Read my third sentence.
"A rant is any oration or written work that is created in anger or to inspire anger in those who are exposed to it."
Yes, yes I did. I'll admit that I started skimming it when you just started to look like a jerk flaming people for whatever reason it is that people like to insult others through anonymous mediums. That was a mistake, I should have proceeded to wade through it and pay a bit more attention.
Now think about it. Good. Now read your post. Good. Now go scroll up, I know it may be tough for you... but you'll figure it out... and read my section on Rogue Leader.
Why do you feel the need to be so condescending and insulting here? Does it give you some kind of pleasure?
Under the context of my rant, I did not damage his reputation or insult him in anyway. I stated the truth. Out of all active ranters, he is the undisputed king. I think you missed the line that said "individuals that reside at the other end of the rant-creating spectrum"
I think you missed the line where I edited my earlier post, where I said, "edit: whoops, it looks like I did misunderstood your reasons for mentioning Rogue Leader."
Now, on the other hand, I made fun of Apocalypse because some consider his posts in many cases to be rants. He was also mentioned because his presence is parallel to that of an opinionated and cause-less valleygirl at times.
Other than not really undesrtanding your motives behind starting this thread in the first place, I understood that part of the post. I'll freely admit that I don't understand the way trolls and bullies think. I really don't. I try to understand why causing humaliation and suffering in others might bring joy, but I just don't get it. Sorry. I probably never will understand that.
So yes, I do think you might have misunderstood me a bit. But you did get the personal attack correct. That was to illustrate a prime component of any good rant when dealing with acts perpetrated by an individual entity. :tup:
Why do you need to use personal attacks to illustrate this point? I think if you took a little longer than the five minutes you earlier mentioned to really think this through and write it well you could have been equally clear, perhaps more so, if you had used either generalizations or fictitious examples.
And yes these are the OT forums. And ranting is not wrong. It's just the spamming of non-rants labeled as so (as is the current trend) that is getting just a bit obnoxious.
I do agree that threads should contain the content advertised in the subject.
Keep in mind, this was a rant.
Indeed.
"A rant is any oration or written work that is created in anger or to inspire anger in those who are exposed to it."
Yes, yes I did. I'll admit that I started skimming it when you just started to look like a jerk flaming people for whatever reason it is that people like to insult others through anonymous mediums. That was a mistake, I should have proceeded to wade through it and pay a bit more attention.
Now think about it. Good. Now read your post. Good. Now go scroll up, I know it may be tough for you... but you'll figure it out... and read my section on Rogue Leader.
Why do you feel the need to be so condescending and insulting here? Does it give you some kind of pleasure?
Under the context of my rant, I did not damage his reputation or insult him in anyway. I stated the truth. Out of all active ranters, he is the undisputed king. I think you missed the line that said "individuals that reside at the other end of the rant-creating spectrum"
I think you missed the line where I edited my earlier post, where I said, "edit: whoops, it looks like I did misunderstood your reasons for mentioning Rogue Leader."
Now, on the other hand, I made fun of Apocalypse because some consider his posts in many cases to be rants. He was also mentioned because his presence is parallel to that of an opinionated and cause-less valleygirl at times.
Other than not really undesrtanding your motives behind starting this thread in the first place, I understood that part of the post. I'll freely admit that I don't understand the way trolls and bullies think. I really don't. I try to understand why causing humaliation and suffering in others might bring joy, but I just don't get it. Sorry. I probably never will understand that.
So yes, I do think you might have misunderstood me a bit. But you did get the personal attack correct. That was to illustrate a prime component of any good rant when dealing with acts perpetrated by an individual entity. :tup:
Why do you need to use personal attacks to illustrate this point? I think if you took a little longer than the five minutes you earlier mentioned to really think this through and write it well you could have been equally clear, perhaps more so, if you had used either generalizations or fictitious examples.
And yes these are the OT forums. And ranting is not wrong. It's just the spamming of non-rants labeled as so (as is the current trend) that is getting just a bit obnoxious.
I do agree that threads should contain the content advertised in the subject.
Keep in mind, this was a rant.
Indeed.
Me and LifesBane joke with him all the time about him being a newbie and stuff. 
@ GF!