I hate this thread.. <_<
It's not that bowser sucks
it's that bowser isn't as good as any of the other characters.
hm..... i'm not sure this makes sense.
Bowser doesn't suck, he's just not as good as
everyone else? Doesn't that mean he sucks? Hm..What does suck mean then?
This requires some looking into...
here is wiktionary's entry on sucks:
"Verb
to suck (third-person singular simple present sucks, present participle sucking, simple past sucked, past participle sucked)
1 -To use the mouth to pull in liquid substances for ingestion or to perform a similar act on solid material without ingestion.
2 - To draw into, by any means, with an attractive force, usually without direct contact
3 - (colloquial) Term of general disparagement, indicating the subject or situation has no redeeming qualities. With at, indicates a particular area of deficiency.You're great at baseball, but you suck at golf.
4 - To perform....[editted for content]
[edit] Synonyms
(3, 4 above) To blow
[edit] Antonyms
(1, 2 above) To blow
(3 above) To rock, to rule."
(
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suck, 24 November 2007)
Ok so lets see what applies:
It's not that bowser
uses his mouth to pull in liquid substances for ingestion. It's just that bowser isn't as good as any of the other characters.
Hm... that doesn't really work.
How about:
It's not that bowser
draws in, by any means, with an attractive force. It's just that bowser isn't as good as any of the other characters.
hm...... still not quite getting there.
These attempts at making sense seem to fail because suck is being contrasted with good. It's probably definition #3.
It's not that bowser
has no redeeming qualities, or is a particular area of deficiancy. It's just that bowser isn't as good as any of the other characters.
All right! Now we are getting somewhere.
But since it's being contrasted with 'good', which has yet to be really defined, let's fill something else in. Wiktionary says that To rock would be a better antonym, so lets contrast suck with rock instead of good.
It's not that bowser sucks. It's just that bowser isn't as much
rock as any of the other characters.
elaborated:
It's not that bowser
has no redeeming qualities, or is a particular area of deficiancy. It's just that Bowser isn't as
favourable compared to any of the other characters.
Wow, i'm actually surprised. That actually makes way sense than I thought it would!
I was originally going to poke fun of it. Based on what I've understood 'good' and 'suck' to be. That goodness is dependant on other things of similar value. And that suckiness is the opposite of goodness, as if it is a scale from 1 to 10 or suck to good. So to say that "Bowser isn't as good as
everyone else," is basically saying (since good is a comparative term) "Bowser sucks."
Meaning I read your comment as
"I hate this thread.. <_<
It's not that bowser sucks
it's that bowser
sucks."
-total nonsense.
or
"...It's not that bowser sucks
it's that bowser isn't as good as everyone else, so (if you want to win) he
sucks[/b"
-More sense but still ludicrous....
so,
Editted (for clarity):
KevinM3590816 said:
It's not that bowser has no redeeming qualities, or is a particular area of deficiancy.
It's just that Bowser isn't as favourable compared to any of the other characters.
good stuff.
