StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote: That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

I seriously doubt that.

How the fuck did you interpret that out of my definition of a modern Wonder of the World, since neither of those things are remarkable by modern standards?

You seemed to indicate that you believed that any example of modern developments was clearly going to be far more "wondrous" than any example of previous generations or eras developments. Thus, even the most mundane of modern objects should be seen as "wondrous" by comparison to other things mentioned in this thread such as Stonehenge and some of the "industrial age" wonders.

Or were you saying that its more a matter of scale and potential now - that our modern wonders, due to the increased potential of modern civilisation are going to (unsurprisingly) far larger, more imposing and (maybe) more impressive than any others?

weemadando wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:How the fuck did you interpret that out of my definition of a modern Wonder of the World, since neither of those things are remarkable by modern standards?

You seemed to indicate that you believed that any example of modern developments was clearly going to be far more "wondrous" than any example of previous generations or eras developments.

And where did I say that nothing else was required other than being modern?

Thus, even the most mundane of modern objects should be seen as "wondrous" by comparison to other things mentioned in this thread such as Stonehenge and some of the "industrial age" wonders.

Or were you saying that its more a matter of scale and potential now - that our modern wonders, due to the increased potential of modern civilisation are going to (unsurprisingly) far larger, more imposing and (maybe) more impressive than any others?

I was saying that modern techniques do not invalidate something from being a "wonder of the world", despite the moronic Luddite rantings of certain people who dismiss modern engineering marvels as "by the numbers" and therefore not impressive.

Darth Wong wrote:Just on a lark, I went and looked up the word "Wonder" and the noun form is defined as something that elicits "astonishment" or "admiration".

So, when one thinks about it, one's list of "Wonders" really says more about what you as a person find admirable or astonishing than it does about the Wonders themselves. "Wonder" is literally defined in terms of the viewer's subjective reaction.

So it would appear that I find marvels of engineering and science to be admirable and/or astonishing, while others find marvels of primitive human back-breaking labour to be admirable and/or astonishing.

Well I've always been under the impression that a "wonder" of the world was something that had people wondering about it. I don't particularly care either way.

Durandal wrote:Well I've always been under the impression that a "wonder" of the world was something that had people wondering about it.

Well, in that case, the fact that Michael Bay keeps getting contracts to make movies would definitely be a Wonder of the modern world

Darth Wong wrote:

Durandal wrote:Well I've always been under the impression that a "wonder" of the world was something that had people wondering about it.

Well, in that case, the fact that Michael Bay keeps getting contracts to make movies would definitely be a Wonder of the modern world :)

I hate to admit it, but I like a lot of his movies. I don't think they are good, but they are brilliant to sit down and lose some time on.