bob_barron

The fact that you still don't see how wrong that is, is pretty sad. And you were guilty of always flaming or flame baiting Mike. Yes, Mike should've learned the art of ignoring things and letting things go, but the fact that you're allowed to post and he isn't is pretty sad. Regarding the Islam-death cult thing, Marney and Dr. Tom used to say many unkind things about the religion and they were never banned. Mike shouldn't be either.

Mike was condescending but it's not like he called people an idiot with every post. The guy could be an asshole, but that shouldn't be a bannable offence. I disagreed with Mike before and never had a problem. If people didn't like Mike "insulting" them, just ignore his insults and try to focus on the topic. Not hard. I don't think he was this cancer everyone makes him out to be. I mean, it's just a message board and Mike brought a lot of discussion and debate to the board. I don't think Mike flamed that much to begin with, unless called upon and like I said before, I thought the board tolerated flaming.

I don't see how that's a bannable offence. He had strong opinions and presented them and defended them. Again- isn't TSM about that? People always had the option of ignoring Mike if they didn't want to argue him. Not really. I don't really post too much in CE and just read the discussion going on there and I enjoy seeing Mike debate and go back and forth with people. The reason for his banning was really weak. He didn't do anything in CE this week, and that's what the reasoning seems to be. Because that was Mike at his worst. Why wasn't he banned then? Why wait almost a year to ban him now? How does that make any sense? That was in Hardcore Discussion, happened a long time ago and Mike was in the right. Should he be banned for that? You're really reaching Kotz. This sounds like reasons not to like Mike instead reasons to ban him. I thought flaming was allowed, particularly in CE. Banning him for being a dick is again, really reaching. That's your problem. I for one enjoyed reading Mike's back and forth debates wih people. Except for Robot Jerk since he was really terrible. He's a previously banned poster and much worse then Mike. His posts in the Apprentice thread were terrible. Also, Robot Jerk and Shadow are still posting here. It's funny how everyone talks about how Choken's ban was a long time coming, yet none of the mods have a problem with him still posting here.

Ignoring that some of those were stupid shit with RobotJerk.. isn't that a good thing? I mean shouldn't TSM be about discussion and debate? It may not have been easy to read but I thought that's what this board is for. And I like said, this is not counting those back and forths where Mike didn't understand to just ignore people.

INXS is pbp hunger4unger. I wouldn't care if you ban any on my list, it's just when people things like Mike's banning was a long time coming blah blah- it makes me think of other people who still post and are really really terrible.

Oh never mind, didn't know that. I agree with Slapnuts on the "Why so many bannings thing." I probably wouldn't ban any of that list, but those are a list of people much worse then Mike.

Sass had once me do that and I did when Choken was banned. So: Trivia247 LooneyTune RobotJerk if he keeps acting like an idiot INXS Shadow fanofcoils That's 6.

RobotJerk is half to blame for anything that's been going on in CE this past week and I lurk there all the time and I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. Yes Mike can be an asshole who derails threads, but at times he started good discussion and helped bring a lot of stuff to CE. Banning someone for being "abrasive" is pretty weak imo. I thought this board didn't care about flaming. Mike's only flaws was that he was somewhat of an asshole and couldn't ignore anything anyone said. Certainly not a bannable offence. There are much worse posters then Mike that need to go.

So why was he banned then since the F9/11 thread was last year? Mike's done nothing wrong recently to warrant this. Why not ban RobotJerk too while you're at it

As someone who thought Azbakan was the greatest thing ever, I LOVED this teaser trailer. I'm so pumped for this movie.

You know who gave Fever Pitch an A? Lisa Schwarzbaum. I like Ebert because his reviews are always very well written and if I see a movie and come back and read his review, there's stuff he wrote that I never noticed and he always makes me think about the movie I saw. And Ebert ripped A Cinderella Story and Raise Your Voice to shreds- so no- he doesn't like Hilary movies. In fact that the Ebert and Roeper segment on RYV where they both mock the movie to no end is hilarious. I don't think Ebert has gone soft. As long as his reviews are still very well written, I won't care what he gives a movie. The guy gave **** to Millions, which I thought was overly sentinemental shit. But I read his review, saw where he was coming from, and thought it was a very well written as usual. I just disagreed with him.

He's an idiot for favouring one film he saw a month ago to a film he saw 30+ years later? Ebert gave The Good, the Bad and the Ugly *** upon its release and said later 'I gave a 4 star movie three stars'. Read the content of the review, rather then just the star rating. He has an opinion, and he's the best critic out there for a reason

Ditto Choken One

One of the ads at the bottom of this page was for a Noam Chomsky book. I found that really funny

Good to see Kristic made the second time. He was the only one who showed up against Miami it seems

Stop posting. That's worse then Wrestlemania Okafor

Yea- I wrote a couple skits for them about 4 years ago

Bob "It's Macdonald not McDonald" Barron

This was already posted

I always get hamburgers and sandwhiches with nothing on it. I like everything plain.

You have to type: bob then: _ then: barron to get: bob "stalker" barron

Is this my punishment for complaining that Jeff 'Unover' Jarrett? bob "stalker" barron

I've never seen Godfather Part II so I can't say but read Ebert's reviews and see what he says. In his defence, that review was written 30 years ago so he may have changed his mind.

HBK gets a lot more then just a minute of offence. Watch the match again, when I first watched it I was shocked at how much HBK controlled, since all the reviews I read made it seem like a Taker sqush. The match does a great job of getting over a simple story thanks to Shawn's great selling and the fact that Taker was extra badass. The stuff with Shawn doing anything to get out of the cage was great.

The acclaim for the Bad Blood match is very much deserved however. And while I understand people knocking the Summerslam match, I remember marking out like crazy for the whole thing, and I HATE Shawn. As I said, I hate HBK but you're also guilty of not making any valid arguments in both threads dedicated to him. Oh and kudos to Myax for bringing up Orton v. Christian. I think that match really helped Christian get over Tonight's match blew away anything I've seen on RAW all year.