quote:
This isn't persuasive to me at all. I mean, I do appreciate the South Park reference there, but you're making a circular argument. "The difference in purity makes sense because there's a difference in purity!!!".

I'm not making a circular argument at all. I'm saying that even the scene that you claim "doesn't make sense" is an illustration of the point that you can't grasp.

quote:
I mean, you and the other fella disagree with me pretty strongly, but several others have given me a head nod.

No one has agreed with you or given you a proverbial head nod.

quote:
But I thought we already agreed that we weren't seeing common ground and to call it a day on that point?

There is no common ground to be seen. There is the correct ground and then there's your ground.

quote:
Just stop. Breaking Bad is not your favorite focking college football team. Where I come from making a thread about points or plotlines from a (legitimately awesome!) show that you dont' believe or buy into isn't "slinging shite".

There isn't a point to be made here. That's the problem. The plotlines illustrate that Walt, and only Walt, can make the meth with the level of purity he makes it. Even if there weren't a point when the show explicitly stated that the reason only Walt can make it that well is because it isn't a simple recipe to follow, you can deduce from the context of the show that the reason the only one who can create such pure meth is Walt is because of his knowledge of chemistry and issues that go along with the process of cooking meth.

If you want to discuss bad plotlines or poor characters, fine, but to say shite like: Jesse was poorly acted by Aaron Paul despite him winning a fricking Emmy for the role and that the fact that Jesse couldn't cook as well as Walt is "completely absurd;" is so empirically wrong that it is no wonder you were laughed at. Your valiant defense of your opinions is so blind that it has become almost a parody.

You want to say how dumb Marie's klepto plotline was? Fine. You want to say how ridiculous the ATM scene/ordeal was? I can see that. But claiming what you've claimed in your OP is flat asinine.

This post was edited on 7/8/15 at 5:45 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by SystemsGo

Member since Oct 2014

2774 posts

Posted on 7/9/15 at 4:46 am to LoveThatMoney

quote:
I'm not making a circular argument at all. I'm saying that even the scene that you claim "doesn't make sense" is an illustration of the point that you can't grasp.

OMG. Start making sense!! My point is that it's a repeatable process and my point is correct. What in the world are you claiming is an illustration that it isn't merely a repeatable process? Oh that's right...the part Gale and Walt get different purities.

That's a circular argument, and I mean it's like a textbook example. So either you don't know what that is, or you don't understand how it is that the stuff you're saying qualifies as such. Those are the only two options.

quote:
No one has agreed with you or given you a proverbial head nod.

ReauxTide222 was dropping mad Proverbs up in this thread's prequel, yo

quote:
There is no common ground to be seen. There is the correct ground and then there's your ground.

See above. I believe there are like two others, but i"m not looking any further as the number of cosignors/dissenters is an independent variable vis a vis the question of whether Walt's method was completely masterable after, say, 50 or so cooks. And while there are countless looks into the various aspects of this process,and literally zero of them can be even passably argued as requiring skill or expertise in the execution thereof, you are claiming that the show illustrates proof that it is something other than simply a repeatable process because -- wait for it -- gale only got 93%.

Oh yes. Eureka! The part of the show where nobody can get a purity as high as Walt makes total sense, you see, because it clearly establishes that nobody can get a purity as high as Walt's.