Ad Hominem, Logical Fallacy. My sarcasm =! my argument, it's in addition to it, though I will apologize for it.
Read this thread again Ush. I'm the one who originally brought up the word, and it was obvious what I was saying, unless you really think that I view Sylar as some kind of Hero. I'm free to use the word in any applicable way I choose Ush, you can't call me out on that, and given that Exanda was replying to me, it was up to him to fit his definition accordingly to mine (otherwise his reply would naturally be nonparallel to what I was saying), not the other way around, and the same goes for you.
As for you still claiming that your definition wasn't limited, well you're still wrong Ush. How often the word is used in that way, or how reasonable the people are that use the word in such a way doesn't change the ambiguity of the word. I used the word differently, my usage was perfectly valid, so you're really not in a position to label me as the one in the wrong here Ush. It's up to the people responding to fit their definitions in accordance with whoever makes the original claim in cases of ambiguity, otherwise replies would constantly be nonparallel.
Irrelevant? How so? It was perfectly relevant, given that it was how I was actually using the word.
"The main character in a drama or other literary work."
Pretty straightforward and self explanatory Ush. Analysis or context really isn't necessary.
Again, I apologize. But that doesn't mean that my argument isn't solid in this case, because it is. Your's isn't, and pointing that out doesn't warrant a ban.
He is, in the sense of being a primary character featured in the show. I think you'll find I linked the page to dictionary.com where it lists such a definition for the word. Meaning I'm right, not wrong; that would be yourself and Ush.
He's both an antagonist and protagonist, depending on how you view the definitions.
I'm sorry, but I'm still not, as can clearly be seen where I literally dismantle every one of your and Ush's above points.
Failing to see your point. The definition applies for the word when in the singular. Plural - protagonists, would come to mean the main characters. The usage of the word "the" neither implies nor indicates the absence of another protagonist.
This doesn't even make sense. The protagonist doesn't exist within the cast itself, but the characters they play.
Clearly what you were trying to speak of is the ensemble of characters. Well, you're still wrong, a protagonist can always exist as long as there are those that stand out.
This contradicts what you were just saying.
His storyline involves an ensemble of characters, which you just stated to not contain a protagonist.
As I've said, he's both, depending on the definition.
In an ensemble, there is no single protagonist or antagonist, all-encompassing. But since there are multiple storylines, each has its own protagonist and antagonist. For Bennet, the Company is his antagonist. For Hiro, it's Takezo, and so on. Sylar is an antagonist in almost every storyline but his own.
You and I seem to be arguing over semantics, and you're obviously as stubborn as a rock. So I'm done.
I seriously have no clue what you're trying to say here, but you're wrong, there can be a single protagonist or antagonist, depending on whether or not there is a main character or Hero or Villain, and how much focus is put onto them. You... do know what an ensemble is, right? In this context, it's simply a collective group of characters, but that doesn't mean that one or a few may not stand out from the rest. You don't seem to know what you're talking about.
You're still contradicting yourself. An single storyline involves an ensemble of characters.
Right, that's why you're done, it's not because you keep on contradicting yourself and can't seem to make sense, it's because I'm as stubborn as a rock.
If ever there was an advocate for broadening definitions, it would be me, but I'm afraid saing Sylar is a protagonist is going too far; he is the main antagonist of the piece, not a passive villain in the slightest, but he is, as Ushgarak mentioned, the foil to the Heroes.
The main narrative in Season One is to Save The World and Sylar, while not aware of this for the majority of the story arc, actively provides antagonism against this.
Of course, popularity of the character of Sylar leads some to think of him as more than just an antagonist. The writers are obviously conscious of this, have beefed up the character, giving him longevitity by leaving him in shades of, well, Grey, with his own search for self discovery and a love interest for good measure. You could argue that he has become the anti-hero of Season 2, as so far, although considering the events of Out of Time, he will provide antagonism to Peter and Hiro's Save The World malarkey.
As I said, I understand where you are coming, but your attitude isn't helping your point.
Believe me Strangelover, if anyone's not understanding what you're saying, it's most likely a fault of your's rather than a fault of their's (which it is in this case). You babble on about an ensemble and constantly contradict yourself, and fail to address me when I point this out to you. But yeah, sure thing, I'm the idiot. The idiot who can debate circles around you; hmm, I wonder what that's supposed to make you... At least Ush knew when to quit replying when he realised that he was in a losing disposition, you clearly just don't know when to shut up.
That is most definitely suspicious behavior, attacking Ush for no apparent reason other than being utterly and completely right. Not to mention the debating terms that a certain someone used constantly.
In any case, Sylar is not the protagonist. He's not even an anti-hero.
Is this definition wrong? No? Ok then. So, that would make me right, and Ush wrong. Thanks for playing though.
And attacking Ush for no apparent reason other than him being "right?" I think you'll again find that you're wrong, there was a very valid reason - he told me to get my definitions straight, when I was quite clearly using the word in a proper way. His holier than thou attitude was annoying, to say the least, which is why I "attacked" him. He appears to have even somewhat accepted that he was originally wrong, and changed his stance from claiming that I was using an incorrect definition of the word to claiming that I was using an obscure definition, so I really don't see how you can accuse him of being right here.
As for you and Dr Strange accusing me of being Sorgo, all I can say is that you're both very, very wrong, and either way, I don't really care. I'm not Sorgo, ergo we won't be sharing the same IP address, and I'm not going to say that I'm Sorgo, because I'm not. Either way, you lack sufficient enough evidence to label me Sorgo, so until you do (which will be never, because I am not Sorgo) please kindly don't bring it up again.
I wasn't indicating or implying that because of those two facts, I'm definitely not Sorgo. I honestly don't care what you think. What I was saying is that because of those two mentioned facts, you can't prove that I am Sorgo, ergo you should stop calling me Sorgo, and more importantly, Rex cannot ban me. That's what I was saying.