Rank below cook needed - Waiter - POLL !

[This Is Sparta]

I think it should be called n00b

o0lo0lo0l0o0lo0l0

[max is gr8]

How about we call the new rank "Perma-banned"? Anyone below, say, 300 points can't play anymore. I doubt you'll find anyone below that, who hasn't been losing intentionally anyway.

*cough*, you didn't play me in my hay-day

[Jeff Hardy]

i agree with both suggestions
i think a new rank for players with less than 500
and a ban for players who get less than 300

[Fircoal]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

[Scott-Land]

i agree with both suggestions
i think a new rank for players with less than 500
and a ban for players who get less than 300

Everyone says that the current ranking system doesn't properly gauge a player's ability. I say dump the old military ones and use a more realistic system- that way you know exactly what kind of player you're up against.

Forest Gump- Conqueror
Genius
Smartass
Noob
Idiot
Dipshit
Dumbass
Retarded

[Jeff Hardy]

i agree with both suggestions
i think a new rank for players with less than 500
and a ban for players who get less than 300

Everyone says that the current ranking system doesn't properly gauge a player's ability. I say dump the old military ones and use a more realistic system- that way you know exactly what kind of player you're up against.

Forest Gump- Conqueror
Genius
Smartass
Noob
Idiot
Dipshit
Dumbass
Retarded

i like it
but perhaps two good ranks and four bad ones isnt great
would you keep the points system or have a different one?

[FabledIntegral]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

[Fircoal]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

Of course I can't, I'm a lowly Sergeant, I think what ever rank you are at are going to seem the most different.

[ManBungalow]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

Of course I can't, I'm a lowly Sergeant, I think what ever rank you are at are going to seem the most different.

Yes, I am a Sergeant/Lieutenant, but I'm the climb: having come from cook to whatever I am now in only a few weeks. Maybe I should put this suggestion forth when I am a major etc.

[Jeff Hardy]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

i dont think lieutenants suicide...
the rest do tho
and they complain at just about everything

[FabledIntegral]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

i dont think lieutenants suicide...
the rest do tho
and they complain at just about everything

I've seen more than enough of my fair share of lieutenants running over 15 armies or so to take Oceania in an escalating game, etc. The suicides might not be as retarded, and they might have better intentions, but when they go from having 32 armies on the board to 17 or so, and the game ends that turn because of them (or a few turns after because of them), it's the exact same concept.

Captains do it as well, but once again, it slowly disappears. I've even seen the occasional retarded major make such dumb moves, but once again, in much less frequency, and the only colonel I've seen make a dipshit move is Zair, and I believe he is once again a Major.

[Mr Changsha]

There is no difference whatsoever amongst cooks whatever their rank - so why make a difference in rank? Personally - I would be fine if the cook rank extended all the way until rank 1200. I can't find even a slight difference between a person with a score of 800 vs 1200... they all just auto attack whatever big number is next to them because of getting nervous. More ranks is a bad thing... it takes away from the distinction in skill gaps. The newly suggested ranks... earning a new rank means hardly anything. There'd be hardly any difference in skill between 3 different ranks even... while now if you look at the difference in skill between a lieutenant and colonel it's phenomenal at how poorly a lieutenant plays.

EDIT: just saw the higher up ranks haven't really been changed... I thought they were MUCH different.. maybe it's a different list than what I last saw. I could care less about the changes in the lower ranks... there is hardly any difference between them anyways atm.

Not really I more think that's true in the higher ranks more rather than a lower ones. All the high ranks pretty much seem the same. The biggest difference is probably 1200-2000.

They probably seem the same because you can't distinguish the difference in their moves... I can for sure...

On the other hand, it seems all privates/corporals/sergeants/lieutenants all have a tendency of suiciding.

i dont think lieutenants suicide...
the rest do tho
and they complain at just about everything

I've seen more than enough of my fair share of lieutenants running over 15 armies or so to take Oceania in an escalating game, etc. The suicides might not be as retarded, and they might have better intentions, but when they go from having 32 armies on the board to 17 or so, and the game ends that turn because of them (or a few turns after because of them), it's the exact same concept.

Captains do it as well, but once again, it slowly disappears. I've even seen the occasional retarded major make such dumb moves, but once again, in much less frequency, and the only colonel I've seen make a dipshit move is Zair, and I believe he is once again a Major.

Ah, the joy of being effortlessly pretentious on-line! When one spouts from as lofty a place as FabledIntegral we must all seem like tiny, stupid little ants to be trodden on if it is desired, but rather skirted around for fear our brain-dead little moves will ruin the grand plan of a master. I think all us lower ranks should simply place you on ignore, to help you avoid accidentally wandering into one of our stupid little games. For you it must feel like being a god surrounded by incompetent (if oh so dangerous ) savages.

I met a colonel called Oggiss a week ago and how he screamed about my incompetence one round before I killed him and then wiped the other player off the map. It is interesting how often players shout "stupidity!" just before THEY are wiped off the map.

But then I am not as all-knowing as Fabled here...

I'm probably missing some crucial piece of information as us low-rankers do...

Silly me...

[FabledIntegral]

Ah, the joy of being effortlessly pretentious on-line! When one spouts from as lofty a place as FabledIntegral we must all seem like tiny, stupid little ants to be trodden on if it is desired, but rather skirted around for fear our brain-dead little moves will ruin the grand plan of a master. I think all us lower ranks should simply place you on ignore, to help you avoid accidentally wandering into one of our stupid little games. For you it must feel like being a god surrounded by incompetent (if oh so dangerous ) savages.

I met a colonel called Oggiss a week ago and how he screamed about my incompetence one round before I killed him and then wiped the other player off the map. It is interesting how often players shout "stupidity!" just before THEY are wiped off the map.

But then I am not as all-knowing as Fabled here...

I'm probably missing some crucial piece of information as us low-rankers do...

Silly me...

I wouldn't doubt that you are missing some crucial piece of information. I would also have no problem with someone placing me on foe that is semi-retarded in forum posting. Your eloquence in posting is unneeded, even more so than your incompetence in any of my games.

[Mr Changsha]

Semi-retarded yet eloquent at the same time?

If one mild little dig from me can scramble YOUR brain so effectively I fear I may have touched a nerve.

But seriously now, read back through this thread and think about how you come across. I don't doubt you are an excellent player, but there is something to be said for not just winning, but winning with class.

Having despatched FabledPRIDE and to come back to the topic at hand, I would like to see something like:

0-500 FRIENDLY FIRE
500-800 CONSCRIPT
800-900 CADET
900-1000 PRIVATE

...and so on.

Regardless of terminology, I do think there should be a division between 0 and 800. It is too big a gap which doesn't reflect the fact that a player with 750 points is probably going to play better than one with 300.

[jiminski]

how about 'Homeguard'

British Homeguard

I suppose some may know it as the National Guard.

[FabledIntegral]

Semi-retarded yet eloquent at the same time?

If one mild little dig from me can scramble YOUR brain so effectively I fear I may have touched a nerve.

But seriously now, read back through this thread and think about how you come across. I don't doubt you are an excellent player, but there is something to be said for not just winning, but winning with class.

Having despatched FabledPRIDE and to come back to the topic at hand, I would like to see something like:

0-500 FRIENDLY FIRE
500-800 CONSCRIPT
800-900 CADET
900-1000 PRIVATE

...and so on.

Regardless of terminology, I do think there should be a division between 0 and 800. It is too big a gap which doesn't reflect the fact that a player with 750 points is probably going to play better than one with 300.

Dispatched? Hardly. If you can't comprehend that because you made an attempt to write an eloquently written post, trying to be a smartass, and ended up having it become semi-retarded, then you my friend can sincerely f*ck off.

I don't give a flying f*ck what your definition of "class" is. In short, whether you say something is "prideful" or not, I have been perfectly on topic in this thread; the reason I've posted is that more new classes, whether high rank or low (as I'm consistent amongst threads, where in another I've been against adding almost any new ranks), are completely unnecessary if you can't find a skill difference amongst the ranks. Just because YOU deem my logic as prideful does not make it any less accurate or legitimate, thus don't tell me in any way you've "dispatched" me. Tool.

[MrBenn]

Players ranked Colonel or above represent less than 1% of all players on the site. As such, it is unlikely that they can speak as a representative of the average CC player.

My suggestion of increasing the number of ranks at the 'low' end of the scale, evolved as a result of 'player-volume-per-score'.

There may not be a lot of difference between a Sgt and a Sgt 1st Class, but the different ranks give something for the average player to aspire to - try considering them as individual goals rather than absolute indicators of ability. There may not be any apparent difference between the ability of a 250pt cook and a 750 pt cook, but one has a score three times higher than the other. It is this disparity that the suggestion is trying to balance.

[Simon Viavant]

I think a Conscientious Objector rank (or Waiter ) could be a great idea. If i lose to a cook with 700 odd points then I'm only going to lose 40/50 something maybe. If, however, I lose to a cook with say 10 points I will lose 100 points. Unless I check the profile of every cook I play, I won't know when to change my strategy accordingly.

I'd like to point something out about the original reason for this suggestion:

Obviously any gross abuse of the game is forbidden. This includes but is not limited to: throwing games or deliberately benefiting from thrown games, intentional deadbeating, serial teammate killing, hijacking accounts.

I'm not even going to get into the debate about the rankings system.

[FabledIntegral]

Players ranked Colonel or above represent less than 1% of all players on the site. As such, it is unlikely that they can speak as a representative of the average CC player.

My suggestion of increasing the number of ranks at the 'low' end of the scale, evolved as a result of 'player-volume-per-score'.

There may not be a lot of difference between a Sgt and a Sgt 1st Class, but the different ranks give something for the average player to aspire to - try considering them as individual goals rather than absolute indicators of ability. There may not be any apparent difference between the ability of a 250pt cook and a 750 pt cook, but one has a score three times higher than the other. It is this disparity that the suggestion is trying to balance.

I can understand your point concerning sergeant vs sergeant 1st class.

However - concerning cooks, most of them are at that level because they either

1. Purposely want to be a cook.
2. Don't care at all about the games and merely hit auto attack in every game reducing them to a 1 on every spot on turn 1.
3. End up deadbeating most of their games.

As you've said, there's most likely no skill difference between the two. Concerning a rank 250 cook, I would bet money that EVERY cook with a score of 250 and below are there on purpose or from deadbeating. Why reward players with a new rank for getting that low? Cook is already a sign of "lowly player, with very poor strategic skill." There doesn't need to be an even lower rank which symbolizes "hey look at me, I got to this area on purpose." Because I'm pretty sure 90% of them if you set a skill of around 600 and below would fall into that category.


If you want to put in a new rank, put in a rank between 3500 and 4500. Because I've come within 200 points of hitting 4000, but nowhere near 4500. So have quite a bit of people on the "to reach 4000 score" thread... merely because Field Marshall is even that much harder.

[Mr Changsha]

What's my score at this point...? Ah, 1602.

I DEEM that anyone with a score below 1602 should be classed as 'Incompetent'.

I DEEM that anyone with a score over 1602 should be classed as 'Genius'.

(Or)

I DEEM that anyone who happens to (by luck, skill or guile) achieve a rank of lieutenant by 40 games should have a permanent rank of 'Quick Study'.

(Or)

I DEEM that there should be a seperate rank between 1600 and 1800 of Lieutenant 1st class, to give us middle-rankers (who let's be frank here are what keeps this site running) something extra to aim for.

(Or)

I DEEM that players from China who are dealing with medieval internet connections should be awarded an extra 200 points, to reflect that we must be better players than our current ranks would suggest.

You see FabledIntegral, anyone can stay roughly on topic whilst still managing to just write about themselves, their interests and their concerns. It is quite easy really. The trick of true communication is the ability to place oneself in the shoes of one's companions, to listen sympathetically to their concerns and respond like a gentleman. Another trick of educated discourse is refraining from using words like 'tosser', 'semi-retarded' or 'fucker' in your posts. It makes the writer appear juvenile, immature and (possibly worse for a young man who wants to appear to be intelligent) lacking in vocabulary. Finally, the inheret anger that seeps through your last two posts does indeed suggest that you were despatched, but are either too obstinate or dare I say too witless to comprehend it.

With regards to Manbungalow's suggestion there is an issue regarding the fact that 25% of CC players (I'm under the impression that is current players) are sharing 1 rank, while I would guess about 15% of players are having fun with corporal, corporal 1st class, sergeant and sergeant 1st class. While I would in general agree that players under 400 are probably contriving to lose, yet not in all cases and that point should be remembered, those over that score are probably not. 400 to 800 is one rank, yet private to private 1st class is a mere 100 points. Even Sergeant 1st class to Lieutenant is only 200 points. I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility to add an extra rank from 400 to 600 points. However in the end, I think we should ask the cooks themselves if they would like an extra rank. We rarely see them on the forums probably in part because of their fear of being disparaged by some posters, yet many of them are paying customers as well and if the Society of the Cooks wants the change then it should be changed.

[FabledIntegral]

What's my score at this point...? Ah, 1602.

I DEEM that anyone with a score below 1602 should be classed as 'Incompetent'.

I DEEM that anyone with a score over 1602 should be classed as 'Genius'.

(Or)

I DEEM that anyone who happens to (by luck, skill or guile) achieve a rank of lieutenant by 40 games should have a permanent rank of 'Quick Study'.

(Or)

I DEEM that there should be a seperate rank between 1600 and 1800 of Lieutenant 1st class, to give us middle-rankers (who let's be frank here are what keeps this site running) something extra to aim for.

(Or)

I DEEM that players from China who are dealing with medieval internet connections should be awarded an extra 200 points, to reflect that we must be better players than our current ranks would suggest.

You see FabledIntegral, anyone can stay roughly on topic whilst still managing to just write about themselves, their interests and their concerns. It is quite easy really. The trick of true communication is the ability to place oneself in the shoes of one's companions, to listen sympathetically to their concerns and respond like a gentleman. Another trick of educated discourse is refraining from using words like 'tosser', 'semi-retarded' or 'fucker' in your posts. It makes the writer appear juvenile, immature and (possibly worse for a young man who wants to appear to be intelligent) lacking in vocabulary. Finally, the inheret anger that seeps through your last two posts does indeed suggest that you were despatched, but are either too obstinate or dare I say too witless to comprehend it.

With regards to Manbungalow's suggestion there is an issue regarding the fact that 25% of CC players (I'm under the impression that is current players) are sharing 1 rank, while I would guess about 15% of players are having fun with corporal, corporal 1st class, sergeant and sergeant 1st class. While I would in general agree that players under 400 are probably contriving to lose, yet not in all cases and that point should be remembered, those over that score are probably not. 400 to 800 is one rank, yet private to private 1st class is a mere 100 points. Even Sergeant 1st class to Lieutenant is only 200 points. I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility to add an extra rank from 400 to 600 points. However in the end, I think we should ask the cooks themselves if they would like an extra rank. We rarely see them on the forums probably in part because of their fear of being disparaged by some posters, yet many of them are paying customers as well and if the Society of the Cooks wants the change then it should be changed.

You can post whatever the hell you deem fit - if you're arrogant enough to think multitudes of people wouldn't post from their own point of view, it's mere stupidity on your part. There attempt to try to lecture me on proper etiquette but fail to realize in your own posts you show yourself nothing short of an asshole, starting the fire with posts of mockery and sarcasm.

I have engaged in countless intellectual debates through these forums and others - you however seem to be just starting out here. Before you are as arrogant to try and tell me my way of posting is wrong, you should stop being so hypocritical. The difference is merely word usage, as said prior, and I don't feel the need to censor myself when I haven't been attempting to "formally" post in the first place, as you seem intent on doing.

The cooks give f*ck all about this site - as said prior, and even as you admit, a majority of them do it purposely. Why should there be even more encouragement to suck? If the change is going into effect, the entire community is up for the debate, and by no means should it be left up to the cooks, as in my eyes they don't give a remote f*ck about what contributes to the quality of the site. I find it hard to believe many players are even able to get to 700 points or so purposely (I've tried myself to reach cook, and couldn't get below sergeant even when purposely trying to lose my games... the point loss was so minimal that I gave up on the feat).

In the end, your posts show just as much arrogance as mine - although yours are more concerned about singling me out and my posting style rather than what you consider mine - which is (or now was) indeed on topic. If you want to address my personal character, I suggest you take it to the flame wars, otherwise, screw off.

[max is gr8]

As a former long-time cook I'd say no, we get treated badly as is, if that happens it would be punishing

[This Is Sparta]

i agree with both suggestions
i think a new rank for players with less than 500
and a ban for players who get less than 300

Everyone says that the current ranking system doesn't properly gauge a player's ability. I say dump the old military ones and use a more realistic system- that way you know exactly what kind of player you're up against.

Forest Gump- Conqueror
Genius
Smartass
Noob
Idiot
Dipshit
Dumbass
Retarded

It will still not guage the player's ability correctly if the points system was used at all. The point system can be abused to give an inaccurate reading.

[Mr Changsha]

If you want to start a flame wars thread where the main thrust of your argument is that cooks don't give a shit about this site (including the ones who have paid?), and anyone below a major is an incompetent retard, then start that thread and I'll even not go to the pub tonight.

It would be that good.

For that is what you have been writing here from the beginning of this thread and you should be called on it. You've been effectively flaming 95% of the people on this site.

My comments on your language are merely a secondary matter. I just want to help you to express yourself better.

Anyway no more of this, we have taken up far too much space on this excellent thread with my inane ramblings and your profane ourbursts!

Mr C

[FabledIntegral]

If you want to start a flame wars thread where the main thrust of your argument is that cooks don't give a shit about this site (including the ones who have paid?), and anyone below a major is an incompetent retard, then start that thread and I'll even not go to the pub tonight.

It would be that good.

For that is what you have been writing here from the beginning of this thread and you should be called on it. You've been effectively flaming 95% of the people on this site.

My comments on your language are merely a secondary matter. I just want to help you to express yourself better.

Anyway no more of this, we have taken up far too much space on this excellent thread with my inane ramblings and your profane ourbursts!

Mr C

I don't believe I said anyone below a major is an incompetent retard. I know a few guys that regularly fluctuate between lieutenant and colonel. I was merely making the argument different ranks should be there to distinguish a difference in skill.

Concerning the cooks that don't give a shit about the site, it's merely referring to the fact that they would rather open a ton of games at once and play a ton and not think about the consequence of attacking. They blow through all their turns. Once again this is a generalization, but they all end up auto attacking whatever the hell is next to them because they are scared they will be attacked first, assuming they don't deadbeat and are even able to take their turn.

We are arguing whether or not to give another, shittier rating class out there. Which once again, we don't need to give any more incentive to achieve that shit rank. You turned it into attacking me personally rather than me discussing the actual topic. Thus as said - if you want to attack my "profane style of posting," start a thread in the flamewars.