Talk:Chimera

"If the godfather was the Bradley"

Ok then, here's why I deleted that phrase.

It's dumb. It's not clever. It's grammatically incorrect. Godfathers don't contribute to the heritage of the child. Comparing it to a BMP crossed with a Mark IV is quite succinct, and describes the Chimera perfectly. No further embellishment is needed.

Then you said, "The lasgun arrays are a Bradley."

With respect, do you understand what you wrote here? Because the answer is no. The lasgun arrays are most definitely not a Bradley.

Now if you had written, "The lasgun arrays are reminiscent of the Bradley's weapon ports," then we would be getting somewhere. That embellishment still wouldn't be *needed* in the context of the sentence in question, but either way it still is not, unfortunately, what you wrote.

I realize that I'm coming off as a dick, and I apologize for that, but frankly it's rather irritating to be forced to defend a reasonable edit against a poorly articulated challenge from someone who may or may not have an account here.

I will await your reply, but I can assure you that unless you have a better response than simply undoing my edit again, I will proceed with the change. --Cavgunner (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's called symbolism, though I admit it might be simpler to call it a 'three-way' between a BMP, a Mark IV and a Bradley. Also, do you not get that "The lasgun arrays are a Bradley." literally implies the same thing as "The lasgun arrays are reminiscent of the Bradley's weapon ports", or are you purposely using grammar issues because you're a dick and/or realise you have no argument? --58.162.223.230 04:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wait, never mind "someone who may or may not have an account here", you're just a namefag who thinks he's better than anons, gotcha. --58.162.223.230 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm using grammar issues because the issue of poor grammar is the reason for the edit in the first place. As the saying goes, if you can't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say.

It's unfortunate that you have chosen to resort to name-calling. Unfortunate, and frankly, unimaginatively crude- but not surprising, given your safe anonymity. Yet despite your adversarial comments, I am willing to concede that an edit describing the vehicle as the result of a "three-way" would be preferable to the current phrasing. --Cavgunner (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)