Network Vs. ATAC

[Q]

I like both ATAC and the Network, but I don't care much for the networkers so I sometimes support the ATACers.

And I find the Casefiles/Network to have a stronger case.

Ha. Their case is looking at ATAC and saying the reasons why they think the network is better. All their arguments stem from ATAC's faults. They don't like the network, they just don't like ATAC.

[SDLagent]

Your right, I don't like the Network but I like ATAC even less. And we do have a strong case.

[Olivia]

So what criteria would you use? And there's nothing wrong with doing that, by the way. It's called an argument, and in order to have a strong one you have to refute the other side

Plus it's about why the Casefiles are better in general too (which has been pointed out without UBs interference - solid writing, and so on), and along with that, why some people like them better.

Also, it has been said in other posts that even though we say "Network" and "ATAC" a lot of the time it just means Casefiles and Undercover Brothers.

BTW, the criteria for basis is the same for both, so you kind of have to do it that way too.

And in all those debating threads, I only saw like one person really arguing for the UBs/ATAC so that's kind of questionable.

[Q]

Sdl, that's you are not your.
I'm tring to get what you said, Iola. Can you reprase that?

[Olivia]

I phrased that as clear and specific as a I could. I would try again, but I would probably just say the same thing. Maybe do one line or sentence at a time.

But I'll give an example. You said:

"All their arguments stem from ATAC's faults."

And I said, well, what criteria should we use?

Also, there isn't a problem with doing that because in an argument/opinion, at one point you refute the other side and/or compare.

And then I said we do use basic criteria outside of comparing the Casefiles with the UBs. But the criteria is the same for both sides. We have to comment on the same kind of characteristic. For instance, we can talk about the Casefiles in the third person. It doesn't necessarily mean the first person in the UBs is automatically compared unless it goes that way.

My other stuff is even simpler:

"Also, it has been said in other posts that even though we say "Network" and "ATAC" a lot of the time it just means Casefiles and Undercover Brothers."

"And in all those debating threads, I only saw like one person really arguing for the UBs/ATAC so that's kind of questionable."

[Q]

I get it now. Give me two reasons why the Network is good. Also pretend there is no ATAC.

[Olivia]

When I talk about the Network, it's 90% of the time referring to the Casefiles. I already said that, as well as several others

Plus this has been discussed in the other debate threads.

And you keep bringing up more things instead of actually acknowledging or even answering more than one of my points.

Why should I have to prove the Network, especially because of the reasons listed above? I think if anything, the UBs/ATAC side should prove themselves as there are barely any arguments and people very rarely answer the Casefiles side.

Examples...most threads, and more importantly, the "WAR" threads. Even when we're talking about individual books.

[Q]

You are avoiding my question.
You don't exactly like the Network yet you beat up ATAC in the Network's name.

I think if anything, the UBs/ATAC side should prove themselves as there are barely any arguments and people very rarely answer the Casefiles side.

What do the *casefilers* say other than Network is better. The reasons are "Ubs stink" logically reason 1 and so on.

[bozonessinc]

My reply to Iola.Alive:

Hi, you know what. I don't use the same comments every time. I read two in a row, and there was none of the same things. In fact it did not even mention A network. In both (foul play and in self defence) the hardys are working for themselves. Is that not just copying the original series.

I thought the casefiles were about the network, unlike the casefiles the UB's of some of the same things in them so you can understand. I also find it hard to believe that there wasn't more then 60 writers of the casefiles, that had only read one or two. And isn't that most of some of you's hatred comes from. Spelling and grammar errors.

Are you neutral Iola, just wondering, cause it seems like you are a huge Network fan. Who just won't admit it, I think if you are a real Iola fan you would want the series that hasn't killed her!!!

[Olivia]

You are avoiding my question.
You don't exactly like the Network yet you beat up ATAC in the Network's name. What do the *casefilers* say other than Network is better. The reasons are "Ubs stink" logically reason 1 and so on.

Just wow. I did not avoid your question, I said that everything's already been said in the debate threads.

And how many times do I have to say this - 90% of the time when people are talking about the Network in comparison to the UBs they are actually referring to the Casefiles.

Anyways, the Casefile people's reasons have been said 1000 times in many threads. Then they just resort to saying they suck. So what. How is that my concern? Am I the leader of the pack? Who appointed me Network defender? Maybe I participated for that side in a debate thread, but what's the big deal?

And I beat up on ATAC? Maybe when we're debating or comparing opinions I point out some facts...or even state my opinion or observations! Am I not allowed to do that? I think I insult the UBs the least, or at least try to. Even when I do insult the UBs, it's mostly jokes occasionally. Why does it have to be taken so seriously and literally?

I think my posts are getting the wrong impression. I didn't start them to attack anyone or provoke another debate. I was just trying to get us back to a place where we could all debate and/or discuss in a healthy manner instead of this tired cycle that keep repeating because some are so defensive.

And actually, I haven't seen people giving much argument for the UBs side at all or even answers to some of mine and other people's posts. I don't even care if I agree or not. If it's a genuine opinion with a little logic then who am I to say anything?

Finally, I am not going to rehash everything. It's all on this board.

So please understand my intent behind my posts. I just wanted people to understand what it looks like sometimes and get back to more meaningful discussion.

Just my $0.02.

My reply to Iola.Alive:

Hi, you know what. I don't use the same comments every time. I read two in a row, and there was none of the same things. In fact it did not even mention A network. In both (foul play and in self defence) the hardys are working for themselves. Is that not just copying the original series.

I thought the casefiles were about the network, unlike the casefiles the UB's of some of the same things in them so you can understand. I also find it hard to believe that there wasn't more then 60 writers of the casefiles, that had only read one or two. And isn't that most of some of you's hatred comes from. Spelling and grammar errors.

Are you neutral Iola, just wondering, cause it seems like you are a huge Network fan. Who just won't admit it, I think if you are a real Iola fan you would want the series that hasn't killed her!!!

Thanks for your reasonable post. Everything I was talking about was just about this board in general over time. There are exceptions, obviously, but I don't think I can point out every specific situation.

I don't hate the UBs, but like I said before, I tend to lean towards the Casefiles. And the spelling/grammer is not even on my list of why I dislike some of them even though it's a good reason. However, what does bother me sometimes is when Frank and/or Joe says the wrong line or they lead the wrong chapter. For example, when it's obviously Joe's chapter, but it's printed as Frank's on the first page of the chapter.

So sometimes I try to be neutral, but it doesn't work. Just look at this thread. So I classify myself as leaning towards the Casefiles but having a neutralish tendency about this so-called war because I try to read the books first and give things a chance.

Anyways, I was just trying to show everyone what it looked like from one perspective when we are discussing things on here. It wasn't meant to offend anyone. I mean, my point was if we approach things a bit differently it could improve things a lot.

I don't know how to explain my username to you. It's half-joking, and I just like Iola for some reason. I don't actually pay a lot of attention to her in the series sometimes.

[Q]

Iola, can you please look at it from a different perspective before you try to show someone else.

And how many times do I have to say this - 90% of the time when people are talking about the Network in comparison to the UBs they are actually referring to the Casefiles.
Why?
How is that my concern? Am I the leader of the pack? Who appointed me Network defender?
You kinda did yourself. If I didn't say your name I was not talking to you.
I think my posts are getting the wrong impression.
Definately.
I don't hate the Ubs, but like I said before.
Did I say Ubs or did I say ATAC.
So I classify myself as leaning towards the Casefiles but having a neutralish tendency about this so-called war.

Why do we keep debating a neverending debate. The networkers with their logical reasons have yet to convince a ATACer. And ATACer's loyalty to ATAC won't touch the Networkers. Shall we quit tring to convert each other and fake quote them intead or keep yelling "ATAC rules" and "ATAC stinks"? That is a serious question so do not see a funny side.
I say I won't quit fake quoting.



Hey maybe I could try to become Abe Lincoln 2
My hands are aching. I hate typing!!

[Olivia]

In some of my very early posts I did look at it from a different perspective, and I even do now. But it's kind of hard when there's nothing to go on from the UBs/ATAC side besides "Oh, they're great!" Just a little bit more description would help, even if it's just, "They're fun books. I like them undercover." You know what I mean? I do give credit where credit is due too if I like something.

And I don't understand...I wasn't trying to convert anyone? Maybe just get some people to understand why some people like the Casefiles better. That's all. Perhaps the debate was confusing people.

At least we can agree it's getting to be a really ridiculous situation

I only did one or two fake quotes. Honest. One was Edward Stratemeyer to tell everyone to stop fake-quoting, the other was SDLagent just as a joke. So yeah.

I hope this cycle can stop. And I hope you can see that I just want to get us all back into a better place. Not to say that some others won't sugar-coat what they think.

[Q]

You aren't exactly helping by pointing out UB's faults.

[Olivia]

Fine, if you want to keep going...

I believe it's okay to have some criticism. Otherwise should we compliment every single book and characteristic? And criticism does not necessarily mean negative comments. It could be analyzing, observing, interpreting.

Anyways, I'm just pointing out that it's hard to see the good when there's not much to go on on this board sometimes. That's all. Maybe because the comments about the UBs are overwhelmingly negative so I miss anything specific from people on the UBs side besides the fact that they say them like them. I am not insulting anyone here. I'm just again, pointing out some of the difficulties on this board.

If you are referring to what I say about some of the individual books, I am just pointing out my observations. But there are many positive observations as well. So I don't see how that's a problem.

The only other option would be in a debate thread, but that's a different story because I'm there to debate.

Do you really think I'm the worst insulter of the UBs on here? That surprises me.