This doesn't do wonders for your position either.
Nothing in your post was factual. Repeatedly proclaiming that it was factual will make it any more factual. It will just make you look like an idiot.
What one person regards as a plot hole may well be perfectly logical to another. There are no objective criteria for determining what constitutes a plot hole.
How dare you tell me what to do. Stop proclaiming that you're right and refusing to even consider other people's arguments.
Do you even comprehend how stupid that is? A plot hole either exists or does not. It isn't some little dream opinion. If a plot hole makes sense to you, that's because you do not understand the plot.
Or maybe if you perceive a plot hole, it's because you do not understand the plot. But of course you didn't stop to consider that, because in your mind you can't possibly be wrong. According to your explanation, if anyone perceives a plot hole it must be a plot hole. Because if the alleged "plot hole makes sense" it has to be because you don't understand the plot. It can't be because the person who perceives it doesn't understand the plot.
I am doing.
You claimed I didn't understand what a plot hole is. That is an attack on me. A person who doesn't even understand the implications of what he writes cannot possibly be an authority on anything related to literature.
I love how you just tell me what arguments I've made. Except that I've never actually made that argument. I've never claimed that everything in the universe is opinion. There are plenty of things that are a matter of factual record. Claims about literature, however, are opinion. Unless they're made by the creator, in which case they can be factual. Everyone else is making interpretations of the creator's work.
Um this is a whole bunch of irrelevant bullshit that has nothing to do with any argument I've ever actually made.
Except that interpretation of plot holes can be based on erroneous or differing interpretations of plots. You act as if there is only one valid interpretation of a plot. There isn't. Unless a creator has come out and stated exactly what he or she meant by writing a particular work, everything is open to interpretation.
Appeal to authority. Noted.
The characters might have a good reason for waiting ten seconds, such as having been hit on the head, or not realising there's poison gas, or just being morons. I have no idea if you're referring to a specific scene in AC or not and I don't really care.
I'm not going to argue with you that that's sloppy storytelling where it's done seriously with no trace of irony. On the other hand, it might be happening in a parody of bad storytelling, in which case it would be perfectly acceptable. ("She turned me into a newt! ... I got better"). In any case, occurrences like this where it's played straight are extremely uncommon in published works. Most of what people consider "plot holes" are completely open to interpretation, and nearly all of literary analysis isn't this cut-and-dry.
Basically won't watch review. Won't learn anything.
There might be, but for it to be a plot hole there wouldnt be. That's why IT IS A PLOT HOLE.
How are you in any position to come to that conclusion if you haven't seen it?
Lol how do you know I haven't watched the review? Oh that's right, you don't know. You're making assumptions again. Maybe I just want you to explain the premise in your own words rather than appealing to authority.
And once again, in nearly all cases you cannot objectively say that something is a plot hole. As stated above, most cases of people calling something a "plot hole" aren't as cut and dry as your example of someone getting shot in the head in a serious work and then being perfectly fine with no explanation. (Now that I've thought about it for a few minutes, it's actually a bad example as well. People have been known to get shot in the head and survive. Furthermore, if the character claimed the shot just grazed his head, it could be interpreted as a case of establishing the character as dishonest). Most cases of people declaring something "bad literature" are over completely subjective things.
Or maybe Picard is just impulsive and makes decisions without thinking them through fully.
I know you didnt.
Because AC was AWFUL and massive parts of AAC are from AC.
I expected a story and fighting for massive amounts of time is not it. THIS WAS NOT A GAME. You are getting round my argument by deliberately missing the point of it.
