i think your point is view is interesting: but consider this perspective: ain’t no such thing as communication without subtext. no point of view, no opinion may be stated bluntly enough to remove it. for you’ve delivered subtext within your stated dislike of its use.
argue in a style that doesn’t imply you feel your opinion is a fact, unless blithely mistaking opinions for facts and then getting into online mudfights is fun for you
for you’ve delivered subtext within your stated dislike of its use.
I’ve called it fun and a treat that fills out a work, while railing specifically against the practice of replacing clear, explicit meaning with it, at least insofar as a work is supposed to convey some big point or theme.
Does that really sound like dislike to you? The only thing I really hate is pieces that are nothing but symbolism and which have no real truth to them, and which are being treated like being obtuse and inaccessible is something profound and elevating.
only a sith deals in absolutes (lol sorry).
i think your point is view is interesting: but consider this perspective: ain’t no such thing as communication without subtext. no point of view, no opinion may be stated bluntly enough to remove it. for you’ve delivered subtext within your stated dislike of its use.
argue in a style that doesn’t imply you feel your opinion is a fact, unless blithely mistaking opinions for facts and then getting into online mudfights is fun for you
I’ve called it fun and a treat that fills out a work, while railing specifically against the practice of replacing clear, explicit meaning with it, at least insofar as a work is supposed to convey some big point or theme.
Does that really sound like dislike to you? The only thing I really hate is pieces that are nothing but symbolism and which have no real truth to them, and which are being treated like being obtuse and inaccessible is something profound and elevating.
it sounds like arrogance actually. i won’t be interacting further with you