100 Posts of Solitude

[Nightwing 0]

I intensely disagree with the concept that they are "Coast Guard" or "Marines". I'll accept "Privateers" with reservations, but there's just too many problems with calling yourself some sort of military force while saying "We're just poor fishermen". You can't have it both ways.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

I would accept that the origins of the fishermen's efforts were as coastguards, and the modern privateering operation evolved from those actions.

 

42. Why I called it a short-term mistake: The Somalis have no history of killing hostages. They are friendly to cooperative hostages. They have to make threats in order to get the ransom, but they have no intention of killing. It is against their interests. The Somalis on the boats are only a small part of the overall operation. Somalis do not want to jeopardize their operation by killing.

 

I do not believe that the captain was truly in danger. Why would they shoot their hostage who is worth up to $2 million and ensures their safety (except from snipers)? I've read the excuses such as that the Somalis were increasingly desperate or suffering qaat withdrawal. They sound like bullshit. Haven't we seen many instances in which a police officer—whose mindset is focused on possible threats—wrongly shoots and kills a person (e.g., Oscar Grant, Timothy Stansbury, Jr.)? The U.S. Navy had a 'justifiable' opportunity to end the situation, and they took it.

 

Another point is that one of the privateers in Eyl claims, "The American liars have killed our friends after they agreed to free the hostage without ransom."^[1]

 

I called it a short-term mistake because I believe that three Somali human beings were unnecessarily executed.

 

Why I called it a long-term mistake: I worry that the Somalis will no longer treat American (and French) hostages well. I'm sure that they will discuss it rationally and do what's best for their operation, but they utterly despise injustice. They may intend only one act of retribution (and I'm not saying that it will be a killing), but the Americans certainly won't be happy about it. In order to 'save' one American's life, we may now have the consequence of many more Somali deaths and possibly multiple American deaths. The outlook is terrible. The world needs to stop putting all of the blame on the Somalis.

[Nightwing 0]

I want proof that they were going to release him without ransom. I find that a lot harder to believe than the Somalis becoming desperate, because they may have realized that the US wasn't just going to let them go. As you said, they're there for the ransom; why fuck with the Americans if you're just going to let him go for free?

 

Secondly, don't even mention Grant or Stansbury in the same sentence with the Somalis. It's not comparable by a longshot. Holding a hostage in a boat being towed by a destroyer is not the same as being killed while in police custody. You need to look past your own admitted bias and look at the situation realistically.

 

And it's naive to think that this could somehow continue without such action occurring. Regardless of what you call them, they are still committing piracy. In the end, you have to make it unprofitable for them to do so. Escalation was going to occur to start making it riskier to pirate ships, regardless of what the pirates were doing because they were still holding people hostage for money. Perhaps you should put the blame on the person who took the person hostage, which brought it to this in the first place?

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

I can say that there is precedent of releasing ships without ransom.^[1]

 

Please end your habit of constructing straw men and then angrily pummeling them. I am under the impression that you make your replies to the mere presence of keywords instead of how the sentence is written. Calm down and consider the actual points more carefully.

 

43. I don't know what happened to my 'changes' thread. I moved it from the Staff folder to here, but then it was either deleted or returned to the Staff folder. Anyway, one of the ideas that I mentioned was that I wanted to hold a TSM Rookie of the Year tournament. We are going to do that right now.

 

2009 TSM ROOKIE OF THE YEAR TOURNAMENT

 

Rules:

1. Eligible posters are those who first joined TSM between 1 January 2008 and 31 January 2008.

2. I have already examined the nominees and have chosen the 16 best candidates.

3. Seeding is done according to post count. Most posts gets the 1 seed.

4. One round per day. We'll be done Monday night/Tuesday early morning.

5. We will not be using your American democracy. There aren't enough (if any) voters. For each round, you may write whatever you wish about any or all of the matchups. I will read and seriously consider all input. Ultimately, I will decide who deserves to advance. I will write my explanations when I post the updated brackets the next day.

6. This tournament is of the 'best' variety, not 'worst.' We are examining posting quality and general likability.

7. Note: The bracket regions are named for the best posters who joined during 2007.

 

THE BRACKET

[Nightwing 0]

I didn't construct any straw men. Do you want me to review your points again?

 

1) You dismiss the claims that they were desperate and acted in a threatening manner towards him. Perhaps it was becoming more clear that the US wasn't just going to let them get away. Is it that hard to believe someone, anyone, could crack under that pressure? I don't see how it's that unbelievable, as they hadn't

 

2) The two cases you cite, the men were unarmed, and one was in police custody. The implication you're trying make it pretty obvious, and I'm offended by it. Comparing a man being shot by mistake because they thought he had a weapon is different than a man holding a gun to someone's back being picked off by a sniper. Someone who has a hostage is not a "possible threat", he is a threat, otherwise he doesn't actually have a hostage, does he?

 

3) You cite a Somali's assertion that they were going to give them up for free, where there had been no indication that they had in any way. There was no mention of talks with Tribal Leaders, which was the catalyst for the Yemani Cargo ship getting off. Up until they were shot, the ransom had remained the same. This claim seems more like revisionism so they can be the victim. Or, as you call the American side of the story, "Bullshit".

 

4) You put the blame on the US for the escalation, and I attacked this because escalation was inevitable. There's no way that the status quo of "We capture people, they pay us money, we move on" could have continued. It wouldn't be realistic to think that it could. Will this result in more bloodshed? Yes, sadly. But that blame falls on the person holding the hostage, not the person taking aim through a scope.

 

I don't see how those don't directly address the points you were making, and even some of the stuff you were obviously implying.

[Dandy 0]

So many things wrong with that bracket.

 

1. YKRG is TheDon and is not a rookie. Also, awful.

2. Corey Lazarus is a rookie?

3. Noah Fentz is in the running for "Best" something?

4. Grungy Punk is in the running for "Best" something?

5. Who are any of the others?

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Damn Dandy you sure take internet tournaments seriously. Will you feel better if he throws you in there? Based on numbers alone you're sure to do better than 32 this time.

[GIYGAS 0]

... I'm ... still ... a..l..i..v..e ...

[DCH 0]

What the fuck there's a bracket named after me. I am humoured and touched.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

44.

So many things wrong with that bracket.

 

1. YKRG is TheDon and is not a rookie. Also, awful.

2. Corey Lazarus is a rookie?

3. Noah Fentz is in the running for "Best" something?

4. Grungy Punk is in the running for "Best" something?

5. Who are any of the others?

1. I don't know that 300-post member who hasn't logged in since 2005. Consider YKRG the Ichiro of Rookie of the Year candidates, if he really is TheDon.

2. Lazarus who posts in the WWE folder. I'm thinking that there's more than one person named Lazarus. There were two in the New Testament.

3–5. Do you think that this community attracted a large amount of high-quality posters in 2008?

 

ROUND-ONE RESULTS

 

pbone region

1. YKRG defeats 16. ForumPro. I have noted that Dandy described YKRG as "awful." YKRG hangs out in the WWE, Sports, VG, and Entertainment folders. He is not particularly good, but he contributes. I'm looking through the Worst Poster tournament, and he isn't getting much hate. Dandy didn't think that he was worse than Jericholic82. ForumPro was quite funny with his "I don't claim to be a professional at forums" bit. Otherwise, borderline annoying. I'm going to use boxing terms for victories. We'll call this one a majority decision.

9. tobin defeats 8. Grungy Punk. Just looking at Mr. Punk's custom title indicates that he is terrible. Looking at his posts indicates that he's really fucking terrible. Tobin wins by TKO. I'll take a closer look at him next round.

 

Nightwing region

5. Old School defeats 12. Display Name. Mr. School seems quite reasonable in the WWE folder. Mr. Name capitalizes a lot of words. Is he German? Old School by unanimous decision.

13. KobashiFS defeats 4. rezinda. rezinda appears to be a replacement-level WWE poster. KobashiFS is more mobile, and he shows some thoughtfulness. KobashiFS gets the UD.

 

mellow region

11. Shelton Benjamin outta f'n nowhere! defeats 6. lee_hero. lee_hero is ok in the wrestling folders. He knows about championship belts! But, first, Shelton Benjamin outta f'n nowhere! is an all-time classic name. Second, his posts are enjoyable. Third, he cites sources. SBOFN! by KO.

3. Noah Fentz defeats 14. jackmcmanus21.

More like a self-proclaimed elitist group of self-righteous, arrogant, immature, circle-jerking punks trying to make themselves feel powerful and in control.

At TSM?! jackmcmanus21 adds nothing. Noah Fentz by REFEREE TECHNICAL DECISION.

 

DCH region

7. johnson316cane defeats 10. Lazarus. johnson316cane is a horrendous name, but he's a decent wrestling poster. Lazarus is as well. This one is a close call, but I'm going to say that johnson316cane is slightly better. He throws in a bit of humor. Split decision.

2. theone defeats 15. BradyQuinnManCrush. Not a single person offered a reason to vote against theone in the worst poster tournament. He's the one whom no one knows! He called Mr. Kennedy's film "Kane / Katie Vick awful." I find that description humorous. BradyQuinnManCrush is simply a Rorschach inkblot. TKO.

 

THE BRACKET

[Dandy 0]

ForumPro was Czech.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Does he really wanna take credit for that? God you guys were so gay.

[Dandy 0]

I'm not sure he wants to. But that's who it was. So the story goes, anyway.

 

Why so much anger, Battle? I never got it - you seemed normal, then got banned for whatever reason, then came back and there was this 'pbp' hubub and then bam, everyone is gay and EHME hates you.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

I don't take kindly to folk who claim to be fair intelligent people and then ban anyone who disagrees with them. It was ok when I disagreed with EHME but the second I decided to call Milky on some shit suddenly it's fair game it edit accounts and ban me. Hmmm. Considering the kind of sad shit you guys did as mods and admins I think it's important that people understand the vast amount of suck this board is now without.

 

And EHME is just the obvious example of you guys being perfectly fine with suck as long as it's suck that agrees with you, so I've made him my bitch. I don't know, maybe I secretly hate albino's.

[GIYGAS 0]

THE BRACKET

... it h..u..r..t..s ...

 

Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts! Battlenuts!

 

... it's a fix ... it's a fix ... it's a fix ...

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

45. QUARTERFINAL RESULTS

 

1. YKRG vs. 9. tobin. I've examined tobin's posting history, and he is consistently a very good WWE poster. He always writes rational paragraphs that add meaningful content to the discussion. No one in the tournament can compete with the quantity of content that YKRG produces, but does his quality make up for it? I must say that he sounds more like a headline writer than a quality analyst.

 

PBONE REGION CHAMPION

TOBIN (UD)

 

5. Old School vs. 13. KobashiFS. Old School is up and down in the wrestling folders. He does make quite a few good points about TNA and its roster. But, he also is a bit hostile toward other posters. KobashiFS is a harmless and likable poster, but he's a "chime-in" kind of guy who doesn't add much meaningful content. It's a close matchup.

 

NIGHTWING REGION CHAMPION

OLD SCHOOL (SD)

 

3. Noah Fentz vs. 11. Shelton Benjamin outta f'n nowhere!. Is this matchup the easiest of all time to decide? Yes. Noah Fentz is a prototypical blowhard. ("I would imagine I have about 20 years in life on you and about 15 years of wrestling business on you, so keep your sarcasm to yourself.") There's no way that he would win against a credible opponent. First-round KO.

 

MELLOW REGION CHAMPION

SHELTON BENJAMIN OUTTA F'N NOWHERE! (KO)

 

2. theone vs. 7. johnson316cane. Seriously, what is that name? Dwayne Johnson + Austin 3:16 + misspelled Kane? Upon further review, I see some of the problems with theone. He describes other posters with phrases such as "fucking idiot." He has a very reliable source in the wrestling business. He feels that capitalization and punctuation are optional. He uses the phrase "for the win." He believes that mellow is a troll who lacks wit.

 

DCH REGION CHAMPION

JOHNSON316CANE (TKO)

 

THE BRACKET

[DCH 0]

Oh my god I just noticed Shay's panties for the first time in that pic. Dayum. I love the massive size. I'm backing Johnson316cane to take the crown.

[muzz 0]

SBOOFN! should reach the final solely on the strength of his name.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

Oh my god I just noticed Shay's panties for the first time in that pic. Dayum.

I'm saving the 'hot girls' discussion for post 69.

 

46. SEMIFINAL RESULTS

 

5. Old School vs. 9. tobin. Old School is rated at one star in his profile. His tone—especially in his earlier posts—may be a little harsh, but perhaps "hostile" was too strong of a word. He's feisty. One weakness in his boarding is that he has a fairly high percentage of one-sentence posts. Still, his content is solid. tobin usually writes a good paragraph. He is very friendly as well. I find myself sincerely interested in reading what he says about wrestling. We have a majority decision.

 

THE FIRST CONTENDER FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP

TOBIN

 

7. johnson316cane vs. 11. Shelton Benjamin outta f'n nowhere!. They both have fascinating names, and they both have fans. They also both add a bit of humor to some of their posts. johnson316cane had a nice dig at Matt Hardy's calling himself "Cold Blood." ("That sounds like one of those failed nicknames they tried to stick Steve Austin with before he came up with Stone Cold.") SBOFN! edited a double post to the following: "Hulkamania ran wild over me this morning. Free Nick Bollea!" johnson316cane also adds some good analysis, such as his argument in favor of blood in wrestling. If he has a weakness, I'd say it's that he could explain his opinions in more detail. SBOFN! is quite witty and funny in many posts. I love that he gives sources, too. This decision is the most difficult one so far. In regard to posting quality, johnson316cane is better. SBOFN! simply does not have a lot of meaningful content in his posts. In the tournament rules, however, I defined 'best' not only in terms of posting quality but also general likability. SBOFN! is more likable. It's an extremely close split decision.

 

THE SECOND CONTENDER FOR THE CHAMPIONSHIP

SHELTON BENJAMIN OUTTA F'N NOWHERE!

 

THE BRACKET

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

47. THE CHAMPIONSHIP

 

9. tobin vs. 11 Shelton Benjamin outta f'n nowhere!. Let's look hypercritically at tobin's negatives. tobin showed laziness/lack of awareness when he asked for WWE DVD schedule info. He thinks that Matt Hardy is a douchebag because Hardy writes in his blog that he is happy with his life. If you want to see a real douchebag, look at Danny Gokey. tobin is rather humorless and complains a lot about how much things suck or are boring. But, on the positive side, you might learn something or hear an interesting take on wrestling when you read his posts. In SBOFN!'s case, his major problem is his lack of meaningful content, as I mentioned in the previous post. But, he's upbeat. His posts bring lighthearted cheerfulness to a board that could use much more of it. You can have fun on a message board without alienating other posters? Well I'll be damned. Unanimous decision...

 

THE TROPHY FOR 2009 TSM ROOKIE OF THE YEAR GOES TO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHELTON BENJAMIN OUTTA F'N NOWHERE!

 

FINAL BRACKET

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

48. Well, that tournament was fun for me, despite the lack of poster interaction. I would guess that Czech appreciated the effort, because he hates it when you guys just list 32 posters with no explanation in the poster tournaments. Also, the Shelton Trophy is more aesthetically pleasing than the Damian Gonzalez Memorial Trophy. It's unfortunate that we didn't do this tournament as one big happy TSM family. I plan to have one more tournament and two drafts (each a single post) in this thread.

 

In one of my TSM blog posts, I tried to give an honest critical assessment of myself as a volleyball player.^[1] Now, I'm going to try to give an honest critical assessment of myself as a TSM boarder, using the same stream-of-consciousness, scouting-report style.

 

Positives

Offers unorthodox insight... Sees things from a worldly/"big picture" perspective... Doesn't want to make enemies and likes most posters... Empathetic... Has boarded hard since late 2008... Creative... Aims for quality over quantity... Knowledgeable on a variety of topics... Not afraid to give honest thoughts... Observant... Tranquil and completely non-malicious... Helpful... Cites sources... More humorous and silly than he seems... Participates in TSM competitions... One of the few active TSM bloggers... TSMpedia contributor... Still improving and has much untapped potential.

 

Negatives

Closest friend of the widely hated Leelee... Boastful about victories... Didn't emerge as a major poster until late 2008... Practically disappeared in 2007... Overly formal/philosophical writing style... Content to be in his own quirky world... Too many Somalia posts... Not an ideal match for the cliquey nature of the board... Generally acts star-struck with his favorite people and doesn't pay attention to the others.

 

Comparable posters

objet petit a, Crimson G, Cheech Tremendous.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

Damn I like that trophy. It looks like an award for falling awesomely, but still that's neat.

 

One thing though, in all seriousness, let your posts speak for themselves. If people want to get to know you, they can do it through what you say about things, not what you say about yourself. When you offer an abundance of information about yourself no one had asked for, it just seems like a lonely dude in the corner yelling for friends. I loved reading about the pirates in CE, I've got a lot of army buddies who call me "terror" now because I've taken up defending them whenever we talk. See that's you making an impact. Considering no one here gives a shit about who's friends with who anymore, just be who you are, and stop telling us who you are. I have a feeling you'll be fine.

 

 

[Jingus 0]

For what it's worth, I tried to use some of the info you've shared about the pirates. None of it did any good, since it was in a debate with my stubborn stepfather and if CNN doesn't instantly back up whatever I just said he automatically thinks I'm misinformed. But the effort was there, so, yeah.

 

But still, calling them "privateers" is silly. Firstly, it's factually inaccurate, since the very specific definition of a privateer is that of a civilian boat which has been given official license by a government to make war upon its declared enemies. Nothing remotely close to that is happening in Somalia. Secondly, it comes off as a kind of weak rebellious contrarianism. Like, back when I was a naive young indy wrestling commentator, I refused to call some moves by their most common names. I bah-gawd refused to say "rock bottom" or "diamond cutter", since I was all anti-authority and shit, and didn't want to call the moves by their slave names. So instead tortured phrases like "uranage" and "ace crusher" came out of my mouth and terribly confused all 27 rednecks who happened to be watching our cheap TV show. You insisting on Privateer > Pirate feels somewhat similar.

[Cerebus The Aardvark 0]

Boastful about victories...

 

What kind of victories are there to be boastful about on a message board?

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

49.

Damn I like that trophy. It looks like an award for falling awesomely, but still that's neat.

 

One thing though, in all seriousness, let your posts speak for themselves. If people want to get to know you, they can do it through what you say about things, not what you say about yourself. When you offer an abundance of information about yourself no one had asked for, it just seems like a lonely dude in the corner yelling for friends. I loved reading about the pirates in CE, I've got a lot of army buddies who call me "terror" now because I've taken up defending them whenever we talk. See that's you making an impact. Considering no one here gives a shit about who's friends with who anymore, just be who you are, and stop telling us who you are. I have a feeling you'll be fine.

Hey, good post. I'm offering some information about myself because (1) it's likely my farewell thread and I'm purging everything that I feel like writing about before I go, (2) I don't like the perception that I'm "Leena's right-hand man," and (3) I like doing meta-analysis. NHB is for meta discussion of posters. Most of my upcoming posts will be typical forum discussion topics, though.

 

But still, calling them "privateers" is silly. Firstly, it's factually inaccurate, since the very specific definition of a privateer is that of a civilian boat which has been given official license by a government to make war upon its declared enemies. Nothing remotely close to that is happening in Somalia. Secondly, it comes off as a kind of weak rebellious contrarianism.

I've written enough about this issue. Somalia is a unique situation, and I believe that the definition of privateer is the best choice for this situation. I believe that it's important to distinguish them from other modern pirates. Indonesian pirates murder honest sailors and sell ships purely for profit. I would never defend them like I do with the Somalis.

 

What kind of victories are there to be boastful about on a message board?

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 4): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 5): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 6): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 8): Champion

* TSM FIFA World Cup 2006 Pool: Champion

* TSM Death Pool 2006: Champion

* TSM NFL Draft Forecast 2007 (ESPN): Champion

* TSM NCAA Men's Basketball Pool 2008 (ESPN): Champion

* TSM NCAA Men's Basketball Pool 2008 (Yahoo!): Champion

[Cerebus The Aardvark 0]

What kind of victories are there to be boastful about on a message board?

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 4): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 5): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 6): Champion

* TSM WWE Fantasy League (Season 8): Champion

* TSM FIFA World Cup 2006 Pool: Champion

* TSM Death Pool 2006: Champion

* TSM NFL Draft Forecast 2007 (ESPN): Champion

* TSM NCAA Men's Basketball Pool 2008 (ESPN): Champion

* TSM NCAA Men's Basketball Pool 2008 (Yahoo!): Champion

 

That simultaneously does and does not answer my question. Impressive.

[Xavier Cromartie 0]

50. We've reached the halfway point. There will be an intermission after this post.

 

Backstory: Mike chose to offer board ownership to Leena instead of the Maffs... Vitamin X thought his life was over... Multiple posters asked about who Leena is... She said that she was the girl in the tennis pic... Nobody knew what the tennis pic was... goldengreek asked her to e-mail the tennis pic to him.

 

Here is the tennis pic to which she referred. It's from 2002, and so Leelee was 19 in it.

 

So, please, no more talk of "men you thought were women," "she-male," "Leeter," or "Peter Z." She's a normal girl from the Buffalo, NY area. The Peter Z post was a joke that I wasn't in on. (It confused me because I had always suspected that she was really in Buffalo instead of Arizona.)

 

Her philosophy for TSM was to make it open to everyone and encourage newcomers, with the hope that the variety of opinions would lead to good discussion. I agreed with that philosophy, and so she offered me an admin spot. We wanted the best posters on merit (Czech, o.p.a., Edwin, Cheech, etc.) to be mods who led the discussion in their respective folders.

 

But, the Maffs have a different vision of what TSM should be. They like being the Stonecutters, with elite, closed membership and insider rituals. And most of TSM likes being a part of the Stonecutters, even though they have double- or triple- digit member numbers. I respect this philosophy as well. It's fun for the people who are a part of it.

 

So, let's not demonize and hate each other just because of this difference of opinion.

 

Now, I'm taking a break from posting in order to get away from here for a few days and focus on the NFL Draft. I'll resume sometime next week.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

The man who played Leena stole thoe pictures from some account that was revealed in early April

[Jingus 0]

But it wasn't pictures of that girl, it was pictures of some different chick who had a webcam.

 

Then again, Leena also claimed to have been the webcam chick at least once even after the big reveal, saying something about how part of her master takeover plan was to increase hits on the webcam site.

 

And yeah, most of her IP addresses did come from Buffalo, and when asked about it (after claiming to have been in Arizona for a long time) she said that wherever she lived wasn't my business.

 

In short, Leena has put forth so many different versions of her life story that basically by now I assume that nothing she ever says about her/him/itself is ever going to be the truth.

[Live Free or Battlenuts 0]

That picture is awesome when you imagine all those tennis balls just fell from her vagina.