I know this is none of my business, but I see three things wrong with your post:

"Die in a fire. Quit spewing twiested facts and trash at the mindless twits who follow you. To grow a hate filled, scared mob *cough* tea-party group is not what America needs. Your poison rhetoric is distorting minds and making it difficult to solve problems that aren't as big as your 24 hour pundent lie factory makes them out to be.. In short quit destroying minds by making the world out to be way worse than it is. Because in the long run the puke that comes from your mouth in the form of flowery words will only choke and self-fulfill the social collapse of America.

Get bent Beck."

1) You make many accusations against Glenn Beck, without providing any evidence for them. I don't think you need a follow up question as much as your opinions need some kind of support that can be discussed. Just spewing random opinions does not get very far in a discussion...

2) You flaim bait everyone who follows Glenn Beck by calling them "mindless twits". In fact there are a lot of people who agree with Beck on some issues who are far from that. You also call the tea party a hate filled scared mob, again, without supporting your position at all.

3) In essence your post did nothing but let everyone know that you hate glenn beck for no reason. Giving reasons to refute you about why not to hate glenn beck would be pointless because you did nothing to support your initial claim anyway, other than somehow concluding that Glenn Beck's puke will choke and "self fulfill" the social collapse of America (whatever that means...)

quetzalcoatI

Right..... And I made it clear in earlier posts that I acknowledge the falacies in MY opinion. When I used twits, I had accidently generalized everyone who watches his crap. I actually used to be a big Beck fan before he got his golden soap box and went bat s#$t crazy.

I gave no support to my rant because I felt it unnecessary to find the sources for everyone while taking a break from homework. I left it up for the reader to decide what they want to make of the whole thing and now here we are arguing over one persons opinion. But not the opinion itself but the manor in which it was written.

Privately owned website = they can do whatever they damn well feel like, including rules.ayanami_rei

Doesn't hurt to push back once in a while. Keeping it civil. It just cramps me up when people take things to personal and get all butt-hurt when someone expressed an opinion in the wrong fasion.

[QUOTE="battousai188"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Here is the thread in question.

To say that there was a prompt for discussion is just factually incorrect. Your post was basically just telling Beck that you don't like him and that you would very much like it if he would employ an incendiary device upon his person. There was nothing of any sort to discuss.

GabuEx

Yes my thread was straight opinion, wont deny that. But it still raised controversy which then stimulates a readers mind to make a cognitive decision, then to express and build on my opinion for better or for worse by pressing the reply/quote tab GS was so kind to bless thy forum troller with to further PROMPT discussion.

Is it that difficult to simply establish within the opening post of a thread what it is you want those reading the thread to discuss? I'm confused.

My apologies for not being straight forward, and telling people to discuss about what I wrote. I figured with my heated feelings spewed all over the electric glow of my computer monitor that it would spark people to talk. I believe you are confusing yourself on the whole topic and standing your ground to firm. I only posted the topic because I had read an article earlier today about how sinister guys like Beck are, drank a few beers after school, read the review on CoS: BO and wanted to vent my frustration with this crowd. However your magic keyboard and mouse blocked my thread from being able to prompt any discussion.

I know there is a few other smoking topics bumping around the first few pages, but I don't think this would fit into any of the original topics in those threads so I'll pop up a new one. What goes through anti-smokers heads when they wanna walk up to me and sit there complaining about how smoking is bad and second hand smoke is dangerous when I'm smoking a cigarette? I know its politically cool to hate on smokers because the government can make so much money off of their BS taxes on us, but most anti-smokers don't even know what there talking about. What makes them feel the need to rage at me and be a **** when I'm sitting off in the middle of no where hurting no one until they walk up to me and *****. Do they think I know nothing about smoking? I hope they know that smoking is a major part of my life so I do know more about the risks then they do.

My favorite rant ever = caution... don't click if under 18

But, be warned the craiglist rant is filled with adult language that most people will be offended by. Don't even click it if your under 18...

W1ckedGo0se

I agree. Nothing annoys me more than when I smoke a cigarette between ****s and have someone walk by and obnoxiously cough loud or tell me to quit stinking up the campus, when Im already hudled behind a building in the smoking section.

[QUOTE="battousai188"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Your thread was "silenced" because, again, it contained no prompt for discussion of any kind. If you simply want to make a statement, that is exactly why GameSpot gives all of its users blogs.

GabuEx

Your right.. However I do not attend my GS account enough to care about my blog, and wait around for the friends I made here five years ago to express their thoughts and views on my opinions. I posted on this thread for a quick peak of interest to see how many people would agree/disagree. If you ask me there is prompt for discussion. Ive seen alot of threads like that in the past that fly by and fill up with the comically angry and fun to talk to rational posters.

Here is the thread in question.

To say that there was a prompt for discussion is just factually incorrect. Your post was basically just telling Beck that you don't like him and that you would very much like it if he would employ an incendiary device upon his person. There was nothing of any sort to discuss.

Yes my thread was straight opinion, wont deny that. But it still raised controversy which then stimulates a readers mind to make a cognitive decision, then to express and build on my opinion for better or for worse by pressing the reply/quote tab GS was so kind to bless thy forum troller with to further PROMPT discussion.

Shrug your shoulders, then sigh, and tell them to open their mind to knowledge.

Science adjusts its views based on what is observed,

While faith is the denial of observation to preserve belief.

In short people who wish to hold on to their faith will willingly ignore things they know are probably right and shut out anything that could open their eyes to truth in the world and universe.

[QUOTE="battousai188"]

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

So wait, you're saying the one sided perspective the TC asserts with no actual proof is not a factual reconstruction of the events to which he alludes and therefore his accusations of superfluous moderation is nothing more than baseless criticism?

Shock and awe.

GabuEx

Quite. However it was not my intent to give facts but to assert my disdain for the media hound, and to leave finding what the viewers want to find out on their own. My thread was silenced with no reason other than its a "rant" and not preceeded by a question to insite discussion. It was my error to have ignored that subtlety.

Your thread was "silenced" because, again, it contained no prompt for discussion of any kind. If you simply want to make a statement, that is exactly why GameSpot gives all of its users blogs.

Your right.. However I do not attend my GS account enough to care about my blog, and wait around for the friends I made here five years ago to express their thoughts and views on my opinions. I posted on this thread for a quick peak of interest to see how many people would agree/disagree. If you ask me there is prompt for discussion. Ive seen alot of threads like that in the past that fly by and fill up with the comically angry and fun to talk to rational posters.

TSA is the worst. Yay i totally want to be fondled in front of hundreds of people or have my naked body plastered on an xray monitor. But no really... I think all this beefed up security is just a score for the terrorist. They have us so scared to do anything anymore it seems. However it is in our hands to say no enough times to have security reduced from a quickie with no dice at the end to being let me buy you some lunch and lets chat about your intentions on this airplane.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Your thread was literally nothing more than a rant directed at Glenn Beck. There was no prompt for discussion of any kind. Threads like that have never been allowed in any of the years I've been here. :?

metroidfood

So wait, you're saying the one sided perspective the TC asserts with no actual proof is not a factual reconstruction of the events to which he alludes and therefore his accusations of superfluous moderation is nothing more than baseless criticism?

Shock and awe.

Quite. However it was not my intent to give facts but to assert my disdain for the media hound, and to leave finding what the viewers want to find out on their own. My thread was silenced with no reason other than its a "rant" and not preceeded by a question to insite discussion. It was my error to have ignored that subtlety.

[QUOTE="battousai188"]

[QUOTE="testfactor888"]I can already tell that we are going to be seeing alot more rant posts now that you have started posting again I guess. Next time might want to open it up for some sort of discussion to keep it an open topic instead of just a hate speechtestfactor888

Im sorry... I will put a...

What do you think?

at the end of my post to make it "open" for discussion.

Right.. tone down sarcasm, forgot people forgot how to distinguish sarcasm, subtlety, and find what they believe to be right.