Damn. Oh well, maybe next time.

ORLY?
Never underestimate the power of the Gettai!

To be honest, it was pretty clear that the show was heading to gaining a sub-forum with over a 2000+ replies already in it's first half and since the discussion was pretty wide spread and about different topics. The question is whether or not the mods were afraid it was going to be a HSoTD situation where a sub-forum would end up being a nightmare to manage.

Time to work on that post then, whooo~

A part 5-6 épisodes racontant le passé des principaux protagonistes, non, c'est pas vraiment indispensable. Je pense tout de même qu'il vaut mieux lire le manga histoire de se familiariser avec les personnages.

Et puis c'est très bien, Sket Dance, en plus.

I agree that traditional animators are still valuable, in fact traditional 2D animators are very well respected in the animation industry as they are usually have the best animation skills through years of practice in constructing each frame directly.

I won't say traditional 2D animators will definitely lose their jobs, but they are at higher risk if they do not have a greater range of skill sets. I was merely stating an 'if', but in reality I don't think any animator would stubbornly refuse to learn new techniques, after all to become an animator in the first place would require training in many technical skills.

Being a fan of Gainax I absolutely love Imaichi's style, he is responsible for lots of Gainax's highly dynamic and memorable scenes with the least frames possible. But since I've been posting objectively, I won't hide the fact that while he creates the best fighting scenes, those scenes are ultimately still choppy in animation.

Ah ha ... ok - will give it a look when I get a chance.

Thanks for the heads up my good sir!

I told you already, I don't get upset over words, ever Don't be worried over that sort of stuff.

The difference between supporting Thiery Henry's action and supporting only the logical side of it is the difference between giving my opinion of it versus giving an objective opinion of it. I don't support cheating of any form. But I will defend Thiery Henry's action as having been a legitimate move to make for a competitive player who played to win. It was the officials' fault for not catching it as being a deceit. And a camouflaged deceit is to be expected in high level play. It happens all the time. People fake injuries, fake falling down to get penalties etc. Back in world cup 06, Italy barely made it out of their match against Australia and they did so by faking a fall to get a penalty kick really late into the game. They eventually won the world cup. As a fan of Italy, I was disgusted for a while. As a fan of Australia, I was bereaved. But as a person offering critical analysis of the whole world cup, I wouldn't make a big moral drama out of it any more than my job needed me to.

Because that is not at all the conclusion. It's not even part of the argument. It's an offtopic train of thought that has me defending "cheating" in competitive play as long as it doesn't prove detrimental to the sports and that it doesn't prove detrimental to the sports. Without the clarification that it is but a bastard child of the entire post, people are bound to blindly overlook everything else.

I can say that that's not what I meant because I didn't mean to support Thiery Henry's action one bit. I only supported the reasoning that might have led him to his action and argued that his actions were exactly what a professional and competitive player would (should) have done in that situation. But I don't mean to condone with it nor do I think that the whole incident has anything whatsoever to do with the rest of my post.

I may have slightly misunderstood your intentions a bit then. When you quoted my saying that stuff and said I meant something, I thought you meant to say I meant it. But I didn't mean it, at least not without everything else that went with it. Quoting only a bit of it and using it to argue that I was making a certain claim would kill the point of my making a longass post with various logical constructs in place. All the more so if it was used to support a very brief and otherwise unrelated idea that I only provided a logical basis for out of stubbornness.

In any case, I was just clarifying that that wasn't actually my opinion but a harsh statement that comes off as the logical conclusion of the most brutal constraints.

No problems o_o.

My post only meant to clarify that I don't actually condone what Thiery Henry did. When I said he did what he was supposed to, it was after I put on a lot of hyperboles and conditions and from the perspective of purely competitive play. Yes it's cheating but in competitive play, cheating is a given. That's why we have officials. And cheating isn't actually harmful to a sports. Which was the biggest point I was making in that post where I originally said it. Anh Minh was saying that cheating leads to the decay of sports while I was saying that in competitive sports, foul play is to be expected and actually garners more attention to the sports, leading to its growth, not decay.

Most of the arguments I made for competitive sports in my posts in reply to Anh Minh were somewhat from personal experience because I have been involved in many small competitive sports (mostly e-sports) community where no money was involved and we still took the competition seriously and did everything we could to win. Mostly within rules. But even if we broke rules, it's because we wanted desperately to win. And that's more respectful to sports than just pussying out of contesting a call to maintain face before a crowd.

But don't worry about misunderstanding my posts etc. I do this all the time. I put constraints on my arguments and what I say isn't necessarily my opinion but just an argument. I play the devil's advocate all the time. It's fun that way. It can feel hypocritical sometimes to argue for things you don't believe in but I believe that arguments, and discussions in general, are grounds to challenge beliefs and gain new perspectives. It's too bad that most people get offended and take it personally. I don't get offended by discussing things, no matter how heated and obnoxious things get. I sometimes act like I got offended to see the reaction of my partner but that's about it.

Basically, I love arguing and I will try to keep arguments going until it gets too repetitive and redundant or I find some other place with a more interesting discussion going on or until I get something else on my plate.

So no worries.

Maybe I should say "Ganbate totoum" too?