Disclaimer: This rant is very long but is made up mostly of quotes that donít need to be read, they are just their to provide widespread evidence of the issue that I have with many posters right now. Just read the first few paragraphs, the first session of quote examples and the conclusion if you canít be arsed with it all (more than likely). I also realise that I could have done better things with my time, but I really feel that this needs to be said.
Iím going to discuss an issue with this site that has been bothering me for quite some time, almost to the extent where my Ďjimmiesí are being rustled like a Tesco carrier bag in the eye of a hurricane. The general lack of reading comprehension from wrestling forums posters is absolutely fucking astounding. Seriously, the amount of nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit that is posted in response to well thought out messages on here is beyond the level of good reason.
Either the main majority of users on this site are thicker than the concrete covering the infamous nuclear plant in Chernobyl or they just lack the discipline and patience to read through intelligent posts in order to correctly gain an understanding of their contexts. Iím hoping itís not the former, but if it is then at least thereís an excuse. As for the latter, do people on here not realise that taking an extra couple of minutes to comprehend what theyíre replying to could actually save them far more time? They should really think about it, because it will help them to negotiate themselves around the possibility of a pointless fucking pissing contest. Now donít get me wrong, I know that some of the people on here do this on purpose for trolling purposes, but this shouldnít be used as an excuse by people who are being unintentionally ignorant.
First of all, letís start with a prime example. The poster in question is a Manchester United fan named 'Bubzeh
', so it should really be expected that heís a bit dense. Thanks to Joel
(sorry if it was actually somebody else, fuck them if thatís the case) for closing the original premier league thread which meant that I couldnĎt use the quote button for these first examples, bastard!:
Arsenal and Liverpool are in similar positions tbh. The difference is Arsenal have a world class manager whereas Liverpool have a guy who flopped badly at Reading.
So the guy makes a reasonably valid point, yet at the same time he makes another terrible point within it. So what Iím lead to believe is that Brendan Rodgers is a failure because of his short spell at Reading FC, meaning that he should forever be blacklisted as a manager for clubs with big ambitions because of it, regardless of the fact that he has gone on to improve greatly since then:
Itís obvious that one manager is better than the other, but using Rodger's time at Reading as a reason to seperate the two men is silly when you consider Wenger's first three years in football management. All manager's have bad spells, even Fergie when he was first at United.
That was a fair criticism of his reasoning. I also accepted his general point (although I donít agree that it will necessarily be a factor long term) while pointing out that he was being hypocritical because Wenger also had a failure at the start of his career (with Nancy-Lorraine, thatís not a chick by the way, Arsene prefers young boys). So that should be the end of it, yet:
The point is, if Liverpool and their fans think BR can bring back the glory days, they are going to be left bitterly disapointed.
Cheers for patronising me (I realise that the previous comment is ironic, but fuck it) Bub. I understood the concept but I was more interested in the fact that you made a silly throw away comment to justify it:
Your point was more than clear and you didn't need to explain it again. It's just ridiculous to use Rodger's time at Reading as evidence as to why he can't go on to be a successful top class manager and rebuild Liverpool over time when other top managers with longevity at clubs they've rebuilt have flopped at the start of their careers.
Not saying he will or won't go onto great things, but you made an irrelevant point about a six month period contained within the man's managerial track record.
Again, that should be it, but the dude decides to bury himself in a desperate attempt to not look stupid:
Hold up, bruv.
It's not like SAF was hired after his poor opening 6 years at United. Or AW was hired after his poor 3 years at Arsenal.
Brendan Rodgers has been hired to MANAGE one of the most decorated clubs in world football. This is a guy that flopped badly (as stated in my previous post) at Reading... Then had a decent turn out for an already assembled and assorted Swansea side.
In what way can a manager with that record be thrown into a job like Liverpool?
If were going by your logic, teams shouldn't look at a managers previous clubs and their history when deciding whether to employ them or not.
Lol at him calling me bruv. Iím middle class and white, so there's no need for that kind of tomfoolery. He also completely missed the point and made wild assumptions where they werenít needed. Below is the now settled grave that I dug for him. Havenít seen him in the football threads since. Youíre welcome:
There are many things wrong with this above post.
First of all, I was talking about Wenger's time at Nancy-Lorraine in France and not Arsenal. Details.
The above point negates your point about Rodgers not being worthy of the Liverpool job. If Arsenal used your logic then they would never have hired Wenger.
If Swansea were already so good then why couldn't Martinez or Sousa take them up? A huge flaw in that point. Sousa actually derailed them by fucking up their fitness regime, something that sent Leicester into a tail spin not long after.
You act as if Rodgers bad work far outweighs his good. Watford + Swansea > SIX BAD MONTHS AT READING, OMG!
Liverpool are a midtable team, nothing more and nothing less. Their history means jack shit right now and they need a long term project, something that Rodgers could be suitable for. Hiring people like Hodgson and Dalglish certainly suggests that Liverpool aren't in a position created through finances or success that would allow them to pick and choose any manager that they want.
When did I say that hiring clubs shouldn't look at past manageral histories of their candidates? Oh, that's right I didn't. Again you failed by attributing quotes to me that aren't true. What I actually said was that a small bad patch should be overlooked in favour of general success. Again, details.
I love it when people like this make silly points, only to back track and tie themselves in knots.
Öand that was the end of that.
Here are a Ďfewí other examples with the important parts bolded (Itís an epicly long list, but you donít have to read them all to get the jist of things):
^ This. This is what I hate. This is the guy that's going to work all his life to get money.
Then he's gonna be the nice guy that "wins" in the end. In reality he's going to marry a 30 year old harlot that has sucked the whole town. She'll cheat on him behind his back, too.
I hate nerds because they let people run all over them. I hate nerds because they are lifeless drones walking amongst earth. They have no gender. They are eunuchs at heart.
They will let you fuck their wife and not say anything about it. They will let you put them down in front of their family and not do anything about it.
I like to company myself with people that stand up for themself. And nerds are the opposite.
I hate nerds.
This guy is constantly moaning about weak men that make good money and have cheating wives. I sensed a great disturbance in this person so I tried to to pry the truth out of him:
I'm not sure why, but I always get the vibe that op is venting about his frustrations from his own personal life when he makes these rants. That's not even meant to be a cheap dig, it just seems to be the same sort of topics over and over again.
Why would you even care about this sort of thing, unless it's a problem in your own life that you're afraid to face and this is the only way to release your anger?
So that involved absolutely no comments about nerds, I was just highlighting Cena twats's repetitive nature regarding rich men that are betrayed by their bitches while also making an allusion to the idea that he seems to be telling stories of his own, just in a third person narrative, yet:
When the fuck have I ever made a rant about nerds?
I hate nerds because they never stand up for themselves.
Did I say that this victim of child abuse always made rants about nerds? No:
Not talking about nerds, but all this stuff about men who work hard and become succesful with money only to be cheated on by 'whore' wives. You had similar content in a rant about your cousin who cheated on her boyfriend.
Either you hate women or have severe issues relating to things that happened in your relationships, whether they be past or present. Otherwise, why would you care about what happens to other men in their relationships? Also, why would you care about what kind of stigma or status becomes attached to them because of it?
If you want to talk about your issues then go see a psychiatrist, hell, I'm sure that somebody on here might even be willing to converse with you via private messages, just find an alternative to clogging this section up with terrible threads.
So that required elaboration where there really wasnít any needed, the only subject that needed expansion was why Cena twat hates women so much. At least I did eventually get an answer to that. Go feminists.
I asked my good Ďfriendí Noyk
for some proof (not the black guy that resides in the TNA section) about recieving green rep from dual shock:
How about providing some solid evidence by actually posting the rep comments in their original state from your cp? Not saying it didn't happen but it's easy enough to just make up comments and attribute a username to them.
He gives me that proof and I show him a fleeting sign of respect for doing what I asked him to do. I then explained that I still didnít give a fuck about his plight while also telling him that Apocalypto has more worth than him because he can actually be funny on the odd occassion:
For the record I couldn't give a fuck if you're Apocalypto or not, in fact you would probably go up in my estimation because that guy is actually entertaining at times.
So what does captain Falcon do? He questions the validity of my point about the leader of the anti shit nugget crew before backing up the very same point that I just made! Gomez also decided to build some courage based on the deluded idea that I was backing up what he was saying (due to the words fair play) when really I was just saying thanks for the evidence. Oh my days:
Come on man, a thousand ass and dick insults is entertaining? But yeah, when he wants, he actually pulls off some funny shit. Rarely though.
And you're god damned right it's fair play. I'm going to speak my damn mind right now about a lot of people. Like the fact that when I returned to the Jobbers Thread, everyone was fine with me and actually talking pretty decently, including BULLY, yet when sXe and Cat decide to start hating for something that happened before I came back and buried the hatchets, they then again ride along with the fuckery for no reason whatsoever besides "they are doing it too!". How fucking pathetic.
Have your own god-damned opinions. Just because someone hates another person that you are okay with, it doesn't mean you have to be a massive ass kisser and jump in the hating train. Fucking tools.
Then I proceed to put him back in his place. This wasnít necessary, but everybody loves to laugh at Noyk so I put it in anyway:
No idiot, I meant fair play as in providing evidence. I still couldn't give a fuck about your shitty opinions or grievances. For the record I've always said that you're a pathetic bitch, just to be clear.
As for 'Come on man, a thousand ass and dick insults is entertaining?', I said he's entertaining at times. Reading comprehension son, get some.
Next I make a valid point in reply to wrestling forumís favourite Cena loving troll B-Boy
WWE has been like a sitcom for years now, it hasn't just suddenly jumped the shark.
Nothing wrong with that and it should have ended there, but some scouse jeb end (not Mozza, I know youíre all shocked) named ToxieDogg comes in for a brainless argument, so basically like a normal day for him down the job centre when he has forgot to fill in the Ďjobs applied forí section of his scrounger book:
Now if I made incredibly vaugue posts like that on a regular basis Iíd never have the temerity to make a rant like this. So the tracksuit skinned creature forces me into a wild assumption:
Yeah, really? Obviously you wasn't watching when Russo was running shit. The show has always been a soap opera since then.
A clear statement that suggest that the writing format/style has been fairly consistent over the years in WWE. Nothing about the attitude era productís quality has been compared to that of the current. Still, Iím waiting for some vital information and reasoning. As that fat closeted doofus John Travolta once said, tell me more:
I've been watching since around 1987-1988. Mentioned that and talked about shows from the last 25 years on here numerous times.
Not really worth arguing with somebody who responds to me like that though.
Oh wonderful, he has no argument. So he has wasted my time for nothing? I can at least try and prompt an effort from him:
So obviously you have a very short memory if you can't remember the abduction angles involving Steph, Test wanting to marry her before HHH snuck in, etc. No, things just became way too ridiculous right now
Sorry that I've not noticed your posts on here, but you can't expect people to know things like that without extended interaction.
Again, an excellent point made. Also I try to apologise for not knowing his wrestling viewing habits and tenure as a fan (which wasn't needed, how would I know that without having read his posts about it?). Thatís diplomatic Baker, being a good guy for once. So the guy swats the olive branch out of my hand, as to be expected from a scum fuck Liverpool skip rat (again not Mozza
, although he's a dirty cheating bastard, poor cat
). Diplomatic Baker is a naÔve Baker:
I don't expect to be 'noticed'.
But whenever anybody criticises today's product for being awful, there's always someone to say 'It was worse when Russo was booking it.' It's getting to be one of the most tired and lame excuses for today's product being crap that I've seen on here.
I honestly don't think it was. Neither do most other people who were watching at the time.
The good outweighed the bad back then. Now it's the reverse.
If you donít expect to be noticed then why did you make a point about how much you bang on about your tenure as a fan? Contradiction. Then the guy decides to throw out some garbage point about people bagging on Russo which had absolutely nothing to do with anything. Fucking warz!
Then we come to my reply to the forumís favourite product of childhood identity confusion Froot
. I replied to him after he suggested that some posters should be banned for a lack of creativity and an over reliance on one liners in rants:
You would definitely be banned if this idea was enforced, not because you indulge in one liners, but for the reason that you really don't have the authority or style to persuade many other posters to think a certain way due to your lacklustre and overly regimented word vomits. Even if you did improve your methods, the content would probably be negated by the pony stuff which just takes the credibility out of any argument you have due to the softness of it all. The potential's there but you've got to make your style a bit more dynamic, just saying.
, that was harsh as fuck. He didnít reply and rightfully so because I was being a bit of a prick (diplomatic Baker is very selective, don't you know?). That should have been the end of it, but out pops the next little festering shit Credmi
due to a failed assumption that I was communicating with him, despite the fact that I had quoted Froot
Secondly, Andre, you're not a fan of my writing techniques, that's cool. But, at least I keep my sentences under 100 words, use punctuation properly & can spell chicken.
What an idiot, failing to realise that he wasnít being referred to while also failing to understand the context and tone of another rant I made:
I was replying to Froot you retard. How on earth could you even comprehend that criticism being aimed at you?
Oh and well done missing the point of the writing style in that post. It was supposed to be read as a breathless rant, a furious condemnation of the Town. What is it with people around here lacking reading comprehension and the ability to understand context?
As for 'chiken', wow I made a typo, my life is over
Clearly my life is over because Iím wasting my time with this nonsense, talk about foreshadowing! Otherwise you (geberal you) should get the point. Oh wait a minute, you probably donít (a few exceptions here) which is why Iím constructing the great wall of whiner. Here's what Credmi was referring to for those who STILL give a fuck, even after all of this.
Nah, you're thinking of Wisbech mate: The arsehole of the Fens, a place that was built on first cousin marriages and backwards Romany gypsy values, where feral children play in skips searching for cigarette butt ends, a 'civilisation' where one night stands are considered long term relationships when compared to the usual quicky with a randomer in the 'the market inn' bogs, where the smell of multiple processed food factories flood the air with an aroma of chiken shit, a place where widespread birth deformities caused by the lack of discipline between desperate siblings with overzealous sex drives are blamed on overhead power cables.
This isn't even hyperbole, if anything I'm being a little generous to the place.
Then thereís everybodyís favourite TNA mark, Tony316
. His parents named him that because on a normal day his piss dribbles down all the way to his toe, where as on a good day it only reaches his knee. Fuck the numbers part, Iím not creative enough to make a back story for that. Anyway:
Shut up dude. Honestly...both men gave everything they had and risked their damn lifes for idiots like you who stream the damn PPV. Was the match perfect? Obviously not but both men deserve respect for what they did tonight in the ring. It was dangerous and spectacular.
As you can see this Ďspethal' character made one of his standard pro TNA posts, filled with bias and absolutely ridiculous notions such as the match between Hardy and Aries being good because it was ĎdangerousĎ. I canít remember who he was replying to, but that doesnít matter. So as I usually do to TNA posters, I tore him a new one, mainly regarding his point about how Hardy and Aries do stupid stunts for ungreatful internet streamers:
So many things wrong with your post.
First of all, if this guy is streaming the PPV while Hardy and Aries hurt themselves for people like him (for free) then surely the two wrestlers are the idiots for going to those lengths in a match that hardly anybody will have paid for? Hurting yourself for an ungreatful no paying audience is as stupid as it gets.
So, both men deserve respect for what they did tonight, because it was 'dangerous' as you said? What kind of logic is that where you look up to people for behaving like wreckless idiots with little to no pay off?
Nobody is picking at the match because it wasn't 'perfect', just because it's the same shit that has been done so many times before. How many stupid bumps can you watch before you lose interest? I'm sorry, but people continuously falling from great heights doesn't impress me, gain my respect or shock me. If those two actually managed to put together a good match filled with action that didn't centre entirely around high spots then I'd give them the respect that they'd deserve.
That's not to say that people shouldn't have the right to enjoy the match and more power to you if you did, but the people who didn't enjoy it are more than entitled to their opinion.
All fine and dandy, all sensible comments. Yet like all good things somebody has to ruin it, which would be this Brown Hippy
dude (appropriate because itís the colour of shit) who thought that my comments about streamers being the motivation for Hardy and Aries were my actual own opinion rather than just a condemnation of Tonyís silly comment:
You think Aries and Hardy are hurting themselves for those people?
Of course not, they're putting their bodies on the line so that people pay for it.
So that someone who watched that match and enjoyed will want to pay and go see them the next opportunity they can. So that people who did enjoy it will buy the DVD.
They take these "stupid" bumps so people can have a memory of it. Falling from great heights might not impress you, but when I was younger and saw the TLC matches with E&C, The Hardy's, and Dudleys it became something that I'll never forget and I became a life long fan and support all of those guys to this day.
So this fuck head was having a go at me despite the fact that we shared the same opinion? Please, for the sake of my sanity and many others', read before you reply!
Next I decided to be kind enough to teach people in the anything section about the various possible reasons as to why many people desire sex changes, something that Iím well informed about due to the fact that I'm a sociology student:
Just to educate the people in here who say that this couple definitely need counselling or any other variation of that:
What a lot of people don't understand is that there are many more human genders than just male and female, the reason for this being down to differing levels of exposure to chromosomes during conception and development in the womb. To make a boy you need to pass on a strong Y chromosome and for a female you need a strong X chromosome. Men are XY while women are XX.
Yet more often than is realised you'll get many variations of this. Some men don't have enough Y and can end up with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) which leads to them having smaller genitals, possible infertility and weaker muscles. These people are defined as 'men' by society but their genetic make up does not suggest this and often they will identify themselves as something else.
Then there's the case of the XY female. This person will be born with female genitals plus gonads, which is usually dealt with by surgery post birth. So these 'women' go through life often having to live up to society's expectations of what a 'woman' should be, yet they could possibly feel like a man (or in between) for obvious reasons. Some of these women may be infertile and not experience periods, but without a check up at the doctor's about this side effect (some do ignore these problems) many of these people never actually find out that they're not genetically female.
Those are just two examples of variations in human chromosomes but there are many more with varying side effects (Marilyn Monroe was an XXX 'super woman' and I'm not talking about porn). Without having a test you can't even be one hundred percent certain that you're genetically male or female and I'm willing to bet that there are plenty of people on this site who may be oblivious to it. Not all variations are obvious and many don't even have side effects, so you would never know without a test!
In minor cases you often will see androgyny in men and women who may confirm themselves as being their society defined gender, but they will show signs of masculinity (ladettes, blokey women) or femininity (camp men). This can also lead to some variations in sexuality, which should seem quite obvious now.
So what this leads to is a large quantity of varied genders that are in between man and woman, but because of society's obsession with pigeon holing everything into nice safe categorys the general public often doesn't know or understand this. You know what I mean, boys wear blue, girls pink, etc. Genetics partly define humans in their behaviour (a man with high levels of testosterone is probably going to be aggressive at times) but it isn't always about nature, but more about nurture. If a young 'girl' feels boisterous (maybe a tom boy, could have an overdeveloped clitoris) but is in an environment where 'she' is encouraged to be feminine then that person may well go along with it. Then suddenly one day this person may turn around and decide to be who they really are due to a change in circumstances and growth in self confidence and self acceptance. It may seem like a sudden turn but that person has actually been a different gender their whole life without most realising it, so it's far more normal for them to want a sex change then many may think.
I think the main point should be that these people have the right to present themselves as something closer to their actual genetic make up. It doesn't harm those who are well informed and understand the situation of those going through these issues. If other people are intimidated by natures course then that's their problem for either being ignorant to reality, otherwise it's mainstream society's fault for not educating them (I only know because of studying Sociology). The Y chromosome has actually become far weaker in human males over time (lost 1,393 from 1,438 original genes) so it's not really a suprise to see so many different variations in gender being discovered. Eventually it could become entirely lost leading to Human's evolving a new reproduction method/system like other species.
As a disclaimer I'd like to point out that there are some cases of 'normal' XY males and XX females having sex xhanges which are likely due to mental health problems, but these incidents aren't anywhere near as widespread as many poorly informed people might suggest. Unfortunately it has become something of a stereotype and creates even more stigmas (don't they have enough already?) for those who are genuinely not male or female. The two people in the op's story may have had the change solely due to psychological issues, but it would be a rare case if so.
Boring lesson over ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah, because this post needed another wall of text. I know, I know. Still, with all that detailed information available this mithering Mithro
completely misses the point and overlooks the facts:
Those weird chromosomes aren't new sex's that we're just discovering, they're deviations, and mutations.
Fucking haaaeeeelllll. Read again son, read again. The information is in there, donít just frantically skim through the post before smashing your head on the keyboard, thatís how you limited yourself to such a small amount of brain cells in the first place.
Continuing with the same thread but with a different poster and change in subject:
The disturbing part to me about a 20+ year old having a relationship with a preteen girl is that he obviously had to have had sexual thoughts about her if he is going forward with the relationship. The whole "being in love" thing is a young girl's way of looking at things. All guys will have thoughts about sex with the girl they want to be with in the back of their mind. That is creepy. Anyway don't want to derail this thread by talking about that case.
I disagreed with the bolded part because it's a generalisation, I admit that I was being a pedantic Baker but that's just my nature (over nurture, a reference for those who read my monster post about gender). I replied with:
Many asexual people don't have sexual relationships, that's including men. So not 'all guys will have thoughts about sex with the girl they want to be with in the back of their mind'. Not saying that this guy isn't sexually attracted to this under age girl (which is obviously not good) but it's wrong to assume and generalise that all men are like this.
Which was fair enough, and eddiefan
was more than fine with that comment, but then Kobra860
butted in, completely missing the point:
Why should we give the guy in the story the benefit of the doubt? If the guy involved was fat and balding I'm pretty sure that the reactions here would be different.
Oh dear. Kobra slithers into the conversation only to make a fool of himself. So I TRY to help him understand:
Erm, I wasn't giving him the benefit of the doubt. I was just telling the other guy that it's wrong to assume that all men have sexual intentions when in love. Nothing to do with the dodgy japanese bloke, but just a point in general.
Basic reading compreshension people, please get some. Seriously.
That's more than clear, but it seems that this character has shed a few brain cells as well as his skin:
I responded to:
So who are you talking about? The man with the underage girl. The discussion only went in that direction because of the man dating the underage girl.
Why else would you talk about asexual people unless you're trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt?
Oh my. Let's try one more time:
Originally Posted by eddiefan
All guys will have thoughts about sex with the girl they want to be with in the back of their mind.
Let me repeat this for the last time: I was not referring to the Japanese guy but eddiefan's generalisation of men. The Japanese guy had nothing to do with the conversation, repeat, the Japanese guy had nothing to do with the conversation. I made a comment that slightly deviated from the topic.
Is this clear now?
The fact that this fucker hadn't even read the comment that I was referring to for context just goes to show how ignorant he is. You want to butt into a conversation? Then read all of it and try to comprehend it! Fuck off back to the hole you came from Kobra.
Last but not least, an example that even the best posters are capable of missing the point. Here is my reply to the op in the ĎState of Affairsí
^^^This is what I thought the thread was going to be about when I first read the title. Major disappointment
AS for the content in the op, while not untrue, it has been said many times before, even I covered it in one of my rants. The thing that you've got to understand is that people will do what they want in here regardless of what anybody else (barring the admins, and even then that can fall on deaf ears) has to say, whether that be somebody with little authority (that would be me) or even a long term poster who is well respected (Rush).
The biggest problem for me is the obsession that some people have over the possibilty of certain posters having alt accounts. Now don't get me wrong, as a short term in joke it's okay, but some of the people on here are relentless with it and let the accuations spill other to several other threads instead of keeping it to one single 'outing' rant
. Even when Headliner said that there was no evidence to back up the claims of Noyk being Apocalypto (I had already shown evidence as to why Noyk more than likely isn't him, for the record) we still had several posters who just kept banging on about it to the point of complete and utter tedium. I think that people should keep the accusations to just one thread if they're going to be so determined with them, otherwise sack it off and raise the issue with the staff if you can't have some discipline
I think that basically everybody
that posts in rants these days (barring a few who make fleeting appearances) have been guilty of some form of derailing. I know that I'm terrible when it comes to winding up Noyk over a multitude of threads because I'm like a fly being drawn to shit (second part is a good comparison) in regards to him. I can only try to stop the multitude of arguments that I'm involved in, but hoping to stop that mentality entirely throughout all of the rant's posters is wishful thinking. All it takes is one idiot to troll along with a couple of easily baited posters and it all snowballs from there.
For this place to get back into some kind of 'order' all of the sensible posters (I think that most people would like to be included in this category) would have to find some form of self control, whether that would be through implimenting the ignore function or just displaying thicker 'e-skin'. If that isn't possble then maybe the admins could do something about it, possibly have a purge of who they see as undesirables (waiting for this to backfire on me)? If they're bothered enough about the situation then they will surely do something.
So there I am, taking responsibility while suggesting that we all should, which wasnít a dig at the op at all (considering that he took responsibility in the rant by taking some blame), but a general comment. I also agreed that the problem is that far too many arguments and Ďoutingsí spill out into several threads when often they already have a designated thread. So really we are in agreement and nothing needs to be added, yet he still typed this out:
I'm guilty of it as well and i'm not saying every rant needs to stay on topic with no fucking around whatsoever. Some of the best rants over the years are the ones that spiral off into different directions, some posters getting angry at each other etc etc.
What i'm saying is that every rant doesn't have to come back to insulting a poster you don't like. Take your NoyK rant for example, exposed him brilliantly and got him annoyed. That should've been, sort of the end of it, a chapter closing if you will. It was done, he got embarrassed and it should've been left. If he kept making stupid posts, then it can be reopened and you can argue but a lot of the time arguments start in other rants purely because NoyK, Mystical etc post on a topic, someone comes in and says 'lol you are a twat. stop pretending to be a girl on the internet ya phaggot' when its really not needed and it kicks off again.
As i said, i'm guilty of it as well. I'm not trying to be high and mighty on that point but its the kind of mob mentality that goes on in this section all of the time from "veterans" who can do better and people trying to suck up.
So first of all he repeats the point that heís guilty without being prompted while also stating that heĎs not being high and mighty, once again without being prompted. He then told me that his point wasnít about threads going off topic in general despite the fact that I never mentioned anything about this either. Next he tries to enlighten me about his real purpose which was to stop the pointless feuds consuming the entirety of threads in rants, despite the fact that I had already agreed that this was a problem while also explaining why in my own detailed account of the situation. Iím not sure that he read my post correctly, maybe he was in a Rush
Staying on the subject of this aforementioned poster, notice how I avoided the use of the word cunt before this sentence. It just didnít seem to have any value left after that thread that was made about it. Rush
wasnít lying BULLY
In conclusion: It seems as if posters on these forums in general (not everybody obviously) really need to take their time when replying to posts in the future. It will save us all a great deal of time, especially me when you consider that I wonít have to make any more rambling dissertations due to my severe frustrations with the lack of reading comprehension displayed throughout the majority of this site.
As a side note: I wonder how many posters are going to live up to Rush's expectations by spamming and continuing feuds in here instead of commenting and adding to the good points (they are god damn it!) that I've made?
Also, in before TL;DR. Don't try and pretend that size doesn't matter.
I also realise that somebody will probably pick at my spelling and grammar. Awesome, go make a rant about it...
...and fuck you if try to claim that my points aren't clear, for they are akin to the Yorkshire countryside viewed in fresh air (in before fog, in before they're like fresh air because my points are invisible!) on a summer's afternoon.
Bakers are gonna bake, haters are gonna hate.
I also want to point out that my sig is a symbol for issues like this (at least that's how I want it to be viewed), round and fucking round we go.
PS: I do realise that I'm probably insane for writing all of this, if I wasn't before (repeating yourself so many times will do that) then this process definitely pushed me over the edge. Would somebody kindly call for the wrestling forum Psychiatrist (Jupes