'G.G' and 'The Backup Dan' (Spoilers)
would people stop comparing dair to pacey and joey because they are nothing like them. dair doesnt have sexual chemistry, and will always be friends when pacey and joey were always more than friends. like seriously do i need to go on?
Really - Chuck is the most cruel character you have ever seen in a tv show ??? - You should watch the Wire or Oz , Lost. Chuck Bass is like a god in comparison to some of the characters on those shows.
Amazing, you'd actually have to be smarter to understand why I wasn't complimenting your smartness.I'm saying Chuck is worst because he never truly payed for the things he did to Blair. Thorpe lost everything.
When you have made such an unsustainable statement, it might be wiser to just acknowledge it rather than behave like Monty Python's Black Knight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Let's see what would happen if we applied your reasoning to real life. Tax evaders who got away with their crime would be more evil than murders and serial killers who got executed.
Now the motivation for such comments comes out. Shipper wars. I have been part of enough fandoms to know how crazy they can be. I'm guessing that "Chuck should lose everything" is a euphemism for "Chuck should lose Blair so that my ship can win without contest."
And by what canon of justice is the punishment for what Chuck did for him to lose everything? And let's not overdo it with the caricatured description. "Cutting someone's face", sounds like the intentional actions of a psychopath (Dexter, by the way intentionally cuts faces to collect the blood on his slides that he keeps as trophies from everyone he kills), not of someone who, in a highly druk and emotionally crippling state actually drove his own fist through glass, which resulted in a shard accidentally causing a small cut on Blair's face.
As for 'all' Chair fans portraying Chuck as normal, one has to see what normalcy even means. By many measures both Chuck and Blair are very, very far from normal. I do not necessarily see that as a problem.
I knew you didn't mean it as a compliment...I was just being as sarcastic as you are. As for the video, why did you post that. Funny that no one point out the amazingly choking video that I posted. Not everything is about Dair vs Chair....Chuck hurt Blair, therefore Blair should not forgive him, because physicial violence should be illegal....wait it is...Your analogy with criminels and tax payer, I did not get,sorry but it didn't make any sense with my thoughts...
I do not want to fight anymore, this is my last post on this thread, lets just say my profile picture is amazing. Have a good day everyone
Hmm...over what? You're the one who made the unsustainable over the top comment about Chuck and then insisted on sticking to the characterization rather than just admit that you may have been wrong.As for the video, why did you post that.
The original comment was already sufficiently explanatory. Explaining it further will just ruin the joke.Funny that no one point out the amazingly choking video that I posted.
Just about the only thing I didn't do was refer to the video directly. However, I certainly discussed the whole scene depicted in it. Do I find it painful too? Yes. But perhaps not for the reasons youdo. I do not see it as Chuck committing domestic voilence against Blair. I see it as a man in immense pain who is not thinking clearly driving his own fist through solid glass. Under normal, sober and sane conditions should he have had the foresight to see that a shard from this may accidentally hit Blair (or himself)? Perhaps. But as the scene plays, the small cut on Blair's face wasn't intentional but accidental. If Chuck had been with Blair in a car and driving under the influence and there had been an accident that caused Blair a minor injury, then we may have held it against Chuck for being reckless, but not as an example of domestic voilence against women as it seems to be portrayed by some.Not everything is about Dair vs Chair....Chuck hurt Blair, therefore Blair should not forgive him,
So you would only forgive someone who has not hurt you? Isn't forgiveness needed exactly when you hurt someone?because physicial violence should be illegal....wait it is...
Is legality really the issue here? If it is, then let's imagine Blair had taken Chuck to court and made a case against him. What she would prove is that a man who was heavily drunk and under immense emotional duress acted irrationally and punched a glass wall, a shard from which accidentally flew and gave her a slight and quickly healed cut on the cheek. What punishment would the law deem appropriate here? I doubt it would be too heavy. In fact my feeling is that at most the court may consider this a sufficient justification for a restraining order, but really nothing beyond that.Your analogy with criminels and tax payer, I did not get,sorry but it didn't make any sense with my thoughts...
Your logic was that since Russell Thorpe lost everything and Chuck didn't hence Chuck was more evil than Thorpe. This was apparently done in order to try to sustain your claim that Chuck was indeed the most evil character you had ever seen on TV, and to undermine my counter-example of Russell Thorpe who was a murderer and would have burned Blair alive--an example that evaded your statement regarding you having too much of a life (and that is where all the sarcasm started) to have seen other shows by finding an example of a fairly obvious evil character within Gossip Girl itself.
My point was that under this logic (i.e. one who has paid is better than one who has not paid sufficiently, even if the crimes of the former are far worse than the latter), someone who got away with evading taxes would be worse than a serial killer who got executed.