Quote:
Originally posted by Ponycar_302
Not neccessarily; most of what was written was an expansion of the topic in one way or the other, either by Belle, or someone else. Even you got off topic. I read everything written. What I wrote is called constructive criticism. She claimed it was interesting in the first line of the post. Interesting to whom? Were we simply supposed to read it and expound on the greatness of the article? If so, she should have said that. (No offense, Belle.)
|
Nah, you are by far the biggest ******* I've ever seen on this board, and that's coming from ME (which says alot). Other people might get into arguments and disagree, as we all do at one time or another, but you purposefully irritate people with such glee, I was admittingly taken aback.
Constructive criticism is aimed to improve something/someone. I love it, I've even posted a full thread REQUESTING it. You, do not provide it. You just love to provoke reactions, which is ******* childish as hell, and surprising for someone who is so educated. Interesting that you
insisted on proclaiming your degrees as license to be an authority on the written word...I only disclosed my post high school education to correct your mistake.
I wrote it was INTERESTING because its another one of those topics that the media would NEVER touch, such as how recycling plants take up 13 slots on the Superfund list of toxic waste sites that are waiting for clean up (just a random example)...gee...maybe that's why I added the poor writing disclaimer originally...wasn't looking for praise, my writing is one of few traits that I have confidence in.
I'm going to stop responding to your posts now, because despite your one helpful point about my lack of mentioning the pollution at start up, its obvious you don't really give a **** about the topic OR my writing...hope this has been amusing.
Belle.