My first Blog Entry

[Auxilium]

This is that post:
u suck

What does that have to do with anything that that blog is even about? Anyway,
@ @-MAJ @Virtual Void

I encourage you to keep posting in here, it's only generating more traffic to my blog. Thanks !

Traffic that you will end up deleting their comments and blocking them either way, so enjoy your traffic that you are blocking

[ZeroTroubles]

Traffic that you will end up deleting their comments and blocking them either way, so enjoy your traffic that you are blocking

Not even blocking most of the traffic
Keep bumping!

[Auxilium]

Not even blocking most of the traffic
Keep bumping!

So mature you end up editing my comments. You must have ballz of steel.

I think you should grow up and learn to take criticism. If your boss yells at you are you going to cry and leak his address and phone number to the public?

[ZeroTroubles]

So mature you end up editing my comments. You must have ballz of steel.

I think you should grow up and learn to take criticism. If your boss yells at you are you going to cry and leak his address and phone number to the public?

No; no. You got it in reverse.
I think you should know what criticism is.

Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something or someone in a sometimes negative, sometimes intelligible, (or articulate) way.
The judger is called "the critic".
To engage in criticism is "to criticize".
One specific item of criticism is called "a criticism" or a "critique".
This article provides only general information about criticism. For subject-specific information, see the Varieties of criticism page.
Criticism can be:
directed toward a person or an animal; at a group, authority or organization; at a specific behaviour; or at an object of some kind (an idea, a relationship, a condition, a process, or a thing).
personal (delivered directly from one person to another, in a personal capacity), or impersonal (expressing the view of an organization, and not aimed at anyone personally).
highly specific and detailed, or very abstract and general.
verbal (expressed in language) or non-verbal (expressed symbolically, or expressed through an action or a way of behaving).
explicit (the criticism is clearly stated) or implicit (a criticism is implied by what is being said, but it is not stated openly).
the result of critical thinking[1] or spontaneous impulse.

What you did is not criticize me. If you'd had critized me you'd had said something more like
"I think what you're doing is not smart" or "This blog makes no sense for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3)"

You basically said "You don't want negative comments thats stupid" and "How childish of you to put up their info", which is not critizing at all.

Extremely mature of me indeed (It was only a test anyway). Also extremely mature of you to post it, even though you have clearly stated your view on this already in here. Even though I have said, and even discussed it with you, why I think you shouldn't post that kind of stuff.

If anyone needs to be mature right now, it'd be you. Please, think before you post.

Or don't, I don't care. I want those bumps.

[Denelf]

Cry me a river, there will be always haters.

Get over it noob.

[ZeroTroubles]

Cry me a river, there will be always haters.

Get over it noob.

You must be mature though. I don't care about haters. I don't want them to bother others, who might care about them however.

When creating this blog; and you intent for people to read it, you're not moderating it for yourself, you're moderating it for your readers too.

Readers don't want to see immature, non-thought-of comments. And that's why I'm removing them.

Boo-Hoo all you want to me, I don't care. I'm just removing them for my readers, who might care.

[Auxilium]

What you did is not criticize me. If you'd had critized me you'd had said something more like
"I think what you're doing is not smart" or "This blog makes no sense for the following reasons: 1) 2) 3)"

Alright then.

I think what you are doing is stupid because

1) If you cannot accept simple words of hate without being a bitch about it and posting people's info, what makes you think you got balls to live alone in nature. You can't accept hateful words but expect to live in nature like a caveman? ok.

2) you say "Look at people in third world countries, they’re living a hard life!’ or ‘All those unemployed people are living hard lifes!’. And that’s where you’re wrong. They’re still living an easy life."

I'd like to see you live in a shit hole with no running water, insect infestations everywhere and widespread disease, along with life expectancy of 40 years and tell me how easy life is.

3) "Would we not have started relying on technology this much we would’ve been a superior race, physically speaking"

Sorry, but no matter how strong we may have been, no matter how much stamina we have or how sharp our teeth, Humans still have no chance in nature without using technology. You throw a javelin at a dear to kill it, you don't chase it and beat it to death. We need technology, and you saying that us relying on technology is not a good thing is pure stupidity. Yeah, a javelin is technology, lighting a fire with friction by using a stick is technology.

No matter how physically superior we could be, we could still never outrun a cheetah, we could never fight a bear, we could never fly like a bird.

Technology just evolved. Technology 1000 years ago is not the same as it was now, the concept is the same, but just in a different form.

I can't wait till year 4000 when people want to go back to using Windows 95 because technology from 1995 is so pure and raw and the essence of human life.

[-MAJ]

Alright then.

I think what you are doing is stupid because

1) If you cannot accept simple words of hate without being a bitch about it and posting people's info, what makes you think you got balls to live alone in nature. You can't accept hateful words but expect to live in nature like a caveman? ok.

2) you say "Look at people in third world countries, they’re living a hard life!’ or ‘All those unemployed people are living hard lifes!’. And that’s where you’re wrong. They’re still living an easy life."

I'd like to see you live in a shit hole with no running water, insect infestations everywhere and widespread disease, along with life expectancy of 40 years and tell me how easy life is.

3) "Would we not have started relying on technology this much we would’ve been a superior race, physically speaking"

Sorry, but no matter how strong we may have been, no matter how much stamina we have or how sharp our teeth, Humans still have no chance in nature without using technology. You throw a javelin at a dear to kill it, you don't chase it and beat it to death. We need technology, and you saying that us relying on technology is not a good thing is pure stupidity. Yeah, a javelin is technology, lighting a fire with friction by using a stick is technology.

No matter how physically superior we could be, we could still never outrun a cheetah, we could never fight a bear, we could never fly like a bird.

Technology just evolved. Technology 1000 years ago is not the same as it was now, the concept is the same, but just in a different form.

I can't wait till year 4000 when people want to go back to using Windows 95 because technology from 1995 is so pure and raw and the essence of human life.

Congratulations, you've just
told a editor with facts GJ!!

[ZeroTroubles]

Alright then.

I think what you are doing is stupid because

1) If you cannot accept simple words of hate without being a bitch about it and posting people's info, what makes you think you got balls to live alone in nature. You can't accept hateful words but expect to live in nature like a caveman? ok.

2) you say "Look at people in third world countries, they’re living a hard life!’ or ‘All those unemployed people are living hard lifes!’. And that’s where you’re wrong. They’re still living an easy life."

I'd like to see you live in a shit hole with no running water, insect infestations everywhere and widespread disease, along with life expectancy of 40 years and tell me how easy life is.

3) "Would we not have started relying on technology this much we would’ve been a superior race, physically speaking"

Sorry, but no matter how strong we may have been, no matter how much stamina we have or how sharp our teeth, Humans still have no chance in nature without using technology. You throw a javelin at a dear to kill it, you don't chase it and beat it to death. We need technology, and you saying that us relying on technology is not a good thing is pure stupidity. Yeah, a javelin is technology, lighting a fire with friction by using a stick is technology.

No matter how physically superior we could be, we could still never outrun a cheetah, we could never fight a bear, we could never fly like a bird.

Technology just evolved. Technology 1000 years ago is not the same as it was now, the concept is the same, but just in a different form.

I can't wait till year 4000 when people want to go back to using Windows 95 because technology from 1995 is so pure and raw and the essence of human life.

Now this I like, this is critizism and I'd happily discuss with you.

1) Again; I'll just copy-paste: I don't care about haters. I don't want them to bother others, who might care about them however.

When creating this blog; and you intent for people to read it, you're not moderating it for yourself, you're moderating it for your readers too.

Readers don't want to see immature, non-thought-of comments. And that's why I'm removing them.

Boo-Hoo all you want to me, I don't care. I'm just removing them for my readers, who might care.

2) Now read this part;
But that’s because they’re humans. Fragile humans who cannot care for themselves. If humans didn’t escape the survival of the fittest, didn’t outsmart nature, they’d be much better off now. We wouldn’t have made it to 7 billion people, no. We would’ve had strong numbers still though.

The weak ones die.
Survival of the Fittest.
We created that enviroment. They created that enviroment.
I'd most likely die. But you have to ask yourself; why do they stay there?
Once you figure that out, I'll discuss that with you. I already know your answer, and I already know my answer to it.

3) "Would we not have started relying on technology this much we would’ve been a superior race, physically speaking"
You answered your own question.
"Would we not have started relying this much"

We'd not outrun cheeta's. We'd not be strong as bears. We'd not fly as birds.
But we could've had one of those 'features'.
We adapt to our lifestyle. That's why animals who live in sandy areas have large feet-area. That way the pressure is applied more evenly. Animals with small 'pointy' feet like cats dont live there, (ofcourse not only because of this, but you get the point) because they would sink in the sand, making it hard to walk.

We'd have adapted to our lifestyle somehow. And I cannot say which lifestyle it would be, because we chose a different path. But I'm sure that it'd had been better for our NATURAL survivability, than the way we are now, where we rely on MANMADE survivability.

[Auxilium]

We adapt to our lifestyle. That's why animals who live in sandy areas have large feet-area. That way the pressure is applied more evenly. Animals with small 'pointy' feet like cats dont live there, (ofcourse not only because of this, but you get the point) because they would sink in the sand, making it hard to walk.

We'd have adapted to our lifestyle somehow. And I cannot say which lifestyle it would be, because we chose a different path. But I'm sure that it'd had been better for our NATURAL survivability, than the way we are now, where we rely on MANMADE survivability.

You realize that changing of features to fit your environment is evolution, and that takes a very long time. If we adapted to our environment instead of advancing, over time, homo sapiens would not be dominant. It'd be something else that evolved from what we were.

[ZeroTroubles]

You realize that changing of features to fit your environment is evolution, and that takes a very long time. If we adapted to our environment instead of advancing, over time, homo sapiens would not be dominant. It'd be something else that evolved from what we were.

Yep. It would have.

[[MPGH]Doc]

Someone needs to study survival of the fittest and macro-evolution. The "fittest" are the ones that adapt and exploit there immediate environment. It not always physical, in our case, it was mental and in some ways physical (standing, opposable thumbs). Technology is the result of this adaptation and exploitation, and why we are the "fittest". We are not relying on it, we are creating it, exploiting it. We are the fastest "adapting" species in the world because of this. You also overestimate how fast macro-evolution and natural selection works. A species does not simply grow wings, or out strong a bear, or outrun a cheetah. For starters, we are in a completely different order of species. For your views to be accurate, for us to adapt in a different way, we'd have to be able to do so in at least 200,000 years. Sorry but it isn't possible for sub-species of primates with wings, or the speed of a cheetah to develop in that amount of time. The easiest, fastest, and most effective adaptation is mental aptitude, which results in technology.

I'm sorry but all of your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny, and just exemplifies how little you know about science in general let alone macro-biology and evolution, natural selection, or any other science dealing with animalia.

You sput out claims that we could've evolved into something else, a more dominant species, if we didn't rely on technology. The opposite is true. Because of our creations, because of our mental developments, we've been able to rise to the top faster than any other species.

Now in regards to your immaturity of posting peoples details, I'd ask you to stop. It serves no purpose other than spamming our forum, and removes a layer of transparency for your blog readers. They don't need to read a sugar-coated blog, they deserve to know what of environment they're stepping into. They need to know that when you make decisions in life you will always meet hostility. Not only that but you are compromising a level of privacy entitled to our members. If you want to name and shame, then do it on YOUR forum. This isn't the place for you to air your dirty laundry. If I was still in a position of power you'd be banned for publishing IP Addresses and potentially private emails. That sort of information is entrusted to this sites Administration, and by using your own site and publishing that information here, you have compromised that.

[ZeroTroubles]

There's no purpose in discussing with you guys, as you don't see the point

[Nico]

One more IP posted and I will ban you. Grow up and learn from their comments.

While we're at it:

ZeroTroubles (Talk | contribs) [22 edits in the last 30 days]

Why are you Editor again?

[[MPGH]Wyo]

22 Editions in the past 30 days/ daum beef you gonna take that?¿