support your OPINION as you want. If you attribute those factors to talent, that is absolutely your prerogative and I do not in any way fault you for your stance or what you use for supporting it. HOWEVER, what you are using IS completely subjective evidence and as such doesn’t actually invalidate my stance. Just as what I say does not invalidate your stance in this regard as you so astutely pointed out here. Unfortunately, this isn’t something I am arguing, disagreeing with you about, or even interested in trying to sway your opinion in, because frankly I don’t really care.
    .
    What I am arguing with you about here is about your completely close-minded stance in telling me that I cannot say someone sucks because 1) clearly they do not and 2) they can’t because I am using the word incorrectly. 1) is completely subjective as I explained in my previous paragraph and there is no way to actually put one opinion over the other in a manner to conclusively prove them. That doesn’t mean that an opinion cannot be validated with further qualification to support 2) because this is my main argument. I am using the word correctly and you supporting that I am not with 1) doesn’t in any way show that I am not.
    .
    ”I will choose another professional running back to make my point…There is no way in hell he is even near as good as Jim Brown (if you think so then I give up and will never talk to you again). Based on your definition of suck, Green does suck compared to Jim Brown because he is inadequate at the game of football compared to Brown”
    .
    I understand your point just fine. You are trying to get me to see the error of my ways in using the word suck by using the definition of “inadequate” that I provided. So, yes, based on a one on one comparison and that narrow use of the word suck, ie inadequate, Ahman Green would suck compared to Jim Brown.
    .
    But in stating it that way, YOU are completely missing my point, or at the very least not acknowledging the context I am using the word in because as I’ve stated an inordinate amount of times now, it ISN’T a one on one comparison when I say Paolini sucks. That isn’t the way I am using the word. AT ALL. I wouldn’t say Ahman Green sucks even in comparison to Jim Brown because when he was on the field his team had a better chance to win. In the NFL Green was an integral aspect of his team just like Brown was to his one is not better or worse in those terms,so when I say someone like Leinert sucks it’s because he was a liability to his team not because he sucks compared to Warner or whoever else. And, I’ve already explained how all this applies to the actual argument.
    .
    ”Sure, you can watch him and try and decipher what he is doing wrong, but you should keep your mouth shut instead of pointing it out to him. Especially if it is in a critical way (like the way you and Blood Dancer say CP sucks).”
    .
    Why should I keep my mouth shut? Your elucidation of your situation isn’t applicable because my friend and I have a greater rapport and mutual respect for one another. We’ve worked together for a number of years and there is an understanding between us that even if I am critical it isn’t to degrade him or put him down. It’s to make him better at whatever it is that he is doing. He knows that even if I can’t do what he can when it comes to parkour, I am intelligent enough to understand conceptually what needs to happen. Your situation just seems like your behaving like a child to me, because you don’t like the guy that sucks telling you how to do something when he can’t do it because he sucks. I don’t know, that rather silly to me.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    FIGHT I do agree, Eragon’s mental attacks won’t do much but maybe cause Drizzt to hesitate (which could be dangerous). Unless of course Eragon’s mid is stronger than an illithid’s (we’ll never know).
    .
    I’m pretty sure that Drizzt wasn’t able to resist the Illithid except to withhold information, and if the Illithid had continued at one point Drizzt would have died. Starless Night Ch 19
    .
    ”…”You are but one prize,” she said. “And you will aid us in the conquest of another. Mithral Hall will be ours more easily now that Bruenor Battlehammer’s strongest ally is out of the way. And that very ally will show us the dwarven weaknesses.”

    His screams over the next ten minutes were purely instinctive, primal, as the mindflayer probed his mind, sent horrid images careening through his thoughts and devoured every mental counter Drizzt had to offer. He felt naked, vulnerable, stripped of his very emotions. Through it all, Drizzt, though he did not know it, fought valiantly, and when Methil moved back from him, the Illithid turned to Matron Baenre and shrugged. “What have you learned?” the matron mother demanded. This one is strong, Methil replied telepathically. It will take more sessions. “Continue!” snapped Baenre. “He will die,” Methil somehow said in a gurgling, watery-sounding voice. “Tomorrow.”…”

  86. ptaine September 8, 2012 at 8:44 pm -      #486

    So I’ve just started the Neverwinter books and I came across this tidbit in book 2, Neverwinter, Ch 17
    .
    ”…That momentary delay gave Drizzt all the time he needed to beat her to the strike. In the blink of an eye, he launched an arrow at her face. But Sylora smiled and barely flinched. The shot soared true, but the lightning arrow fell short of the mark, slamming into some shield the sorceress had around her. Sparks flew, arcing out to the sides and up and down, but none going forward into Sylora…”
    .
    The lightning arrow is obviously Taulmaril which failed to bring down a defensive shield. Now, that being said I’m not sure how applicable Sylora’s shield is to Eragon’s wards, but the point is Taulmaril doesn’t simply go through every magical barrier it encounters.

  87. epicazeroth September 8, 2012 at 9:31 pm -      #487

    Who’s winning this match so far?

  88. ptaine September 8, 2012 at 9:56 pm -      #488

    ”Who’s winning this match so far?
    .
    I’m thinking Eragon.
    .
    Two of Drizzt’s advantages here are Taulmaril and his magical resistance. If Taulmaril is capable of being blocked by Eragon’s wards which I think is extremely likely, that particular advantage is severely marginalized. The magical resistance I’m rather unsure of, but indirect attacks and Eragon’s mind attacks would be effective here despite that.
    .
    Up close the fight definitely favors Drizzt, but I’m fairly certain that Eragon’s enhanced abilities even that up considerably.

  89. ptaine September 16, 2012 at 7:25 pm -      #489

    And, here is an example of why I was rather insistent about Drizzt’s “magical resistance,” Charon’s Claw, Ch18.

    “…The sorcerer’s fiery bolt had stung him, bubbling the skin of his leading forearm, but Drizzt held his ground without flinching and called on his innate drow powers, a remnant of magic from the emanations of the deep Unerdark, to fill the corridor before him, the region around the warlock, with a globe of absolute darkness. He kept Taulmaril level, methodically setting a second arrow and letting fly, the glowing arrow seeming to blink out of existence as it disappeared into the darkness…”

    Now, here is from the warlock’s perspective the page before. ”…Alfwin called out for his trailing companions and stepped forward, wand extended.

    As he let fly, so too did his opponent, countering the warlock’s black bolt with a lightning strike….”


    And that “lightning strike” is an arrow from Taulmaril.

  90. rekder September 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm -      #490

    About taulmaril being stopped by Eragon’s wards: I think it is true that Eragon’s wards are strong enough to stop Drizzt’s arrows. Remember, Eragon has energy stored in the pommel of his sword, the Belt of Beloth the Wise, and in Aren. The energy in Aren alone is enough to move a mountain. I’m pretty sure Drizzt would have to hit Eragon with a week’s worth of continuous arrows before his wards fail.
    .
    Also, good call on the fiery bolt part. It shows that Drizzt’s magic resistance isn’t on par with Eragon’s wards.
    .
    @ptaine
    .
    Honestly, I got really busy and forgot about this debate we were having. Since I am still very busy, and we don’t seem to be getting anywhere, I will withdraw from our argument about speed/quickness and other things not associated with the battle. However, I would like to leave you with one thing on the matter. I’m sure you’ve heard of Usain Bolt. He is without a doubt the fastest man that has ever lived. Now if you were to watch him in both his record breaking 100m race and his London medal race in the 100m, you would see that he does not lead the whole race. There are other sprinters who are quicker than him, meaning they reach THEIR top speed in a shorter amount of time. It doesn’t have to be top speed either. Quicker sprinters can reach 50% of their top speed before Bolt can. They can even reach a set speed before he can, for example 10 mph. But the reason Bolt wins the race time and time again is his top speed. Nobody on the entire planet except Bolt can reach 28 mph. Let’s compare another sprinter to Bolt: Tyson Gay. Gay is quicker than Bolt. Now you might say Gay is faster out of the blocks, or that he has a faster reaction time, or that he reaches his top speed faster. But you wouldn’t say that Tyson Gay is faster than Bolt would you? So then why insist that speed and quickness are the same thing because you can substitute the two by changing some other words in the sentence around? Sounds like a pain in the ass to me, not to mention something that most people wouldn’t go out of their way to do. My comparison between Bolt and Gay is exactly the same between Eragon and Drizzt when I say Eragon is faster but Drizzt is quicker.

  91. Epicazeroth September 17, 2012 at 1:36 pm -      #491

    Why in any Hell are you arguing about the definition of the words “suck” and “speed” vs “quickness”?
    -
    Suck means you are bad. Period. There’s no interpretation. I can’t even throw an American football. I suck at that sport. However, I’m pretty good at ultimate frisbee. But, I’m not at professional level, nor am I as good as my coach. So, by your definition, I suck, regardless of the fact that I’m pretty proficient in every aspect of the game.
    -
    Quickness and speed are the same BY DENOTATION. However, by connotation, they aren’t. That is actually open to interpretation.

  92. ptaine September 17, 2012 at 9:21 pm -      #492

    ”Why in any Hell are you arguing about the definition of the words “suck” and “speed” vs “quickness”?”
    .
    Lol, essentially because. And I found the conversation entertaining and we disagreed about it. No, other reason really.
    .
    ”About taulmaril being stopped by Eragon’s wards: I think it is true that Eragon’s wards are strong enough to stop Drizzt’s arrows. Remember, Eragon has energy stored in the pommel of his sword, the Belt of Beloth the Wise, and in Aren. The energy in Aren alone is enough to move a mountain. I’m pretty sure Drizzt would have to hit Eragon with a week’s worth of continuous arrows before his wards fail.
    Also, good call on the fiery bolt part. It shows that Drizzt’s magic resistance isn’t on par with Eragon’s wards”

    .
    Yeah, the only thing I would disagree with is Aren since he did use the power stored there, and I’m not really sure how long it takes to fill it up any considerable amount. But yeah, I would definitely give this match to Eragon either way especially since his advantages are rather shaky now.
    .
    ”Honestly, I got really busy and forgot about this debate we were having. Since I am still very busy, and we don’t seem to be getting anywhere, I will withdraw from our argument about speed/quickness and other things not associated with the battle

    My comparison between Bolt and Gay is exactly the same between Eragon and Drizzt when I say Eragon is faster but Drizzt is quicker.”

    .
    It’s all good, honestly I was kind of surprised it didn’t happen before that. And like I said I understand the comparison. My only point I would leave you with is that I don’t think it’s wrong if I say Usain Bolt is quicker overall because he gets to the finish line more quickly than any other runner. ALSO, if I say that Gay is faster out of the blocks or faster to reach his top speed, again I don’t think that’s incorrect either. It’s the context that’s important. But if you as an athlete understand the difference, even if I don’t think that such a distinction exists, that doesn’t mean us lay folk would know the difference without the qualification.
    .
    Either way, good debate, and luck with your business.

  93. Commander Cross May 24, 2013 at 12:18 pm -      #493

    This is going to be irritating.

  94. OberHerr June 5, 2013 at 12:08 pm -      #494

    How is this not a stomp for Eragon? With Brom’s ring he can just insta-kill Drizzt by any number of ways.

  95. Commander Cross June 5, 2013 at 8:25 pm -      #495

    *sigh*

    Not this shit again!

    Quotes PLEASE!???

    Normally I wouldn’t have to ask for quotes unless I was trying to play it safe than be sorry later, but this is just too far without quotes to be listed.

  96. OberHerr June 6, 2013 at 8:15 pm -      #496

    But….its already been established. The Ancient Language works in that whatever you word it as happens. The words of deaths are merely a quicker way of going about it. He could just as easily say “stop his heart”, and it would kill him, and it would require very little energy. You can’t dodge it either.
    -
    With Brom’s ring? Using the energy of Brom’s ring, he evidently could take apart a castle. And Inheritance magic works in that the energy a spell requires is the amount it would take normally to do the task.
    inheritance.wikia.com/wiki/Aren
    I’ll get a specific quote on the castle thing.

  97. Commander Cross June 6, 2013 at 11:21 pm -      #497

    Wouldn’t Eragon be required to weaken the hells out of Drizzt first before he even thinks about trying the Death Words to kill the Drow?

    Not to mention wouldn’t there be an off-chance that Eragon would be frakked in more ways than one if he got hit with those Darkness Globes?
    Drizzt knows how to fight his way in the darkness, Eragon has yet to show that he can do so with anywhere near as much fluidity frankly.

    Thank you for finally being ready to get the quote at least, if nothing else.

    Keywords are in italics.

  98. GuardianAngel1911 Super Sayian god June 6, 2013 at 11:52 pm -      #498

    as I recall Drizzt has an immunity to magic which is why Eragon doesnt’ stomp.

  99. Commander Cross June 6, 2013 at 11:57 pm -      #499

    Bonus kudos that its actually built-in on Drizzt’s blood stream rather than something temporary that you’d have to pop in a couple of chew pills to set up.

  100. ptaine June 7, 2013 at 12:25 am -      #500

    “as I recall Drizzt has an immunity to magic which is why Eragon doesnt’ stomp.”
    .
    Drizzt isn’t immune to magic. I posted a few things that show why that is.

Leave A Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.


3b3390d9415db7f45e4b79ac7e8a57f590198af474230e495a