Presidential BS Translator

Very nice responses. Much appreciated.

Well, it seems apparent that you can't detect irony. You said something to the effect that you expected to get flamed. I then said that many of us were trying to avoid feeding the trolls. The irony lies in the apparent claim on my part that you would not get flamed, while in fact i was inferentially describing you as a troll. That's irony, and its intent was humor. It's hardly my fault if you can't see that.



You're wrong there, because, in fact . . .





You see . . . with just a modicum of intellectual effort on your part, you might be able to grasp the concept of ironic humor.



So, you call me a troll, and then wish me a wonderful day. Hypocrite.

Say, in this thread in which you are trolling for a flame war--how's that working out for you?

Actually, you are wrong. I clearly made a statement pertaining to text. If I would have said: "your emotion and intent" then it would have been a different story.

Nice attempt to troll though.

Through several of your posts you claim "irony" when all it is, is a pathetic attempt to "stir the pot." The only irony in this thread, as stated before, is you calling other people trolls and then you come up with pathetic flame posts, such as that.

So telling someone to "have a nice day" is hypocrisy? Haha, you are such a joke. I'm pretty convinced that you don't even have the faintest idea as to what you're arguing about, you just grasp at straws in attempt to start a flame war.

Have a wonderful day!

You're a hoot, Bubba. You put sneer after sneer in a post addressed to someone who was, until yesterday, completely unknown to you (unless you are a revenant attempting to pretend you've never been here before) and then accuse the target of your bile of being a troll.

How's this whole attempt to stir up a flame war about Mr. Obama working out for you so far, Bubba? It looks to me like a complete failure.

What's that? Straying off topic again in attempt to "stir the pot?" I would have never thought such thing from you!

Peace out, homeboy.

I'm not you're homeboy, Bubba. I have much better taste in my acquaintance, even among the trolls to whom i speak online. So far, i haven't seen anyone discussing Mr. Obama with you. A couple of people did ridicule the notion that the video was well edited, but i've not seen a single comment on the content. I suppose Rap Rap's response could qualify, but you missed your chance with that one.

And you're so dumb that you can't seem to detect that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing.

How does a smart lady like [____] put up with a **** for brains guy like you?

Lovely JTT.. Now can you give us the criteria for why you think it is good editing?

I can tell you why I think it is not good.
1. No sound was added by the "editor"
2. No video was cut and spliced by the editor.

An editor does what?
They cut together different video scenes and cut and insert sound. A good editing job would require that they do those things. Since they didn't do anything that an editor normally does how can it be called good editing?


So, can you tell us what they did as an "editor" of the video that qualifies as editing let alone "good" editing?

No one cares about your personal opinions as to whether or not the "editing" done was good or not. He was highlighting your constant emphasis of it not being "editing" simply because it's not "good" editing.

Get to the point, troll, or stfu.

Okay, so you have trouble comprehending the written word, Parados. I've noticed this before.

I never made known whether I thought it was good or bad. I didn't even view the damn video.



Because there are references that can be made to situations other than the one you keep stumbling over. Are you familiar with the term subjective?

This could be made a whole lot simpler if you just tell me what part of the language issues that I explained you didn't grasp. Or, even easier, you reread it yourself. I think you'll be able to understand.

"editing" is subjective?
But "war crimes" isn't subjective?

Since I never said that, I wonder why you accuse me of it? Is that your higher intellect at work?

It isn't good editing if it can even be considered editing

does NOT mean

It isn't editing BECAUSE it isn't good.


Even you have to understand that JTT.

It's what was implied, don't claim ignorance after the fact, you fucktard.

Actually, it can mean exactly that, Parados.

However, even given your usual sly, deceptive ways, I'm going to have to allow that it's possible you had another meaning. What was it? And don't take a week to come up with some phony baloney piece of dung.

Remember, there's a hamster watching you.

No, it wasn't what was implied but nice to see you resorting to name. Is that your attempt at reasoned debate?

Perhaps you can diagram the sentences for us JTT. I am curious how you would do so to make them mean the same thing.

"It isn't good editing" is the main statement. It means the piece is not an example of good editing.

"if it can even be considered editing" in no way affects the meaning of the first phrase. It means there is a question as to whether it is editing not as to whether it is good editing or not.

So.. it isn't an example of good editing. There is even a question as to whether it could be classified as editing at all. But whether it is editing or not, it would still not be an example of good editing.

The basic criteria for editing is that the video and sound be edited which the person that put in the subtitles did not do.Inserting subtitles could be editing but it would not be an example of "good" editing since it doesn't meet much of the criteria of editing.

Even the subtitle work is not of a good quality since it misses one of the most basic requirements of subtitles or text in video or slides. The text should be of such a size and visible for a long enough time period for an average reader to be able to read the entire body of the text comfortably. The average reader can read about 250 words per minute on a white page with black letters. When you add video or pictures behind it, they distract the reader and can make it harder to read slowing down the speed at which a person can read. (I would estimate it cuts the reading speed in half.) Every time you bring up new text you also slow the reading speed down because it takes time for the reader to register the new words before they can start reading again. Now, watch the video again from the 7 second mark to the 1.07 minute mark. Were you able to read it comfortably and understand what it said? Can 90% of the people that view the video read it comfortably? If not then it is not good use of text in the video. Putting text into a video that the viewer can't comfortably read is NOT an example of good editing.

Weeellll. . . .