My “problem” is when people encounter an argument they clearly feel is ridiculous, yet argue it anyways.

But Briiiian…. it’s fun!

I’m usually pretty happy and having a laugh when I post – I loves me comics so I’m having fun when I’m talking about them, even if, sometimes especially if, it’s making some fool look like a fool, and even better hopefully realise, they’re a fool!

“But that brings another “bone of contention” in forums: grammar. I have always felt web forums are the equivalent of casual conversation: people misuse and mispronounce words all the time. They don’t really care as long as they are understood.”

In my circle of friends, we correct each other often, including proper usage of obscure words. Are we really that anal? Yep, and it’s not in a gloating way, just to make sure the speaker gets better at speaking. One recent discussion involved adaption or adaptation. Adaptation is correct, yet two of us (me included) thought adaption should be a word. My brother and I…my brother and me…me and my brother…yep, we correct those, too.

Cuz thass jus the way we roll, yo.

Now THIS I agree with. One thing that always annoys me is that somebody starts a thread -Say, about continuity- and invariably someone else will pop up to say “I think this topic is stupid”. Isn’t that the equivalent of butting in on somebody else’s conversation? Such a person should hold his views for another thread that is *about* the validity of the subject; why ruin other people’s fun?

@ Josh: Oops, I missed that. Too bad there’s no “edit” option here. Thanks anyway.

But that brings another “bone of contention” in forums: grammar. I have always felt web forums are the equivalent of casual conversation: people misuse and mispronounce words all the time. They don’t really care as long as they are understood. Sure, you can correct others if you think they have trouble with spelling, but some people react like they’re violating a law or something. It’s even dumber than arguing about comics. Relax and, unless a word is mispelt in a way that causes confusion or shock (say, “buck” ) just ignore them.

But, while trying to be as general as possible, I guess I would describe it as “You’re a moron! Let me now reply to you explaining why you’re a moron!” If you think the person is a moron, why are you responding to her/him?

Okay, I guess I can see your point, but you’re going to have to show me some examples if you can. It’s been my experience that when I encounter a slapfight online about something that I find absurd, the two opposing parties are taking their arguments very seriously.

So we can all agree that we shouldn’t rise to silly arguments, but we can’t agree what arguments are silly.

We don’t need to agree on which arguments are silly, I’m saying that each person, in their minds, can tell what arguments that they think are silly. If they think said argument is silly, then I’m saying they shouldn’t bother arguing it.

If you don’t think an argument is silly (and others do), then fine, go ahead and argue it – that’s cool.

My “problem” is when people encounter an argument they clearly feel is ridiculous, yet argue it anyways.

Personally, I don’t care whether Dick Grayson looked better with a mullet or a ponytail, but I know that for some unfortunate soul out there, his entire fandom pivots on that point and he will defend his opinions to the death.

So we can all agree that we shouldn’t rise to silly arguments, but we can’t agree what arguments are silly. Therefore, all silly arguments are important to somebody and will be defended.

His insistence on poopheadedness *is* somewhat troubling, I must admit.

No, good sir, you are the one who should best apply saliva to a mule’s phallus.

Incorrigible Hulk by Peter Bagge finally being released after being shelved for years.