Originally posted by dadudemon
If this were the only point I brought up and was the very crux of everthing I've stating, you may have a leg to stand on.Again, it's a question designed specifically to be answered in a way that makes the reader think, "Aha, he got him."
It is not the only point I replied to. It is what I felt might be implied by what you have been saying if that's not the case fair enough. If you think the phrasing is too limited to explain your POV, fair enough, too. Could you elaborate on it then?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not the case. Part of the requirement is liking something greater than the masses. Contrast this with liking something that the masses like.Do you know how is that different?
You restated here what gave me the feeling that you might think that something popular with the masses can not have fanboys. Is that incorrect? And what do you define as what the masses like. I mean no regular running TV Show in existence ever got a liking from more than 50% of the TV Viewing Audience, so what would you consider what the masses like? One example I can think of is American Idol, that is one of the most popular TV shows ever, so if anything on TV could have the title of being liked by the general masses it would be American Idol, yet I would feel like there could be someone that would fall under the "fanboy" definition of one of the further definitions on urban dictionary. Or consider The Dark Knight, one of the most popular movies ever (financially and also highly regarded by critics), yet I would also feel like there can be rabid "The Dark Knight" fanboys, would you disagree with that or what is your feeling on the whole issue?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit -Just so you don't think I'm stretching or trying to dodge:
The populace, on average, would rate it, what...a six out of 10? You would rate it an 8 or a 9 out of ten.
Check this out:
It's Sci-Fi.
You like it tons more than the population.
It's considered a geeky pursuit to like the show (yes, specifically firefly. It shows up on geeky blogs run by Gawker (Gizmodo) because it's considered Geeky to be a big fan of Firefly. All of those are nice traits (which I've pointed out, already) for being a fanboy...especially when you put it on a higher level than other Sci-Fi shows with bigger budgets (something fanboys do all the time. That's not to say that something that costs more is automatically better, but fanboys just LOVE to use that angle because it's a geeky thing to do).
Again, my point is that that's the definition of "fan". Fanboy generally always includes some sort of undesirable trait like "defending it against reason", "insulting people for not liking it" or another sort of breach of social graces in defense or the name of the thing one is a fanboy of. Is that not the definition you apply? Because I agree with your points, I am a fan of Firefly, I may rate it higher than the general population (who have seen or heard of it, it is a show liked by geeks, but I don't feel like that is enough to use the term "fanboy". It is what I would call being a fan of a (perhaps faux) geeky show.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In other words, you've been pwned, you don't want to fess up to being a fanboy of something, and you think you've ruined your calm and almost apathetic personality by having your pursuits shown to be "fanboyish." It's okay, dude: you're life will not end because you're a fanboy of Firefly.
You may be right that I would not like if I was a fanboy of a show as I find it a negative trait. But I don't think you have proven in any way that the label "fanboy" that I defined through urban dictionary would apply to me, at least not in the case of Firefly.
I do not mind the term fanboy as defined by you in this post though, that is accurate and does describe me in regards to Firefly, I just feel like it is a redundant term as it is equivalent to "fan" (which incidentally comes from "fanatic" which I find kinda funny in light of this argument).
I do not want to "get you", btw, if you feel I misrepresent your point or am dishonest I'd be glad if you point it out to me and explain to me what your point was and how I got it wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It is not the only point I replied to. It is what I felt might be implied by what you have been saying if that's not the case fair enough. If you think the phrasing is too limited to explain your POV, fair enough, too. Could you elaborate on it then?
Did, so now what?
Originally posted by Bardock42
You restated here what gave me the feeling that you might think that something popular with the masses can not have fanboys. Is that incorrect? And what do you define as what the masses like. I mean no regular running TV Show in existence ever got a liking from more than 50% of the TV Viewing Audience, so what would you consider what the masses like? One example I can think of is American Idol, that is one of the most popular TV shows ever, so if anything on TV could have the title of being liked by the general masses it would be American Idol, yet I would feel like there could be someone that would fall under the "fanboy" definition of one of the further definitions on urban dictionary. Or consider The Dark Knight, one of the most popular movies ever (financially and also highly regarded by critics), yet I would also feel like there can be rabid "The Dark Knight" fanboys, would you disagree with that or what is your feeling on the whole issue?
You just don't get it.
I've explained it quite clearly and you still don't get it. I even used numbers to show you what I meant. It's hopeless to discuss this point, further. You're a fanboy, deal with it.
In the example of the things you've presented, it's only upping the ante. If the masses give it a 9, you'd have to pretty much give it a 10.
If they masses purchased at least one item of merchandise from the series (on average using a nearest whole number ceiling function), then in order to qualify as a fanboy for that same media, a person would have to purchase multiple items of merchandise to "out-geek" the masses in order to be elevated to fanboy-dom IN ADDITION TO liking the media better than just about any other.
The requirement gets steeper and steeper the more popular the item because it becomes more difficult to be a fringe-upper-tier fan.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, my point is that that's the definition of "fan". Fanboy generally always includes some sort of undesirable trait like "defending it against reason", "insulting people for not liking it" or another sort of breach of social graces in defense or the name of the thing one is a fanboy of. Is that not the definition you apply? Because I agree with your points, I am a fan of Firefly, I may rate it higher than the general population (who have seen or heard of it, it is a show liked by geeks, but I don't feel like that is enough to use the term "fanboy". It is what I would call being a fan of a (perhaps faux) geeky show.
It's quite clear that you only want to use a narrow definition of fanboy when, quite clearly, a fan can definitely be a fanboy.
All fanboys are fans. Not all fans are fanboys.
What is the requirement? Generally, it has to be something geeky and/or they have to have a superiority complex (such as "Batman beats all skyfathers with 5 mins of prep).
In fact, you can be a much more rabid fan of something than a definitive fanboy, but still not be a fanboy. How and why? A sports fan can never be a fanboy as it's too jocky to be fanboyish. 🙂
And, no, because it is a geeky persuit, has a cult following, like it very far above the population average, and even have called it one of your favorite shows, those items automatically make it impossible to avoid the geeky label of "Firefly Fanboy."
Originally posted by Bardock42
You may be right that I would not like if I was a fanboy of a show as I find it a negative trait. But I don't think you have proven in any way that the label "fanboy" that I defined through urban dictionary would apply to me, at least not in the case of Firefly.
Again, you're selective and narrow definition because you are picking and choosing what items apply to you in that very definition.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not mind the term fanboy as defined by you in this post though, that is accurate and does describe me in regards to Firefly, I just feel like it is a redundant term as it is equivalent to "fan" (which incidentally comes from "fanatic" which I find kinda funny in light of this argument).
Again, you've confused that there is a huge difference between how much a fan or a fanboy can like something. It's more defined in what they like than how hard they like it (pun intended.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not want to "get you", btw, if you feel I misrepresent your point or am dishonest I'd be glad if you point it out to me and explain to me what your point was and how I got it wrong.
You do: you want to "get me" so that you don't have to run around knowing that you would be considered a "Firefly Fanboy." It offends you when most fanboys in this thread revel in their fandom.
Will anyone think any less of you for being a fanboy of Firefly? No. Will they think less of you because you seem to have a disgust for being labeled as one? Possibly. Be honest with yourself and don't be so quick to label yourself as an virtual apathetic.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Did, so now what?
Well like you say in your next part "I don't get it". I do not understand how your point works as opposed to what I said it is to make it a strawman in your opinion. I'm not saying it's your fault, I'm just asking whether you could try to rephrase it to make me understand it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You just don't get it.I've explained it quite clearly and you still don't get it. I even used numbers to show you what I meant. It's hopeless to discuss this point, further. You're a fanboy, deal with it.
I understand that you think so. And I would agree if my definition of a fanboy was solely the points you brought up (i.e. Sci-Fi, Geeky, Liking it more than general population). All of that is correct, and I accept your label of fanboy. It just is not the one that I was using when I made my initial post, which you replied to.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In the example of the things you've presented, it's only upping the ante. If the masses give it a 9, you'd have to pretty much give it a 10.
If they masses purchased at least one item of merchandise from the series (on average using a nearest whole number ceiling function), then in order to qualify as a fanboy for that same media, a person would have to purchase multiple items of merchandise to "out-geek" the masses in order to be elevated to fanboy-dom IN ADDITION TO liking the media better than just about any other.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The requirement gets steeper and steeper the more popular the item because it becomes more difficult to be a fringe-upper-tier fan.
Hmm, I think I see now more what your point is. I don't agree with it, I believe that the level of a fanboy is the same for Star Trek, Star Wars and Firefly. The popularity to me just usually means that there are more fanboys that cross the line from ordinary fan.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's quite clear that you only want to use a narrow definition of fanboy when, quite clearly, a fan can definitely be a fanboy.
I disagree, I feel like I am using a definition that is generally applied for the "word" fanboy that separates it from the word "fan". I feel like your definition does not have any sufficient part to separate it from an ordinary fan.
Originally posted by dadudemon
All fanboys are fans. Not all fans are fanboys.
I agree with that, yes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What is the requirement? Generally, it has to be something geeky and/or they have to have a superiority complex (such as "Batman beats all skyfathers with 5 mins of prep).
I agree with the latter, the former I disagree with. Not everyone liking something geeky is a fanboy in my mind. They again have to cross a certain line, like you said towards a superiority complex.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, you can be a much more rabid fan of something than a definitive fanboy, but still not be a fanboy. How and why? A sports fan can never be a fanboy as it's too jocky to be fanboyish. 🙂
I suppose I would agree about the sports thing, yes. But geeky subject is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one for being a fanboy (which is what I think you claim when you said "it has to be something geeky " as a sufficient requirement (since you separated it with "or"😉)
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, because it is a geeky persuit, has a cult following, like it very far above the population average, and even have called it one of your favorite shows, those items automatically make it impossible to avoid the geeky label of "Firefly Fanboy."
I disagree. I think that in general usage the label would not apply. In your usage it does, and I am fine with that. I can freely state that "I am a Firefly fanboy, with the word fanboy defines as dadudemon defined it."
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, you're selective and narrow definition because you are picking and choosing what items apply to you in that very definition.
Disagree.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, you've confused that there is a huge difference between how much a fan or a fanboy can like something. It's more defined in what they like than how hard they like it (pun intended.)
Disagree. In my opinion it is mainly defined through how they behave, rather than how much they like something.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You do: you want to "get me" so that you don't have to run around knowing that you would be considered a "Firefly Fanboy." It offends you when most fanboys in this thread revel in their fandom.
It does not offend me. I understand that RJ is basically "reclaiming" the word, he has been called fanboy a lot and now comes out with "Yeah? So what". I understand that and I don't find it offensive at all. I just don't think he's using it in the original meaning which is derogatory (ergo "reclaiming"😉. The one he uses I believe has more to do with "obsession", which too, again, is fair enough, I just don't think I am obsessed with any series to a degree to apply this, again different, label.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Will anyone think any less of you for being a fanboy of Firefly? No. Will they think less of you because you seem to have a disgust for being labeled as one? Possibly. Be honest with yourself and don't be so quick to label yourself as an virtual apathetic.
I don't think what you are implying about me is accurate.