Bullets 'n' Babes

HungFist wrote:But if you're saying passable is better than mediocre, then we're gonna have to disagree regardless of language. Not that I'm talking about any dictionary definitions though.

Well I'm going to have to point out that one of us is English and has experienced English culture and its language first-hand for the entirety of their lives, and I assure you no English person - academic or chav or otherwise - would ever use the term "mediocre" to describe something that is better or on par with "decent". It's like arguing that top means lower than bottom.

as I said, people have given it the wrong definition

HungFist wrote:as I said, people have given it the wrong definition

Dictionary.com on 'mediocre':

rather poor or inferior.

derogatory often

I hear you Gas, to me mediocre is always used in a negative way, "decent" is the opposite!

I love that we're trying to justify our own language to a foreigner

HungFist wrote:heh, if you read my last few posts carefully you can perhaps detect a hint of surrender

Yeah, but it's no fun your surrendering after you've been beaten.

Markgway wrote:

HungFist wrote:heh, if you read my last few posts carefully you can perhaps detect a hint of surrender

Yeah, but it's no fun your surrendering after you've been beaten.

I know, but I was afraid someone will eventually take this all seriously if I don't point it out. I don't have faith in you people catching clues

You were just being stubborn because your grasp of English is usually superb but you fucked up this time

It's your own fault with your erroneous language

HungFist wrote:A mediocre movie (quality wise, not industry standard) is a solid viewing, and hence above decent (that would be passable, but not really time well spent).

I don't think you really know what the two words mean. You're using them around the wrong way. You do know that decent is more positive then mediocre right? The difference between the meaning behind decent and good is negligible. If anything decent is more positive than merely good.

For me 6 out of 10 and above is recommended, to differing levels but 5 out of 10 and lower isn't.

HungFist wrote:Some 5/10 films have priceless bits that make them keepers

I take your point but personally if a film only has "bits" that are good, it's not enough. I recently saw 36 for example, parts are excellent but overall I found it very frustrating and thus I cannot keep it/see myself seeing it again.

brooce-leroy wrote:I think you may have misunderstood me luckystars, for me, a film that has next to no redeeming qualities, it is a turkey. . If there are some good qualities to be found but overall you would regard it poor considering the talent behind it, then i would class that as average.

Agreed. That is what the words mean. You cannot go around changing the meaning of words to suit your whim.

Shingster wrote:Decent = Passable
Mediocre = Neither good nor bad, but it's usually used to suggest bad rather than good.
Turkey = A flop

Since when does decent mean passable? Decent means good. Otherwise agreed.

gasteropod wrote:I love that we're trying to justify our own language to a foreigner

p.s - Oops I've just realised I've brought this discussion up again. I've written it now, so may as well post it .

Brad, you're late. We had a lot of fun joking around and you missed it. Now you just make yourself look like a fucking idiot.

bradavon wrote:Since when does decent mean passable? Decent means good.

Since the word was invented, when using the word in the context of describing a film as good or bad then decent means passable or fairly good at best. Unlike you brad, I like to check my facts when accusing someone of being wrong about the English language (just in case), so I know this to be true because I actually checked in more than one dictionary.

Hung, where's that facepalm smiley you use, I think we need to add it to the boards for people replying to a bradavon post.

I kinda stole it from a private chat...

Maybe you can get us one from google.

I'll add one tomorrow! maybe the code for it could just be :brad:

Shingster wrote:I'll add one tomorrow! maybe the code for it could just be :brad:

Shingster wrote:Since the word was invented, when using the word in the context of describing a film as good or bad then decent means passable or fairly good at best.

You're the first person I've ever read who says decent means passable when talking about movies. If someone says "a film was decent", it means they liked it and thought it was "good".

EDIT: Checking out Dictionary.com, it says "adequate; fair; passable; great; wonderful" could all mean decent. Not that I'd ever go as far to say decent means great. Meh, we're splitting hairs.

Shingster wrote:Hung, where's that facepalm smiley you use, I think we need to add it to the boards for people replying to a bradavon post.

If you're going to facepalm someone, I suggest you read other members posts too. Others were equally disagreeing just as much.

HungFist wrote:Brad, you're late. We had a lot of fun joking around and you missed it. Now you just make yourself look like a fucking idiot.

Only because I was late to the party. Others disagreed too. I was away for the w/e, partying and laying in the sun. So I can assure you, I was having more fun

You see, having a conversation has three phases. First you start the conversation, then you discuss, then you close the case. It’s like having sex. First get rid of the clothes, then you have sex, and finally you put the clothes back on. You missed the girl, yet you’re still running around with your dick out. It doesn’t give a good impression of you.

You could have read the posts a bit more carefully before you start making observations that were already made, discussed, and closed. The issue was with my personal stand that “mediocre” should not be used in negative sense when rating movies, regardless of language. But since people have given it that meaning, as illogical as it might feel to me, I guess I must give in to that, which I did long before you showed up. It was a fun discussion, and we even managed to close it nicely. Until someone with negative situational awareness came in.

And nice to hear you had fun weekend. So did I, with great birthday party and sauna evening.

HungFist wrote:You see, having a conversation has three phases. First you start the conversation, then you discuss, then you close the case. It’s like having sex. First get rid of the clothes, then you have sex, and finally you put the clothes back on. You missed the girl, yet you’re still running around with your dick out. It doesn’t give a good impression of you.

Haha, genius

That did make me laugh

HungFist wrote:You see, having a conversation has three phases. First you start the conversation, then you discuss, then you close the case. It’s like having sex. First get rid of the clothes, then you have sex, and finally you put the clothes back on. You missed the girl, yet you’re still running around with your dick out. It doesn’t give a good impression of you.

bradavon wrote:Checking out Dictionary.com, it says "adequate; fair; passable; great; wonderful" could all mean decent. Not that I'd ever go as far to say decent means great. Meh, we're splitting hairs.

If you had understood that Dictionary.com page then you would have realised that the "great, wonderful" definitions have this written before them: slang, they are not the accepted straightforward definition. It's good to know you finally consulted a dictionary with regards to a grammatical discussion on these boards though (although you have sort of proved that even when the answer is staring you in the face you still have no fucking clue! ).

HungFist wrote:You see, having a conversation has three phases. First you start the conversation, then you discuss, then you close the case. It’s like having sex. First get rid of the clothes, then you have sex, and finally you put the clothes back on.

You're missing out if you think sex only has those parts.

HungFist wrote:You missed the girl, yet you’re still running around with your dick out. It doesn’t give a good impression of you.

HungFist wrote:You could have read the posts a bit more carefully before you start making observations that were already made, discussed, and closed.

By the time I'd read that, I'd already written it. Doesn't everyone start from the beginning of a conversation? I could've not posted it I guess but I like I said, I'd written it. Like I said, I was away, so unable to contribute at the time.

HungFist wrote:Until someone with negative situational awareness came in.

WTF! "negative situational awareness", where did you nick that from?

Shingster wrote:If you had understood that Dictionary.com page then you would have realised that the "great, wonderful" definitions have this written before them: slang, they are not the accepted straightforward definition.

Give over. Slang is just as much a form of articulation than the "straightforward definition".

Shingster wrote:It's good to know you finally consulted a dictionary with regards to a grammatical discussion on these boards though

I visit that site several times a week. My English is better than some on this forum but it's no fun to pick up their inability to write a sentence properly, is it? I don't give a shit what you think of my English skills, every time you dismiss them just shows how dumb you are.

bradavon wrote:

HungFist wrote:You see, having a conversation has three phases. First you start the conversation, then you discuss, then you close the case. It’s like having sex. First get rid of the clothes, then you have sex, and finally you put the clothes back on.

You're missing out if you think sex only has those parts.

You're missing out if you read jokes literally.

bradavon wrote:By the time I'd read that, I'd already written it. Doesn't everyone start from the beginning of a conversation? I could've not posted it I guess but I like I said, I'd written it. Like I said, I was away, so unable to contribute at the time.

People usually read the entire conversation before writing a reply. It's done to avoid embarrasing oneself.

bradavon wrote:WTF! "negative situational awareness", where did you nick that from?

The English language is extremely limited in terms of vocabulary (as compared to most other languages), and doesn't really have a corresponding term for the word I needed. That's why I had to come up something more or less understandable. Unfortunately you were either not smart enought to understand the meaning, or you're just nitpicking.

HungFist wrote:You're missing out if you read jokes literally.

I laughed too didn't I?

HungFist wrote:People usually read the entire conversation before writing a reply. It's done to avoid embarrasing oneself.

The conversation spanned 3 pages! Mixed in with other stuff too.

HungFist wrote:The English language is extremely limited in terms of vocabulary (as compared to most other languages), and doesn't really have a corresponding term for the word I needed.

Nonsense. The English language has one of the biggest vocabularies in the world. The French language only has 100,000 words compared with the 1 million words the English language has. Which is hardly surprising given it's place in history. Even then, you'll still obviously come across phrases in one language, that aren't in another.

It's purely a guess but I imagine it's much larger than the Finnish language too. Don't just take my word for it (this even says English has twice as many words as Mandarin Chinese!):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/ju ... -milestone

HungFist wrote:Unfortunately you were either not smart enought to understand the meaning, or you're just nitpicking.

It was just an odd phrase is all. There's no no need to copy Shing and make personal jabs though. I always assumed you were more intelligent than that.