The Man in Blak

Not exactly. PejaVu does look like he's been running the "anti-Smark" troll game in there, but that wasn't my point. My point was: 1. Y2Jerk's original thread in the WWE folder deserved exactly what it got, because he was trolling for that very response, even if he was too stupid to realize it. 2. Defending himself by saying that it was basically okay because there are "two John Cena fans on the board" doesn't really work either. If I didn't get that point across with this... ...then I probably should have elaborated. It was more about the fact that he kept chopping up his posts after people would respond to them, rather than the name. Though, considering that the Alanis jab was just about all that he brought to the argument, I did think it was pretty sad that he couldn't even spell her name right. Everybody here must be thanking their lucky stars that they have you here to figure out this wacky internet thing for them. Guess that's my fault for thinking that the Site Feedback folder was meant for, you know, Site Feedback. Plus, I don't really think Y2Jerk was kidding around as much as he'd like everybody to believe. If he was really joking, wouldn't he have just laughed off that thread and went on with his life, instead of responding back to me?

It always seemed to get decent play around here whenever it was brought up, but I still don't think Shadowrun for the Sega Genesis gets enough recognition from the mainstream media. There's a lot of GTA3 in that game; not necessarily the car-jacking or random violence, but the free-flowing mission structure that allowed you to do a lot of different things within the game that were outside of the main storyline. On top of that, it had the minigame to kill all minigames with the Matrix. Just a great little game.

Tirico/Sharpe/Kornheiser would be even better. That would have been a dream team. Sharpe is way underrated as a color man and Trico is a great play by play guy. I have no idea why Theisman is in there. None. Maybe so each week we can say, "SHUT UP JOE", and make us think Tony and Mike are even better? We're talking about Sterling Sharpe, right? Not the guy that hastily mumbled his way through highlight reels on CBS's show, but the guy that was on the ESPN NFL show when it was actually good.

Or maybe it's just a message board handle.

Is there an echo in here? Looks like somebody's a fan. And color me a little surprised that you didn't edit either of your posts to correct your mispelling of Morissette. (Somehow, you managed to swing and miss TWICE.) If my goal was to make you look bad, then I need to find something to do with my time that's more challenging. Obviously, you don't need my help.

DerangedHermit? Is that you?

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...1entry1907921

Quiet now, I'm responding to your last post by editing my first post in the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

What words am I putting in your mouth? I quoted your post. EDIT: Hey, let's just keep editing our own posts instead of making new posts. That thread query turnaround time is out of sight!

Wait, this discussion is still going on?

I kind of was when I started it last night. Now I'm wondering why everyone decided to come to the guy's defense and trying to stupidly claim he's not actually a troll, but a guy with a legitimate difference of opinion. People who don't think PejaVu is a troll are morons, exhibit A: Oh, man. I see we're now using the Alanis Morrisette definition of irony. Did I ever claim that PejaVu derailed my discussion? Fuck, no. Then why make the thread? Oh, you were half-joking? You were trying to be funny? ... Funny? Really? You seem to be under the false impression I wanted him banned, punished, or something. Lighten up. Er, you're the one who brought a thread to Site Feedback. If you didn't want to bring attention to him, then what exactly were you trying to do? People who can't recognize the obvious shouldn't destroy their own already-limited credibility arguing trolls aren't actually trolls, and getting pissed off and people who can. How's that for citing cliches? ...um, pretty terrible? Is that first amorphous blob of text even an actual sentence? If anybody's "getting pissed off" here, it's you. I don't even post in the wrestling folder, man - I just couldn't help but point out how much of a brainless idiot you look by bitching about somebody trolling when you're virtually doing the same thing. As for trying to be funny, well...just stop. Please. It's not like any of the "funny" you're bringing here hasn't already been driven six feet under by no less than a hundred other posters at this forum.

You're right, "majority" is probably a bit strong. I should have probably said "a good percentage", since that's still almost half. And, like I said, it doesn't excuse some of his other clunkers (which you mentioned).

This comment makes me scratch my head a little bit. I understand where the criticism may apply to Art Monk, but longevity and compiling yards for a running back is actually a very valid benchmark of greatness, in my opinion. There are tons of running backs that show promise but never hold up over a 10+ year career, just because you take so much punishment at that position. That Bettis has compiled so many yards over his career is really to be commended, if you ask me. (Not years, though, since the wear and tear on his body from year to year has been lessened with his recent usage as a short-yardage/timekill back). By the same token, I don't think that Bettis' TD contributions should be downplayed because of his role as the short yardage back over the last couple of years. Even though he may have received more opportunities due to his specialized role, he's still done something with them. Ultimately, I feel that getting those tough yards in goal-line or short yardage situations is a remarkable skill - if it was easy, then you wouldn't see short-yardage backs at all because everybody would be able to do it. One other thing to note: a majority of Bettis' playoff appearances have come during his time as a specialist, so that's why his yardage totals in the playoffs seem low. That doesn't excuse him from all of his clunkers, but it should also be taken into consideration when you compare him against somebody like Watters, who was the feature back for his team in most of his appearances. If you ask me, Bettis and Watters get in without a doubt.

I never said that. Apparently you DID totally missed the part where I said... Note the word "all". You didn't have to come out and say it, since you implied it so clearly in your second post, as well as: "If you people can't figure out that a guy who goes out of his way to insult board favorites with a post count of less that 10 is a troll, I can't fucking help you." Using the post count as an excuse is weak as well, considering that the guy has been here all of two weeks. If you think he's a new account for a PBP, then you should have PM'd HTQ or whoever's lording over the wrestling folder and had them check it out. If you can't see the stunning irony behind quoting this topic and then using your thread as an example of a discussion that he's derailed, then I can't help you. Does "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" mean anything to you?

So, your argument is that the guy's a troll because he has a different opinion than you (or others on the board)? Right. Not to defend the guy, who did post some blatantly inflammatory stuff, but you were kind of asking for it with a thread like that. If the rule around here is that a thread deserves to be trolled if it's crappy, then starting up an inane bitch list about John Cena probably deserves a response about John Cena being better than Chris Benoit, no matter how idiotic said response may be. But don't let me tell you otherwise, if there's only two John Cena fans on the board. Quick, somebody intervene with the soup and crackers.

Of course, by starting a topic called "Things That Annoy Us About John Cena", you were trolling for responses from all of the John Cena fans on the board. But let's not let such a technicality get in our way. http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...dpost&p=1907921

One more year for Quiroz to try to put it together, I guess. I like that Toronto has been active this year, trying to make a push in a division that everybody routinely concedes to the Yankees or the Red Sox every year.

Did anybody that's left on the Seattle bandwagon actually see the team play last year? This is not an unprecedented performance by the Seahawks; there were dropped passes, abysmal clock management, and meltdowns abounds in the "previous" Seahawk era, which may not have really ended in the first place. As for the penalties, the calls are actually defensible. On replay, the Roethlisberger touchdown showed the edge of the ball just barely making it over the beginning of the white line. Easily close enough to be considered "disputable evidence." And the Darrell Jackson TD pushoff was just that: a pushoff, and it was one that was right in front of the official in the end zone. It doesn't matter if Michael Irvin says he got away with it - if you consider Michael Irvin to be some standard of morality to hold all players to, then you may have officially gone completely batshit insane - it was a blatant push and it got the right call. From the tone of some of the comments here, you'd think that the referees were throwing flags for pass interference on running plays, and then gleefully running back to their own huddle to talk about how they'd divide up the payoff money. Grow up.

Probably around the time that a half-dozen or more people became NFL conspiracy theorists in this thread.

Part of that, I think, had to do with the Steelers being in the lead for most of the game. They recorded segments with the Lombardi trophy for both team (and I think they even played Hasselbeck's at one point), but they ended up playing the segments with the Steelers to kind of build the plotline that was going on within the game (Steelers being ahead). I'm just speculating, of course, but it may have been a case where the game dictated the coverage.

Say what?

I just don't see the point in resetting them. If someone gets a really high score, just try to beat it. Whereas if you do reset, especially with a game like Hexxagon, it turns into whoever is able to get 58 first when admin resets it. I prefer the first way. Of course, with Hexxagon, you can't beat a 58 because that's the maximum that you can get in that game; there's only 58 spaces. The way I see it is that, if everybody thinks that a certain game's score should be reset (after only having the game on the board for, what, two days?), then we should probably consider just getting rid of the game, rather than resetting the scores.

Frankly, I think they both leave a little bit to be desired. Not being able to flip your pieces up until they fully come onto the screen kind of sucks.

Nationals sign Royce Clayton to a minor league deal. There's rumblings that Clayton could compete for the shortstop job with Cristian Guzman, he of the absurd multi-million dollar contract. Hilarious.