You would make Penny Arcade's "Tycho" cry at your overuse of unneeded vocabulary.

.....

I THOUGHT IT WAS DEAD!!!! ZOMBIE HAYTER HAS RISEN FROM HIS GRAVE!!!

OH SWEET MERCY KILL IT BEFORE IT STARTS TO BREED!!!!!!

(PS - what in heavens name made you think that anybody was going to sit here and read that 90 page dissertation on the importance of watching paint peel?)

I like how you attempted to disprove your reputation for wordiness by writing A HUGE FUGGIN' ESSAY on it.

Way to defeat your own point, skippy.

This post is the epitome of tl;dr.

I tried to read, for God knows why, but Rico's right. You use so much unneeded vocabulary its not even funny. Some of those entire paragraphs could be broken down into a single line. GET TO THE POINT.

Paragraph by paragraph translation of the post:

This is my 750th post. I'm using it to try and prove I'm not a clueless person.

I'm misunderstood due to my newbie days, I'm not sure why this is, but I do not appreciate it.

Vector was supposed to write up something about this in summer, but I forgot to press him on it, so I'm trying again.

The following links are not links, but quicklinks to the finer points of this very post.

(4 links)

Despite what you believe, the editorial you all quote is not genuine, at least I think this is the case, I'm not totally certain.

The editorial being the basis for my personality is not fair, as I was not a member of the site and had no opportunity to defend myself.

I was "testing" Vector by making the prank editorial. It's unfair that people judged me on my parody, but there were things which are true, like my tangentially way of writing posts.

I've also faked things on the board. I'm not sure how many. For instance "reviews are based on facts", no one questioned wether I meant that or not.

I didn't want the editorial posted, that's why I used my real name. I sent Vector an e-mail a few days after telling him not to post it.

Also, I don't wish people to bring up the ironic references to my real life, such as "kids threw boulders at me" which is not true, but other things were true, like being framed for stealing the substitute's bag. My bullying wasn't physical (although some of it was and it was severe). The original comment was a joke based on Sonique saying real heroes don't cry, and that people are bullied for crying.

I didn't explain the editorial was a joke at the time, because I wasn't on the forum. When I did, people made references to the editorial and I realised that it must have been posted, but didn't clear it up then, either. I IMed Vec about it being a hoax and he said that if it was a hoax, it's a masterpiece and should announce it. That's why I'm making this post.

-

A while ago I made statements about how weird it is to have a strange person coming to your house and taking pictures, which really offended forumer Craig Bayfield, who over-reacted and caused a needless arguement out of it.

Another example of people saying things which isn't true is Acrio claiming I have diabettes from someone at elementary school. I said no thing to this effect. I did complain about being picked on making me complain less about the symptoms of type 1 diabettes and resulted in a later diagnosis, giving another example of how I am misquoted and misunderstood.

People who accuse me of putting words into people's mouths end up being the ones who put them in mine.

-

People notice I say "how was I supposed to know...." alot, but it suits the occasion.

For example, with the "Reviews are facts" thing, it was based on forum posts at Gamespot. I didn't think they were facts to the effect people believe, but I wasn't faking either, I was just basing points on other people's words. I read reviews as opinions yet convinced myself otherwise, had I have been less gulliable, I wouldn't have appeared ignorant. Does that make me stupid?

Most people referred to me as stupid in the past, but recently I was called stupid in the chat based solely on my past.

I'm a smart person and have an 89% average on my report card, I'm not entirely sure what the reasoning is for everyone, I only get a few chances to rebute people's opinions of me.

-

Can you at least cite some examples of my stupidity, to give me a chance to defend myself?

Could you please state what you think of me, using examples and quotes? I don't see any consistancy in people's opinions on me. Some say it's my tangents and longwinded posts which make it not worth looking at, I accept that it's hypocritical for me to ask people to read my posts when I, myself, do not. Perhaps typing them does not give me an accurate perception on what it's like to read them, so now I will proofread posts before posting.

I don't understand how I can be accused of diluting my point, it may not be the same people, but it's a popular opinion and contradicts the longwinded claim.

Some say my time away does more for my reputation than anything I post can ever do, I disagree. I do not have specific points right now, but I have alot to contribute and it'll let you take me more seriously.

This topic wont get debated much, but I feel I've said my pieces and given you all something to consider.

*reads craig's translation, finds the origional post far too long to make sence of it. even the craig version is rather long to follow.* ^^;

you know, instead of trying to explain yourself and possibly winding yourself and others up, why not just act on what you've learnt and let the matter drop and move on? i'd forgotten about how much you post until that block of text leapt at me.

Thats quite possibly the longest post I've seen from Craig barring back when he was creative and did stuff in Evalc's.

Ok, so, I saw the question asking for my opinion of you. Kay, and let me say before you started making these nauseatingly long posts I had no clue who you were and never read any editorials barring short ones in which people foamed at mouth about cartoon characters for no apparent reason.

The good is that you are in fact well read, non-violent, and always explain yourself fully. I don't remember your name ever being synonymous with things that would warrant me "keeping an eye" on you.

The bad is you try to stuff the fact that you are well read into people's faces with posts like that one and they just end up ignoring you. Additionally, you seem to rather lack "street smarts" as some rather rudimentary things like toilet humor and pop culture escape you.

~Tobe

Thank you Craig, you are my new god. But to the point, I can really only respond to this in one way "ugh". The only thing this post has done is "solidify" your reputation, not clear it or "help" it (if I'm getting the point of this.)

Why on earth do you care so much about your reputation on an insignificant online forum? Please answer in fifty words or less.

Quote:

---

The main reason for my previous return (I'm referring to from more than a year ago) was to challenge my reputation, yet for the most part, my discussion of it was either in the chat or has been in tangents within other threads, so I made a separate thread, to question my reputation, as my 750th post. However, I want to point out that 750 being 3/4 of 1000 wasn't the only reason for me waiting until this thread to post again... I more so wanted to challenge my reputation directly before I made another post on the board because if it's apparently popular opinion not to "bother with" my posts because of my "history" on this site then I should go over some of that history; And to be honest it's not just that, I also consider challenging my reputation an end in itself... I'm not sure if that's the right wording...

My general idea is this; If my history on this site is the basis for many things commonly said about me, then I should probably have it be my own basis for my view that popular opinion has often misunderstood me on this site... and granted, I can't help but think that I've probably misunderstood popular opinion on this site as well, but my point is about the former, and perhaps in expressing my view about that I might be told a bit more about the latter.

As for why Ive waited until now for this, its really more so that during the summer theres something that I was waiting for Vector to do in the staff board before I started typing this up and I didnt realize, until later, that I didnt even tell him I was waiting on that particular thing, and during the school year I barely had time to type this.

(... before I continue, I'd like to mention that the links below arent to other sites or even threads but to different parts of this post; I decided to break this post up into smaller segments of a larger post, since different sections apply to different people in different ways and with this approach some people can skip some sections, and I think many will probably want to for obvious reasons...)

First section is by far the longest, only there for those who remember and/or were told about my editorial, (and not even for necessarily all of them) If I recall correctly, my editorial was fake, at least to some extent...

Next applying more recently, some things I've said were misinterpreted to the extent that it'd be almost as if people thought I said something that I didn't say at all...

Some things I was ignorant of aren't as obvious as you'd think they'd be, so I doubt they "prove" that I'm "stupid."

However, there's more recent things related to my reputation. (Main section, has what I'm also saying to newer people)

How many people here have read any of my editorial? Right now I'm guessing many of you have given how often my editorial has been referenced, albeit often I didn't realize the references at the time. How many of you thought of it as being even close to consistently genuine? I'm still guessing many, because that seems to be for the most part what those I've talked to about it seemed to think at first... but those who did had the wrong impression from before I even joined. (Except for those who heard about it later...) If I recall correctly, much if not most of it was fake, though granted, given that it's been years since I sent it I'm not completely sure how much... I can't remember for 100% sure what I was thinking when I sent it given how long ago it was, but I'm going by what I either surely or barely remember, or sometimes what I figured out from what I remember from IRL around the time... so apply "if I recall correctly" to the rest of this section.

When sending the editorial I didn't think I'd join Sonic HQ's forums, I doubt I was even aware at the time that Sonic HQ even had forums. Similarily, I didn't realize when I was first on this site's forums that my editorial was posted, I probably wouldve responded to the references differently if I did. I'm just making a point about distancing my posts from my editorial, given that my editorial had things in it similar to things I was repeatedly accused of later on, such as pretending things to see the reaction. (I remember from back then that I read the dates on the editorials before even starting mine and ironically wanted them to be pointed out, I didn't really think that Sonic Heroes "sold 0 units", etc... there's more examples I'll mention later in this section) Ive also noticed how it seems that those who reference my editorial tend to also be those who more directly call me stupid, dumb, asinine, etc... and that apparent connection (between the extent to which they associate me with the editorial and the extent to which they would consider me dumb) has a fair bit to do with me clarifying this.

I guess you could call the editorial as a whole a prank or maybe an act or maybe even experiment is better, given that I was "testing" Vector in a way. As I mentioned before, if people thought I meant much of what I said in it, that would imply having the wrong impression since before I even joined. Whos to say that having that wrong impression while reading my posts wouldnt have made them further misinterpret later posts? People on this site have even said things like "it's not just ignorance of reviews, remember, you're still the same person who thought Sonic Heroes sold 0 units" and in that case, those who read my editorial ironically had LESS of an accurate impression than those who didnt. I'm going to base other points in later parts of this post on that guess. Now, to be fair, I also recall that there were some things in there that I meant. I associated some of my actual opinions with the editorial when giving deliberately silly reasons for them, as well as less genuine opinions that I mixed with the more genuine ones, and obviously, my editorial and my posts have tangential longwindedness in common, but the fact that I was writing tangentially in the editorial doesnt mean my posts should be associated with it, just that I tend to be longwinded and tangential, and that writing style showed through during a prank... and just like I repeated the tangential longwindedness on the board, many opinions I associated with the editorial, I repeated on the board. So while I myself am not sure, Id say to go by whether or not I repeated it on the board.

And Im not saying Ive never faked anything on the board either; I think some things I said on the board (and I think most of them were years ago) were partly fake as well. How many? Im not sure. Yes, I admit that at least in my earlier time on this site, there are probably more examples of me pretending things than I can even remember, but I want to point this out; I do believe that for the most part when I was accused of faking it wasnt the case and when it WAS the case tended to be when it went unnoticed. You might be wondering where Im coming from, so Ill make a comparison; In my critics view of Sonic thread, others were insisting, despite what I was saying, that I couldnt possibly have meant that I thought reviews were supposed to be facts... but did anyone here ever question me as to whether or not I genuinely meant what I said in my editorial? Not that Im aware of.

Now, a few months ago in my chats with Vector I at first guessed that I originally didn't intend for the editorial to be posted. It's been years so I had to do some guessing since my memory isn't perfectly clear, but I take that assumption back because I was nowhere near as sure of that as I am of the intentional irony, the pretend ignorance, and that when I sent the editorial I didn't think I'd join this site's board. Myself guessing that I didn't at first intend for the editorial to be posted was probably based on my real name being in it, and how I remember around the time I sent the editorial I probably would've thought that rumours about the editorial would quickly spread and someone IRL would have heard of it, given how, from what I remember, that's what I thought of when I thought of the Internet back either when I sent the editorial or not long before I sent it. However, now that I think about it more carefully, that was probably the reason for me sending the second e-mail a few days later (too late) changing my mind about it and asking Vector not to post it, so I'm sure that a few days afterwards I didn't intend it to be posted, but I'm not so sure about before I sent it... I also remember, from before I sent it, wanting to see how other people than Vector would respond and I don't know why I myself would put so much into seeing a response from one person... such as my comment about a fake Archie cartoon that makes fun of both Jerry Springer and inter-species relationships, that was actually mine, I wanted to see if it'd be apparent from how I described it that it was my own, and I doubt that wouldve worked very well with just one person. I take back that earlier guess, just in case Vec mentioned it to anyone... I'm correcting myself on that much but I still believe that those same 3 things I mentioned early in this paragraph apply.

Another thing Id like to distance my board posts from my editorial with is the mention of being picked on in school. No, I didnt actually expect people on this site to believe that bullies threw boulders at me, I think I was more so at the time trying to see if people who werent from where I was from, thus probably wouldnt have heard about what I was describing otherwise, wouldve been able to tell, from the way I was describing it, that I was mixing things that werent true (such as the boulders part) with things that were true (such as the part about being framed for taking stuff out of the substitute teachers purse, this actually did occur in grade 6) but come to think of it I shouldnt have used those experiences as part of an act. Were I to more genuinely discuss being picked on, it would probably be more about such that would be verbal (such as the crybaby insult) and situation-based (such as the teachers purse thing) than physical, because despite that I dont remember the bullying as well as I did years ago, I do recall that most of it wasnt physical. (Although some of it was physical and within it some of the physical stuff was rather severe...) Id like to also point out that from what Ive seen of editorial references there seemed to be a double-misinterpretation. I wasnt even pretending to think the Sonic-bad-influence idea and the bullying were connected yet some seemed to get the impression that the purpose of the bullying mention was to connect it to the idea of Sonic being a bad influence. To clarify, it was more so pretending to think that Sonique was a hypocrite for her comments about the idea of fictional heroes crying, just because there are real people who get picked on worse when they cry, when I actually considered that it was likely that she was against that as well. The kind of response I recall aiming for was something along the lines of "It's not like she said real people should be picked on worse when they cry, nor would her editorial show you that shed do that, if anything one would think that it would if anything DISTANCE her from that approach to real-life crying, if anything it should show you some common ground, so why act as if youre Soniques opposite in terms of everything over different opinions on a cartoon of all things?" (for the record though, the issue with me, IRL, with the crybaby insult wasnt so much about me choosing to display emotion so much as that I couldnt even help it that I cried) and although I did have a slight dislike of Sonique at the time, I pretended it was more so, in my editorial, than was really there. Granted, I guess similar wording could be used to say I probably assumed more patience on Vecs part than was really there...

As I already mentioned a few times, when I sent that editorial, I didn't think I'd join Sonic HQ's forums. So why didn't I explain my editorial when I did? As I already mentioned, when I first joined this site's forums I didn't realize the editorial was posted; I didn't see the editorial and knew it wasn't worth being posted, and I didn't find it until that August, or maybe September Im not sure, but thats beside the point. In my first couple of weeks at this forum, people referenced things from my editorial (with comments like "You said Sonic Heroes sold 0 units, it didn't") and if I realized, at the time, that my editorial was actually posted, I probably wouldve said right then and there that my editorial doesnt count. That August, when I realized the editorial was posted, I didnt mention it on the board (well, until now that is; Probably shouldve sooner though) and Im not sure, maybe its that I didnt want to draw attention to it and I do recall that at the time, I considered it something rather big to deal with and the school year was just about to start. It didnt come to mind much after that for a while. Later, however, I remember when I was lurking in the SPA last spring I came across a topic that is now deleted where people were talking about my editorial. Not only did it remind me of my editorial but it made me think carefully about how much I'm associated with it, and it made me look more closely into it. After that, I checked my sent folder, and saw that I myself didn't send him that other e-mail therefore didn't even tell him the whole story about it. In the chat PM, when talking to Vector, I compared something in the chat to my editorial and it was then that Vec saw that it was "a hoax" as he put it then. Luckily he didn't mind knowing I pretended all that and even went so far as to say that if it's a hoax, it's a masterpiece, and that I should take credit for it by announcing it, though Im not saying that he represents the board in saying that. From that the idea eventually went into being (obviously) used as the idea for this part of this post, which brings us where we are now...

A while ago in the Bristol Meet-Up thread, I was talking about how surprised I was by a certain example of an Internet relationship. Despite that in my first post after being told that was the case I described it by saying the first time they met at all... was on the Internet? And now, a couple IRL? Awesome many seemed to think I was talking negatively about it, such as for example with someone saying they dont get the fuss another person saying they didnt need anyones approval (I didnt even come CLOSE to suggesting that they did) and another person saying Just because you can't imagine it, doesn't mean it can't happen despite that I was saying I COULD imagine it. What reason is there to think that I meant to say couldnt?

However, what that's being compared to is the idea of being accused of saying something that I didn't say at all. An example of this on this site is when Acrio (followed later by others like Wonderbat and I'm not really sure who else) claimed that I was saying a certain person who picked on me in elementary school gave me diabetes. I said no such thing. I recall at one point associating being picked on with ending up in ketoacidosis by suggesting that being picked on might have contributed to me being less willing to complain about the type 1 diabetes symptoms, which delayed the diagnosis, and if I was diagnosed earlier I probably wouldn't have ended up in ketoacidosis, but I did not associate being picked on with the diabetes itself... just giving an example of a case where I was accused of saying something I didn't say at all, for comparing an example of the extent to which I am misunderstood (sometimes) to it...

You might be wondering where I am going with this... I find that often times people who tend to believe I "put words in people's mouths" tend to be the same people who do so of my words; Even if they dont actually think I said things that I didnt say at all, that would still throw off my reputation a fair bit, wouldnt it?

I'm guessing many who've seen my posts over the years mightve noticed by now that I tend to use the wording how was I supposed to know [such and such] a fair bit... but I do believe that it often suits te situation.

For example, theres the critics view of Sonic thread that I mentioned in the previous section. First, Id like to mention that despite the apparent contradiction, myself insisting so heavily that reviews were facts was actually for the very same reason as me suddenly withdrawing that idea completely at a certain point in time so, opposite effects for the same reason that reason is about how dependent the very extent of meaning to the topic was on that assumption; In other words, how closely based on that assumption the very idea for the topic initially was. This was in turn based on what was said by Gamespot Forums users and not rebutalled there. So I didnt really think of them as facts to the same extent as I gave the impression I did, but not because I was faking it or anything like that, but simply because I was basing my points on what others were saying about them. When reading reviews, they actually seemed subjective to me. I couldnt help but think they were opinion, but I made myself think otherwise. Ironically, its myself not trusting my own judgement that contributed to the ignorance because if I trusted it, what I thought about reviews wouldve been more along the lines of what others would have known. So would that really qualify me as stupid, even if based on the albeit silly extent of my ignorance about reviews? I do recall saying in that thread that when reading reviews I thought it looked like opinion and that the reason I assumed reviews were facts was because thats what I was being told on GS forums, and though I do recall having heard of reviews before GS, I didnt talk about them or read much about them until GS. Ok, so depending on how one looks at it, it could be considered stupid to go by what people on GS forums were saying, but is it really such to enough of an extent that when going to the site I heard more about reviews from than I ever did before... and seeing people on its forums insist, without getting rebutalled by others there, that reviews were fact, that NOT going by what it merely seemed like... would qualify as stupid?

Now, to be fair, being called that seems to be more so from the past than recently, but Ive nonetheless been called dumb within the past few days here for reasons such as my history on this site and Ive noticed that for the most part those who more directly call me stupid seem to tend to be those who read my editorial, and the first section of this post has my point about that.

To be fair, Im not even really sure what exactly popular opinion is here on the extent to which Im dumb but theres few if any rebutalls (other than mine, that is) when Im called that or similar terms, and parodies of me often seem to portray me as that. So, aside from the example a couple paragraphs above, Ill also point out that I had an 89% average on my last report card, and have been on the honour roll for years, without slipping off it as far as I recall, at the schools Ive been to the past few years... and it seems that Im widely considered smart IRL, yet here I doubt thats the case.

So far I've done different categories of examples of where I believe many got the wrong impression. Again, if my history on this site is grounds for others to say certain things about me, then wouldnt at least citing examples, of where many mightve misunderstood me, from WITHIN my history, be reasonably comparable?

Now, to be fair, Im not sure of exactly what popular opinion thinks of me, but I dont think were supposed to ask that, and that's part of why that wasn't the original approach of this thread anyway, as in how it was more along the lines of comments than questions. Its just that I dont see much of a consistent approach, some say its things Ive said in the past that turn people away from my topics, some say its my tangentiality and longwindedness that makes people take the approach that it isn't worth it; Now, given those as two examples Ill show how Ill try to tackle different reasons. With regards to things I've said on the past, I've explained many examples of them. With regards to longwindedness, Ive accepted that its probably hypocritical for me to expect others to read my posts if I myself don't always read them. The more I think about it the more it seems that merely typing them doesnt give me an accurate enough idea of what it's like to read them, so from now on Im going to read over my own posts before posting them. Well, Im not sure if Id call that a promise, but its something Ill aim for doing more so than Ive done in the past... (and yes, I did so with this one) while I still think I've made some underappreciated changes over the years, there's another one for you...

Still though, with regards to some comments, they seem to often contradict each other. Ive seen people tell me about how I dilute my point (which I want to emphasize is often my way of showing that I acknowledge the other side of the story, if that's the right wording) and yet Ive also seen people talk about how I act very closed-minded... (in which case diluting my point might help) and granted they might not necessarily be the same people, but still, I dont think Ive seen popular opinion distance itself from either approach, so I think it's reasonable to associate them with each other...

I have ideas Ive been waiting to mention for quite a while, especially with how long this has taken. Some say that the breaks Ive taken on this rep thread do more for the forum than I could ever do otherwise; I challenge that idea as well. Now granted I dont have specific examples at this point in time but I still think youd be surprised what I could contribute were I to be taken more seriously.

Even if this topic isnt going to be debated much, Im more so aiming to have what Ive said in this post be at least considered... as long as people at least consider what Im saying here I think its probably worth it...

---

you owe me one new scroll mouse 🙁 and what dirk said.

Too... many... words... *twitch*

Aside from that, I don't recall reading any editorials or such.
However, reading such a long post is like reading Shakespeare; it's not you can't understand what's there, but it really makes your brain hurt when thinking about it.

Reminds me of when I want to explain. I wanna keep it short, but my brain has too much to say, so it's difficult to condense.

I don't even think I made it halfway through that first post, though.

I would like to point out that I have told Matt several times in PM conversations to leave a reputation thread to less than five paragraphs (I had long since given up on informing him not to make one at all.)

Less than 5 paragraphs? How about just one? And Matt, cut your argument down to this, "I learned my lesson," and we'll accept you

But Tornadot, he didn't, as shown by the first post in this topic =

It's a suggestion for Mat 5 months down the line when he returns after this subsequent tongue lashing we're giving him.

Sounds kinky.

First of all, I know it was long, but still, more than half of it is from the section about my editorial and having it so you could skip certain sections is what I used anchor points for. Perhaps I should edit the way I used anchor points to make that a bit clearer... I didn't actually expect people to read it through from beginning to end, but more so for different people to read different sections, as is with this post. I've used anchor points used again, this time it's for different users whom I responded to so they can click on their username to see my response to them. Those users are... Wonderbat... Chibibecca... Rico... Dirk... Kaze... SX... Tornadot... and Craig

Wonderbat, you say I was attempting to disprove my reputation for wordiness, but did I at any point in time in that post say I was challenging the longwindedness component of my reputation? I thought I made it clear that I was more so challenging other aspects of my reputation...

ChibiBecca, the idea for me to "move on" doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that my posts shouldn't be "bothered with" because of my "history"... not saying that you necessarily go by that approach, as your post seems to indicate that you wouldn't... but when you question my approach (and I'm not saying at all that it shouldn't be questioned) why don't you question those who say that my "history on this site" is their basis for saying certain things about me?

Rico, I'm not sure what you mean by "well read" therefore I'm also unsure what you mean by saying that I shove being such into others' faces, but I'm glad to see that the extent to which I explain myself fully is appreciated. That said I wasn't asking what others' opinions about me were, but that's more so because from what I've been told it wasn't allowed...

Dirk, that's tough to explain even without your word limit. I'm not really sure why myself. I guess it's a combination of how I care unusually much what others online or off think of me and how I tend to feel that challenging popular opinion is something that I "should" do...

Kaze, while I appreciate your patience in attempting to read all the way through the first post, I'd like to point out what I mentioned in my "first of all" paragraph in this post. Anyway, I think I agree that your problem is similar to mine, I often try to keep it short but because I have so much to say it isn't easy to condense. As for your analogy about Shakespeare, I'd like to extend it by saying that aside from a few apparent misinterpretations, Craig Bayfield's "translation" of my post is similar in some ways to my English teacher's translations of Shakespeare, so I'd say it's pretty good to go by... then again my points weren't referring to you as much as they were to those who call me stupid, or associate me with my editorial, etc...

SX, I don't recall you ever telling me to keep it to five paragraphs, let alone saying such "several times" Whether you did or not, though, as I pointed out it was a long post more so because I had so much to say, though granted looking back on it I can't help but think that much of it didn't need to be said...

Tornadot, it's not like you speak for the forum in saying that I'd be accepted. If such is the case, that wouldn't explain people citing my "history on this site" as a reason for calling me "dumb"

Craig, when reading your translation, you seem to have a helpful approach, yet at some points it looks almost as if you're making fun of me... but I'm not sure so for now I'll take your word for it.

I wasn't saying that I wasn't questioned as to whether or not I meant reviews were based on facts, quite the opposite since I was saying that I was beyond questioned as to whether or not I meant that and that no one questioned me about the editorial. I wasn't saying that I didn't want the editorial posted, quite the opposite, I was saying that despite my previous assumption that I didn't want the editorial posted I take that assumption back because looking back on it, it just doesn't make much sense with how some components of my prank wouldn't have worked very well with one person. I wasn't saying that my bullying wasn't physical and that it was at the same time, I was saying that MOST of it wasn't physical and SOME of it was, and that SOME of the physical stuff was rather severe. I appreciate your willingness to criticize yourself with regards to the Bristol Meet-Up thread, although I'd like to point out that if it was the comment I made BEFORE Samanfur explained the relationship to me that offended you, I think you should've clearly stated at the time that it was that and not the comments I made AFTER Samanfur's explanation that offended you... just a little bit of advice in return for yours...

I still think to describe the editorial as an "act" is better wording than "joke" because joke would be kinda misleading, as it wasn't exactly aiming to be funny as much as it was based on pretending things out of curiosity to see the response, and I'm not really sure how to emphasize this without wasting too much text on specific examples. Other than that, however, for much of it, as I mentioned before, I couldn't help but think that I couldn't have said it better myself. You've certainly helped, thank you very much. I'm going to assume that was your intention, as I don't have much reason to believe otherwise. I should probably look at your summarized version and then compare it to my own to see if I can make a bit of a middle ground between the two approaches...

Though for now, I'll just edit the first post so as to slightly change the anchor points, because I really should be going to bed soon...

People call you dumb because you fail to get it. Like Becca said, drop the matter and move on. Don't ask for reasons why everyone treats you like this. It's the internet, people can be sarcastic all the time. Roll with it. I can say with some confidence, even if I don't speak for the entire forum, that if you stop posting an ESSAY about...man what was that about anyways?

You get the idea...if you would stop doing that and just be a good forumer, maybe we can forget your ways. If you keep acting like this everytime you leave and then come back, you can only expect the same reaction.

Matt, people here call you stupid, dumb, etc. because whenever we tell you that your post is too long, you make another long post explaining why your post is not too long.

We know you have a lot to say, but it needs to be said quickly. No one takes you seriously because no one reads your posts. No one reads your posts because they are too long, and have too much information. This is not a scientific study; you don't need to put in every detail.

I can almost, ALMOST, garuntee you that if you shorten your posts down to three paragraphs at most, you'll get at least some respect.

Matt, have you ever heard of Elie Wiesel? He's a pretty famous writer who wrote "Night". It's a nice, short little 128 page book. The amazing thing about this book is Elie originally had written it as a 900 page book.

That's what you need to do. Take your 7 page post and chop it down to a 2 paragraph MAX post. And by paragraph, I mean the 5-6 sentence variety.

Jumpin' jeezum crow on cotton candy pogo stick...

Guys. Stop responding to Matt. He's an attention whore. This is what he does.

He writes bazillions of bazillions of bazillions of words on topics that nobody asked or cares about (such as him currently drudging up something that happened how many moons ago?) that has long since become a non-issue and running it into the ground on the pretense of longwinded asinine diatribes. Notice I didn't say debate. A debate is an exchange back and forth between people on an issue.

This is Matt talking for twenty hours to hear himself speak and then flailing about miserably when everyone tells him to shut up/drop it/let it go/go away.

Matt - no one was even thinking or caring about this until you brought it up. IT IS A NON ISSUE. NO ONE CARES. The majority of the responses here are either 80% "I'm not reading all this jibba-jabba" or 20% "Dude, WTF?!"

FOR THE LOVE OF PETE MAN - LET THIS TIRED ARGUMENT DIE.

If you are going to respond to ANY of the posts since your last one, try to at least do it in one paragraph, no less than two. I don't even think that's possible for you but hell it's a fricking start.

MAYBE and only MAYBE then will people even bother trying to take you seriously and hear what you have to say when they know you're not going to drag a simple case of "What is this all about me?" or whatever the heck you're talking about (Keep in mind that I really don't care either way) into kingdom come. Otherwise just drop it and move on man. You're making yourself into nothing more than a nuisance/ass at best. AND THAT sir, is why you have the less than sterling reputation here that you have attained.

MOVE

ON.

Matt, my intentions were pure, that was my understanding of your giant wall of text, if anything in there is wrong, it's your fault for laying your arguement out like a tangled web of Christmas lights.

I think people should stop heckling at this point, there's no joke to be had here, it's clear no one is reading or caring about the subject, so let's not bother commenting unless we have something to add.

I would pay to see him breastfeed a dictionary.

What editorial does he keep talking about? That's the only part of this, from my errant skimming, that I don't have an inkling about.

Some thing he wrote a bajillion years ago that made him look stupid and nobody cares about anymore but he feels he must convince everyone it was a joke to save face on the internet lest a bunch of strangers think he was stupid at one point.

Not many people do, as it's only available in an archive version of the messageboard called MF Classics. Most people just picked up the quotes from in-joke mentality, like CHAOTIX THE HEDGEHOG: SON OF SONIC BORN AND NOBLE!!! became community pop culture, despite only 8 people being in the chat when it happened.

The main problem with the entire mess is that Matt is misintepretting the term "your history on this site", which I assume Crystal Toad said to him. Matt is assuming the entire history relates to his early "hoax" days, when infact it carries on to his latest inability to grasp True Red's kind and patient words of wisdom in the RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES! thread.

Infact, after re-reading how patient she was, how she was trying to tell Matt all his failings and how to improve on them, I totally don't see the point of this thread at all, none of us can say it better than our resident Sub School Teacher, and not even I have that kind of patience and kindness.

Infact, no, Matt's "history on this site" includes this very thread. He's still doing it.

SX, I don't recall you ever telling me to keep it to five paragraphs, let alone saying such "several times" Whether you did or not, though, as I pointed out it was a long post more so because I had so much to say, though granted looking back on it I can't help but think that much of it didn't need to be said...

Look back BEFORE you post. Then, take out what you feel doesn't need to be said [repeated.]

Quote:

---

Dirk, that's tough to explain even without your word limit. I'm not really sure why myself. I guess it's a combination of how I care unusually much what others online or off think of me and how I tend to feel that challenging popular opinion is something that I "should" do...

---

The popular opinion is "Matt should stop posting really long posts." And if your goal is to challenge that opinion, then you've accomplished it admirably and you can stop now.

It seems that people didn't notice how I edited my post to make it more like Craig's reply. To be fair, with the same subjectline people didn't really have reason to believe that it'd be different the next time they clicked on it; What should be the new subjectline were I to emphasize that editing?

WB, Craig, Wonderbat, Dirk Amoeba, Antipode...

Craig, I guess there was no need to jump the gun, but I really doubt I did so, I just mentioned uncertainty as to said intentions JUST IN CASE you were doing what it somewhat seemed like in parts. I didn't specify just what parts I was talking about and I probably shouldn't now...

However, I'd still like to point out when you say I'm misinterpreting the "history on this site" wording, fair enough as I think I mentioned in the rep post I've probably misinterpreted certain things myself, but I still think you're misinterpreting what I meant when I referenced that. I wasn't even saying that the early days were the only examples, I was saying that my idea is that if things from "the past" are the basis for saying certain things about me then things from "the past" should be my basis for my arguments...

More along the lines of "something that I wrote albeit long ago that was still referenced within a few days of my rep post, that even if people didn't directly care about recently, still might have indirectly given them the wrong impression about things that they might've cared more about, and I feel I must prove to at least those who would reference it that it was done more so out of curiosity to see the kind of response I'd get, lest a bunch of strangers only to the extent that I haven't met them in person despite having talked to them for years, continue to have the apparently wrong impression about something I should've explained myself with regards to long ago..."

Dirk Amoeba, could you clarify a bit more with regards to what you meant?

Well, Antipode, if that's what you "don't have an inkling about" then I suggest you skip that section; The link to do so is bolded and underlined... and that section itself wasn't even for the majority of people anyway...

IRL I think you breathe continually in thru your nose while words come out of your mouth^-^

Um, I don't think there's any point in keeping this thing open. Can I kill it already?

I think Matt is doing a pretty good job of killing it himself Kaze

Hiro, when I say kill, I mean finish it off once and for all.

With that out of the way, DISCUSSION OVER. If you've got a problem with it, send me a PM.