Although that supports my case entirely, I didn't want to use that arguement becasue it's insubstantial regarding the discussion, as it's entirely circumstantial. But it does present the purpose of my rant about the overextension of story adaptation. Mike wasn't paying attentin, though, he watned to have a different discussion.
It's particularly bad since staff no longer admonishes people for sheer idiocy. Like this thread...half a dozen people should have descended and said how dumb it is to differentiate "adapted" from "based on" in discussing comic-to-film.
:unsure: Yeah............ it was just a big semantic arguement, and he wants to pretend it was a conceptual arguement. Even though factual occurences support my case, he can just reley on a very simple statement that encompases the adaptation but doe sinclude real, actual details regarding the process... and it can seem as though I'm just ignoring the obvious. :rolleyes: But what the fuck was I supposed to be when he tries to argue with me for no reason, and with no case against mine?
The reason this wasn't noticed by the crowd is becasue it's far from the most ridiulous debate that's been seen. And usually debates involve only one guy making any sort of sense, and soem jackass like Beelzebozo stating opinions as fact.