xkcd sucks (http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/)
It's been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was)
Ah, Bearstrikes showed me that one the other day. Coincidentally, half a dozen of us talked about how **** xkcd had gotten as well yesterday.
Or, more personally, nothing in recent history has pleased me more than posting my crushing reviews of Halo Reach over on halo.bungie.org. Ah, the tears, the drama.
Yes but when you go to the same webcomic 3 times a week and then complain about how bad it is, it's not cause you are a critic. It's cause you are a wanker. And a masochistic wanker at that!This.
MST3K teared down "movies" that really were that abominably bad. This is XKCD. Even on its worst days, I at least get a mild snort of amusement. You are comparing XKCD (or at least the last few months / years of it) to The Matrix - Revolutions. Come on. Really. There are plenty of worthy targets of all that bile and venom.
MST3K teared down "movies" that really were that abominably bad. This is XKCD. Even on its worst days, I at least get a mild snort of amusement. You are comparing XKCD (or at least the last few months / years of it) to The Matrix - Revolutions. Come on. Really. There are plenty of worthy targets of all that bile and venom.
The point is, screwups are screwups. Magnitude varies but they're still screwups and deserve to be commented on. When they are created in a public venue, such as a webcomic, any attempt to deflect criticism of them is stupid at best. If you create public works then you must expect and be prepared for public criticism. It is the nature of the world.
http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2010/10/comic-810-reddit.html
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse we were treated to this example. Did Cleese really think we'd buy this bull****? What shopkeeper could possibly stay open with such poor customer service? Doesn't Cleese understand that there are all kinds of laws designed to protect the consumer from this kind of fraud? Why wouldn't he simply call up trading standards? Or at least mention them instead of going on about a rant about how the parrot is in fact dead.......
I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), you'd be all over him.
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)
But again, you're trying to compare the lengthy dissection of a full-length novel versus that of a ten-second three-panel joke. Surely you'll agree that there's a massive difference of depth/scale there.
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)
On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.
It may well apply to HLP General Discussion =P
http://xkcd.com/810/
And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.I agree.
. . . the plan outlined in #810 simply wouldn't work. The "constructive" nature of a particular comment is far too subjective, even for a person, to judge another poster by their appraisal of it. If you're only letting comments get posted that have received that sort of approval, then you're essentially letting the hoards of bots be your moderating team, an awful idea if there ever was one. (And as a one-time forum owner, I can promise you that bots are FAR more numerous than legitimate posters).This is just taking the piss. And whilst you're entitled to do that, as kara says, it just makes you a pathetic wanker.
So, we have three possible outcomes:
1) Bots rate all comments as constructive. Posts continue through as though unmoderated, and significantly more spam makes it through than a captcha would allow.
2) Bots rate all comments as not constructive. The board grinds to a halt as all comments, regardless of their quality, are discarded before making it to the message board.
3) Bots rate roughly half of the comments as constructive, and half as not constructive. The rating system fails, as all comments receive roughly the same rating (the hundreds of bots outweigh the few real users and render their ratings essentially meaningless). Comments are either posted or blocked as a fluke, and enough spam gets through to make it worthwhile. Again, a captcha would be more effective.
Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)
On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.
Dissection isn't the issue, it's what he decided to dissect. Many jokes revolve around the idea of something that is impractical but amusing to consider. To spend paragraphs analysing why it isn't practical is pointless. Both the author and the audience understand it isn't practical already. You're not actually exposing any new information with your dissection. It's not really a valid criticism of the work. You're simply showing that you don't understand how humour actually works.
And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.
#1. "If xkcd sucks so much why do you read it? Just skip it you turd, some of us like intelligent comedy and if you are such a stupid idiot that you don't get the jokes just leave it alone."
Ah, a common misconception here. I do not hate xkcd because the jokes go over my lowly plebeian head, rather, I hate them because they are not funny. I get the joke (or rather, often what the joke is supposed to be) and I don't like it. Usually. Basically the answer is that is pains me to see lousy humor, and, like genocide, I simply cannot ignore it and have the problem go away. See Rob's Explanation for a much more logical, less offensive answer to this question (and one with which I entirely agree)
#2. "Why are you criticizing such a brilliant comic when you can't do better yourself? LAME."
Also a good question. But the fact is that few movie reviewers are movie makers, few theater critics are directors or actors, and few book reviewers are authors. In any case, there are times when I could do better myself, and have offered Helpful Critique. See here, here, here.
Rob has provided a good answer to this question, too: right here.
#3. "Why are you so mean spirited and evil? What are you hoping to accomplish?"
I am hoping to either get Randall Munroe to shape up and make better comics, admit that he's lost his touch and stop, or make enough fans see the light that they stop visiting and Randall Munroe drifts slowly into obscurity like a shriveled leaf in an ocean of forgotten love. I'd also be more than happy if he switched from comic to Picto-Blog.
In the short term, I'm trying to have fun, analyze humor, and be a bastion of enlightenment for those people who see xkcd for the washed up shadow of its former self that it is.
#4. "Dude it's supposed to be a comic about math and relationships and stuff. So why do you criticize it for doing just what it pretends to do?"
I understand that xkcd is in theory "a webcomic of sarcasm, math, romance and language", in some order. Those categories are perfectly broad enough for a lot of diverse humor. The problem is when it becomes a webcomic of "python references, ****ty breakups, memes and charts" which I think are a bit too specific and feel repetitive quickly.
I don't think I ever say "lame, another joke about computers," I tend to say, "oh lame, another joke about meshing the line between humans and computers, whoop de do."
#5. "Aren't you just jealous?"
No, I would be jealous of him if he wrote good comics. I am jealous of Ryan North, who writes Dinosaur Comics. Once more, see Rob's more thoughtful, detailed answer if you would like a longer explanation.
#6. "Why are you picking on xkcd? Aren't there like ten thousand ****ty webcomics out there?"
Yes, there are, but few seem to have the popularity of xkcd. I could always find stupid things to critique, but for the most part, I wouldn't feel like I had accomplished anything (HEY GUYS THE SIMPSONS KINDA SUCKS NOW just thought you should know ok cool we all agree great). It is not so much how much xkcd sucks as how overrated it is - the blog was originally titled just "xkcd: overrated" though that has since been changed to the punchier "xkcd sucks." In short: No other comic seems to combine the same amount of popularity and crappiness. Most popular comics are good, and most bad comics every can agree are bad. XKCD manages to escape that, and I want to change that.
For a related discussion, see my essay here.
#7. "Why are you so freaking humorless?"
I dunno. Childhood accident? I am a Trained Humor Analyst and everyone else in the world seems to think that analyzing humor destroys it, so perhaps there is some answer there. I, of course, being an Trained Humor Analyst know that this silly idea is false. If you want to know what I think is funny, try the following webcomics -
Perry Bible Fellowship
Dinosaur Comics
Achewood
Chainsawsuit
Married To The Sea
#8. "Isn't the whole point of this blog stupid, because humor is entirely subjective?"
OK. here's how it works. Obviously, different things are funny to different people. We all have different experiences and can relate to different things. Person A might laugh at a really great joke about the French Revolution and person B will have no idea what the point is because he never learned about the French Revolution. Or something. Anyway the point is there are clearly some things that people don't think are funny. I'm not talking about terminal diseases, where someone like Cyanide and Happiness makes a joke about it and people go "NOT FUNNY." I'm talking about plain old boring things. A man eats an apple. A yardsale gets rained out. A waiter is particularly friendly. Basically no one (Rob excluded of course) would laugh at those, right? There is something about those situations that is less funny than, say, a funny situation on Arrested Development (or whatever you happen to think is funny).
So there has to be some element of humor that is objective. If you can't agree with that, you are not going to like this blog, and you should probably leave. I'm not trying to be a dick (well, no more than usual) but it's just that we are a community that tries to discuss humor and get at the heart of it, and as a prerequisite, we think there is actually something to find. I don't think it's unreasonable, but then again, I don't think any of my opinions are unreasonable.
#9. "How long to you plan to continue this infantile blog?"
Until it stops being fun.
#10. "Aren't you predisposed to hate every xkcd because you write a blog that relies on them sucking?"
This is a very good question and a point I worry about a lot. I try as best as I can to be openminded, and not just say "eh that sucks" with no particular reason. I read the forums to see how people predisposed to like the comic think, and I encourage people who think I'm totally wrong to comment and explain why, and I have been known to admit that certain comics are better than I give them credit for.
So, in other words, we've been feeding a troll. Good to know.
This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.
This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.
Evidently they're not the only people who need to have humour explained to them. :p
I've not bothered reading Twilight and probably never will so I made the point in a way that I had hoped was universal enough that it could be understood by everyone. Let me restate then.
If Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the site you mentioned STILL lambasted it, picking on trifling minutiae in lieu of the major flaws her books usually do have, then I would call the writer of that blog a pathetic wanker.
But that's the whole point, Battuta. It isn't criticism. It's just ridicule. Ridicule for its own sake. Frequently, ridicule whilst deliberately missing the point of the work being ridiculed.
I do retract my troll comment, though. That was out of line.
1. Look, I happen to enjoy some of XKCDs jokes because I do find them genuinely funny. In fact, two of them are decorating my cubicle at work.
2. The POINT of humour is to be humourous, not be subjected to rigorous critical analysis. Everyone enjoys humour differently. I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it, and if you sit down and critique how unfunny it is to you, it just makes you appear like a gigantic douchebag.
3. As likely the only, or one of very few, people who has actually read all four Twilight novels from cover to cover, I look at the infantile comments people make about how bad it is and am reminded of a popular statement: "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt." Stephanie Meyer is not a literary genius, by any stretch, but it's not the worst popular fiction I've ever read by a long stretch. It would seem that the majority of criticism is being leveled by people who never actually bothered to read the complete story... which I would file under "Ignorant" on the critical analysis continuum.
I don't buy that. I think everybody agrees The Simpsons is less funny than it used to be. When this was still a divisive issue, sitting down and explaining why could have been illuminating, and maybe even helped reverse the decline. Simpsons critics have probably been accused of being gigantic douchebags, but in the end the consensus turned out to be in their favor.
I have never watched much TV so I have very little stake in the issue. But I did read io9's Futurama movie reviews, and they were another instance of analyzing humor and explaining where it sometimes failed.
But there's plenty of criticism on, for example, the gender dynamics of Twilight which is quite informed, quite thoroughly non-infantile and quite nuanced. I know someone who did a paper on the first book both criticizing its treatment of control and praising its willingness to depict active female sexuality.
And I'm not sure that ties in to the debate over this blog as the man clearly does read XKCD. Calling him a pointless wanker is maybe fair, but it stands at odds with the reactions many of us would have, to, for example, lists ripping apart the Star Wars prequels on both the macro and micro level. I think a lot of us would appreciate those, but someone not interested in Star Wars would probably see it as geek masturbation.
I can pretty reliably point to something that's funny and at least take a stab at why I think it is. Sure, it kills the joke, but when the question is why something's not funny the joke is already dead. You can't make it funny again, but you can establish rules to obey. And comedians do certainly have rules.
Also, click heah for something I enjoy. (http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-01-27-advanced_dungeons_and_discourse.jpg)
Also, click heah for something I enjoy. (http://dresdencodak.com/comics/2009-01-27-advanced_dungeons_and_discourse.jpg)
See, I personally do not find that funny. I mean there was a few parts that were a little cute, but I probably only smirked a little.
this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP
this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP
If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous. This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.
If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous. This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.
I was about to bring up this point myself.
I always hold comedians who decide to make fun of other comedians to a simple standard. You'd better be funnier than the person you're taking the mickey out of or it would be a better use of my time to simply ignore you and watch the other guy.
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!I'm sure this isn't what you meant but...
(there is a great comeback here)
Oh yeah, well your face is subjective!
If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change? :p
If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change? :p
And man, not only do I get only about half of the references in that strip you linked, but its physical layout is absolutely atrocious. That artist seriously needs to take some sort of sequential art class.
In short: Just STOP already. It's not often that GD actually raises my ire by a significant level, but the sheer inanity of this discussion is making my head-shaking rate increase to a level that might have a negative impact on my health.
Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence. I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right. At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing. :p Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.
Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence. I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right.
At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing. :p
Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.
(And yes, I'm aware that there was sort of an inherent bias in me reading it in the context of this conversation, but I do know that I wouldn't have understood several of the references regardless.)
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!
But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!
Yes, but they are trying to claim you can objectively grade it in their FAQ. So they're wrong?
(there is a great comeback here)
TRAP CARD ZOMGwait what
(http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/you-just-activated-my-trap-card.jpg)
JUST AS I FORESAW
I think I've made my stance on xkcdsucks.com clear by now.
No, you just missed the point.you mean this:QuoteI think I've made my stance on xkcdsucks.com clear by now.
You can read back if you're interested.
Personally, when something hits a critical mass of being recognized and cited, I like to have a countervailing opinion on it so I can dissect it, look smart, and get babes. (And semikidding aside, I really do think it's fairly weak, I'm just not all that passionate about it either way.)understandable, coo, but in my experience, guys like that get less babes than I.
Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site (referencing the fact that it's probably taken things a bit too far), so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.
I actually bet that you and almost everyone you know feels the same way about something, whether it's Twilight, some tween card game, Avatar, or some other bit of dubious cultural desiderata.
I actually bet that you and almost everyone you know feels the same way about something, whether it's Twilight, some tween card game, Avatar, or some other bit of dubious cultural desiderata.
Yes, but it takes a special kind of No Life to dedicate one's time and energy to a blog about it.
Yes, but it takes a special kind of No Life to dedicate one's time and energy to a blog about it.
If your leisure activity is going out of your way to find something wrong with a particular webcomic strip, then you have problems.
Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.
So basically, you can't spare one, possibly two hours a day on a leisure activity, without being accused of "no life"?
Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.
I've told people off for going too far when having a go at Derek Smart.
So not only are you wrong, I've got proof you're talking bollocks. :p
I've done so myself. But I doubt you've written any angry letters to the numerous Internet diaries of Derek Smart's hilarities. They're not close enough for you to care!
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.
And I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.
Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.
See, I can claim bias too. :p
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.
That's a rather pointless argument though. I could similarly claim that you wouldn't have posted the XKCDSucks site if you didn't care about XKCD or XKCDSucks. I can point out we wouldn't be on the 6th page of this topic if you didn't care, you would have simply accepted the comment that they were wankers and moved on.
QuoteAnd I don't think you've made an argument for simple bashing, I think the site itself makes a good argument for just being overzealous. Plus you again can't call anyone a wanker without individuating and attributing; there's more than one person here.
Probably cause you actually like XKCDSucks.
See, I can claim bias too. :p
I did accept the comment; made it clear I wouldn't necessarily dispute it. You can read back a few pages and find it. It kept getting pressed for some reason. Unclear on why.
'Claim bias', what a bizarre notion. It's like 'claiming language'. It's always present.
Because you have repeatedly claimed that whether someone likes a site or not has relevance to this discussion. It really doesn't and now you seem to be finally claiming that. If you want to try to claim we must argue this matter without bringing up your attachment to the site you should afford me the same courtesy and avoid continually claiming that I would be of your opinion about a subject I didn't like or didn't care about.
Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site (referencing the fact that it's probably taken things a bit too far), so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.
Which is why I have an issue with you saying I have it.
Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.
Whether or not it's run by a wanker or not I have trouble bringing myself to give a **** about.
Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.
As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.
Given that you have spent 6 pages trying to persuade me that I'm wrong. I don't believe you.
As for bias, you've missed my point. I have a problem with you trying to claim (as you did above) that you don't have a bias in this argument but I do.
Contrary to what you may have heard, Battuta and I are not a single entity. (For one thing, that'd mean Rian and Alessia are too.)
Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.
I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?
Also again, you wouldn't be saying that if the target was something you dislike. You can argue that's not true but I really won't believe you.
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.
The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.
/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.
Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.
You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"
why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community
new website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.
Yeah looking back I can't see any assertions along those lines. I think it's something constructed on your side.
You can't? Okay, lets get started then.I think you think he's pathetic because you disagree with him. I think if he was writing about Twilight, or passages from Terry Brooks novels (both of which I've seen), can't you conceive of a situation in which you'd find this a hilarious and worthwhile pastime?
i.e You're saying "You're biased because you like XKCD. If you didn't like it you would have a more objective view/agree with me."
Now you're basically saying the same thing to Iamzack.
No, I've said you'd be willing to accept excessive criticism if you didn't like the subject matter but also didn't particularly care about the subject matter. Opinions are plotted on what is at the very least a two-axis plane, with valence only being one axis.
And now again you're saying the same thing but you've substitute caring for liking. Doesn't really pertain in the slightest as to whether the site is a pathetic waste of time or not, which if you recall was the matter at hand.
The reason this discussion is ongoing is because people have tied their own egos into the issues. It's the same reason most arguments go on.
Finally you get to the real reason this is still going. So since you are well aware why this discussion has gone on so long why not drop this bull**** about caring or liking websites and get back to the matter at hand. Is the xkcdsucks website a waste of time?
With that in mind shall I point out that Rob is himself getting significant criticism on that website from people who are calling him out for the same **** that I've called him on. For instance this postQuote/sigh...Rob ever since you took over your hate has been arbitrary and pathetic. Sure xkcdsucks has been going down hill for a bit, and it seemed like it was starting to stretch for the hate rather than letting it flow naturally, but the heart was always there.
Rob you are to xkcdsucks what Randal is to xkcd. Sure you mean well and want to deliver quality, but it always seems forced and mechanical.
You didn't even attack the comic from a comedy angle. You were just all "THATS IMPOSSIBLZ RAWR! COMIC BADZ! BLARG! I HATZE NERRRRRRDS!!!! RAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!"
I'll post that as supporting evidence against NGTM-1R since he appears to have missed it when I pointed out the exact same flaw in the writers criticism. Oh, while I'm at it.
why the ****ing 'he', this is like the ninth time I've pointed out it's a community
I'll point out that all the posts on the front page are by Rob and at the top of the page we haveQuotenew website!
Dear beloved reader - if you have not heard the news, I've stopped blogging here and started up a new site called webcomics.me. It's a general webcomics blog and I am excited to see how it goes. You can read more about why I made this decision here. As to what will happen to dear old xkcdsucks - it's unclear. Rob seems to still want to post sometimes. That's cool. I don't plan to write much more here, it'll all be over at the new place.
Sounds like first person singular to me. But if it avoids this particular complaint coming up again let's assume Rob is the sad act wanker that we're referring to with he.
I'll address this point first.
When the hell did I imply that you were? You quote a post in which not only did I directly reply to Battata but even directly quoted him. '
You never brought up bias so the argument doesn't apply to you.
I don't!
WHERE IS YOUR BIAS NOW.
You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.
You can disregard the bias argument because I was bringing it up entirely to point out that I wasn't allowing bias to affect my point of view despite Battuta's repeated claims that I was.
Also, this is a public thread. If you don't want to have a discussion where people interject about bias whether you like it or not, I suggest you discuss that point over PMs instead of "this isn't your business".