Posts by William Scott65

William Bennett53 said:I was writing specifically about the PŽK, not soccer. Soccer isn't my concern. So, go spread your paranoia somewhere else.

Are you seriously suggesting that this famous little triangle works on one PDF but doesn't work on another?

William Bennett53 said:neonfox12, let's keep the conversation civil here. If you think someone is breaking the rules, just use the report button. Just because a moderator calls you out doesn't mean you're being threatened. Let's move on.

Ahem, that line of reasoning hasn't worked with biased moderators over at ESPN for a long time, so you're just throwing empty platitudes at me now... If you want proof, take a look at my thread. You've already been lurking there for ages, but you can't push that cheap "report button" nonsense in my space.

Here are 10 random posts of mine pulled straight from the Soccer PDF. Once you fail to find a single trace of trolling in them, I’ll drop another 10, then another 10, and so on—as many as you need. But for now, I have to get back to this:

The issue is that your entire body of work is just one massive troll session (and a bad one at that), and it isn't limited to the Premier League thread.

Like I said, you're either lying, lacking any sense of observation, or trolling. It definitely isn't the latter. And it's not trolling, either. You are deliberately creating a witch hunt atmosphere here by acting as the resident contrarian and using sneaky, biased lies. Furthermore, you haven't even touched upon the actual core issue that started this whole discussion. This is worse than Napa; at least she had some sort of excuse for my occasionally blunt behavior, but you... you have nothing.

Eric Fox7 said:The issue is that your entire presence here is just one long troll session (and a bad one at that), and it’s not limited to the NFL thread.

This is just my observation as someone who follows this subforum; the final call will be made by the Soccer mods and eventually the admins.

Either you're lying on purpose, you're totally missing the point, or you're trolling. If it's the latter, just penalize yourself so I don't have to report you. I'll fully admit to trolling on the NFL board, though even there, it isn't constant. I get the feeling you're already setting the stage for "we acknowledge the mistake and will sanction the posts, but in exchange, you'll get a partial ban." I have no problem if that happens, but if it does, I'll drop a list of dozens of users from that same PDF whose entire history involves way more trolling than mine, and whose contribution (to the forum, goodness knows!🤣) isn't even slightly greater than mine. Go ahead.

But again, I don't follow your logic. Even if my whole body of work were considered trolling, what stops the moderators from sanctioning problematic posts—essentially, from doing their jobs? You're deflecting the actual issue onto me. It seems like you don't care if the posts themselves are extremely offensive or trolling; all that matters to you is that I'm the one who reported them. It's like reporting a criminal to a cop, and instead of dealing with the crime, the officer starts giving you a ticket for a parking violation you actually paid for.

Eric Fox7 said:You’re lucky the mods over there are pretty laid back, because otherwise you would have been hit with a partial ban ages ago for your contributions.

Based on what, exactly? Because of some sporadic, barely even malicious trolling over on the NFL boards? Is that your excuse for them not doing their jobs?

Either way, that doesn't answer my question. Honestly, this is an even weaker excuse than Nicin's. Why haven't those specific posts been penalized?

Yeah, look at this one too:

Registered back in September just to troll, yet they haven't been penalized once. Meanwhile, I was getting flagged for much less obvious stuff over on the NBA boards, like here:

Just a heads up: if you thought I’d lose my cool and start using vulgar language just so Nica could jump in and hand me a ban, you're dead wrong (and I know that's exactly what you're waiting for). I'll be refreshing this thread from time to time so people can see how you all actually behave. Sure, there's a reason for it, and the fact that Nica, Dorian, and the rest of the crew from this PDF are staying completely silent says it all...

By the way, here's some quick math—I counted 11 total strikes I've received in the soccer section, most of them for trolling. The timing is pretty interesting, though; those penalties were handed out just a few hours after my posts. Yet, other users don't get hit with anything for at least a month after posting... It's honestly shameful how biased this is.

Also, I insulted them once via a direct message, and now they're acting out of pure spite—Mamaaaa, he offended us, so now we're just going to ignore every single report he files🙂.

This post was reported nearly 24 hours ago. Still, absolutely nothing has been done. I wouldn't expect much from someone like Nero, but Mitch, you really let me down. Besides, this isn't the first time valid reports have just been ignored. Nica, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

briskbison55 said:you clearly don't know anything about music, especially since your avatar features a band that's musically superior and way more relevant than Nirvana. Putting the Sex Pistols and the Ramones in the same conversation is practically blasphemy; the Pistols are more like Nirvana—overhyped without much substance—whereas the actual geniuses barely saw 2% of the profits from their albums or tours. Cobain was always 'borrowing' from other people's sounds and he never even tried to hide it; he was an entertainer, sure, but maybe not a true genius.

Look, I’m going to say something that might offend some people on this thread. That isn't my intention, though—I just want to lay things out clearly because it’s obviously necessary to do so.

I’m a big fan of L7. To be honest, I actually prefer them over Nirvana, along with at least a hundred other bands. When it comes to specific albums, I enjoy Hungry for Stink, Bricks are heavy, and Smell The Magic much more than Nevermind. Even if we narrow the scope strictly to grunge, I still find Mudhoney, Alice in Chains, and L7 to be better than Nirvana. (And while those last few aren't from Seattle, they usually get lumped into the grunge category anyway.) At the end of the day, these are just my personal tastes, so there's no need to debate it.

There’s a certain level of general culture that exists independently of our personal tastes. I’ve mentioned before that I’m not exactly a fan of Pink Floyd. It’s not that I hate them; their music just never really clicked with me. You won't find them on my personal top 100, 200, or even 500 lists. Instead, you might find someone like Agnostic Front. However, if I couldn't grasp why Dark Side of the Moon or The Wall holds more weight in music history than any AF album, it would mean I haven't truly grown as a listener. It’s like comparing a sophisticated thinker to a monkey on a branch.

It’s a lot like *Nevermind*. You’re totally entitled to think it’s garbage, and you’re just as entitled to say it’s overrated. But if you don't grasp exactly why *Nevermind* caused such a massive explosion—as opposed to any of the other albums you might prefer—then you haven't really grown as a listener. I already mentioned which bands I actually prefer over Nirvana, even though they share similar genres. In my personal rankings, their albums will always sit above *Nevermind*. At the same time, I completely get why *Nevermind* resonated so deeply and why it consistently ranks higher than my personal favorites on most mainstream lists. Even though, back when I was a high school kid, Nirvana's massive success absolutely drove me crazy.

I think you might have missed my point regarding the Ramones and the Sex Pistols. That guy on the previous page was acting like such an elitist about what "real art" is—he even went as far as comparing things to pyramids just to take shots at Nirvana. He could easily pull that same logic on the Ramones or the Sex Pistols, too (honestly, he could do it to any band ever). If we follow his line of reasoning, it’s hard to imagine anyone reaching some sort of artistic peak listening to the Ramones sing about sniffing glue or the Sex Pistols singing about abortion, right?😁

If you don't consider *Never Mind the Bollocks* to be the definitive Sex Pistols record, then I honestly don't think we have anything left to discuss on this topic. It would be a waste of time to start listing all the musicians who only picked up an instrument after hearing or seeing the Pistols perform. The impact they had—not just on specific genres like the evolution of the alternative scene, but also in pushing the boundaries of censorship and inspiring the individuals who went on to form today's legendary bands—is massive. To do all that with just one single album is incredible. Of course, I don't expect you to see it my way. If you aren't getting it now, you probably never will. Nothing personal.🙂

http://musicbloodline.info/artist/MN0000418740/spotify

Take a look at those bands on the right. Any sane person would be genuinely embarrassed if they were in your shoes.

Gerald Ortiz2 said:And honestly, it’s not worth getting a warning over. Everyone has their own taste, right? There's no point arguing about it.

Look, this isn't about taste. I already made my point by mentioning bands I personally can't stand. You can dislike Nirvana, you can even absolutely hate them, and that's totally fine—that's just your preference. But if you don't understand *why* they are such a massive band, then you're just being dense. That's the whole issue here.

@placidtrucker4, I’m not going to waste my breath arguing because you clearly just don't get music. I'll say this one last time: the way you trash Nirvana is the same way you’d trash any legendary band. Since you fail to grasp Nirvana's massive impact, it’s pretty much impossible to expect you to understand the significance of groups like the Sex Pistols or the Ramones. I’d love to be blunt and give you the label your posts deserve, but I’d probably end up getting banned, so...

placidtrucker4 said:You're talking nonsense. I guess Kurt was a likable guy, but I'd argue nirvana was more of a cultural phenomenon than anything strictly falling under the category of genius music. Besides, you can love music as much as you want, but I don't think that necessarily makes you a better musician than someone who puts their family and friends before everything else. At the end of the day, it comes down to talent, the ability to express oneself, and hard work.

By the time they arrived, nirvana was already firmly in the MTV era, which doesn't automatically make their music bad, but I suppose it was much easier for them to get any kind of promotion compared to bands that started back in the seventies. You have to consider that nirvana emerged at a time when most of the mainstream audience was practically begging for something "new," and they just happened to fit the bill perfectly. In my view, the vast majority of people responsible for nirvana's success aren't really connoisseurs of fine music; they're more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's sentiment and the market demand essentially required something like nirvana to exist. As I mentioned before, it feels more like a cultural phenomenon than a display of truly brilliant music.

If we were to compare the actual amount of QUALITY material this band produced against the sheer volume of various idiotic releases, TV specials, and now even the recent documentaries they've sold off, they seem much more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, I suppose that has nothing to do with Kurt himself, since others exploited his image and his work—and his music—following his death.

I really don't see nirvana as being serious pioneers of anything, and I guess comparing a band for whom everything was perfectly laid out—with a market practically crying out for something of that nature—to bands like AC/DC is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to spend years playing in tiny clubs, working side jobs, constantly changing lineups, and slowly grinding their way up just to succeed (which, in other words, meant you actually had to possess quality for the audience to notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect). Ultimately, I feel that discussing nirvana's legacy and trying to compare them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is somewhat tragicomic.

Look, you've shared so much nonsense in your post that it’s hard to take you seriously when you call someone else out for talking nonsense. Let's break this down step by step:

Kurt was a likable guy, but I’d argue that nirvana is more of a cultural phenomenon than a collection of truly genius music.

Whether you’re a fan of nirvana or not, you have to admit the music is pure genius. Even if you think Nevermind feels a bit overplayed or commercialized, it’s an absolute masterpiece. If you browse any "best albums of all time" lists online, you'll notice Nevermind is everywhere, and that’s coming from the most relevant critics out there. It isn't by accident, either. On Rolling Stone's list of the top 500 albums ever, Nevermind landed at a massive number 17, sitting right alongside the greatest legends in music history. They have two other spots on that list as well: Unplugged in New York at 313 and in Utero at 435. Personally, I think in Utero is an incredible record, though it always seems to get underrated. It just had the misfortune of following up Nevermind, but it truly is an excellent album.

Nirvana was already well-established by the time the MTV era hit. That doesn't mean their music isn't good, but they definitely had a much easier time getting airplay compared to bands that were grinding it out back in the seventies.

I don't quite follow this logic. Are we saying it was easier for them to get exposure than it was for bands back in the 70s? If that's the case, what's the next step—just trash everything released after the 70s because MTV finally showed up?🙄

Keep in mind that Nirvana emerged right when the mainstream was starving for something "new," and they stepped into that void perfectly. Most of the people responsible for their massive success weren't necessarily connoisseurs of great music; they were more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's mood and the market itself practically demanded the arrival of a band like Nirvana. As I’ve said before, it’s more of a cultural phenomenon than a case of pure musical genius.

Look, you have to realize that back when nirvana was hitting its stride, there were tens of thousands of bands out there on this planet. And wouldn't you know it—nirvana is the one that actually blew up. You’re talking about nirvana like they were some manufactured boy band designed by a committee, where everyone else wrote the songs and a massive marketing machine paved the way for them to succeed. It's like you think those three guys just had to learn a few dance moves, sing a little bit, and act cool to make it happen.

If you weigh the amount of ACTUAL quality material this band produced against the flood of mindless re-releases, TV specials, and lately, all those documentaries they've put out, they look more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, that has nothing to do with Kurt, because it was everyone else exploiting his image and his work—and the music—after he passed away.

Every major band puts out plenty of mindless re-releases. Every single one. That includes nirvana. No matter how many of those exist, they don't diminish the actual quality of nirvana's music.

I really don't see nirvana as serious pioneers of anything. Comparing them to a band where everything was perfectly packaged for a market that was practically screaming for something like them—like AC/DC—is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to grind for years playing tiny clubs, working side jobs, swapping out lineups, and slowly building momentum just to make it. In other words, you had to have genuine talent for an audience to actually notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect. Honestly, debating any kind of legacy for nirvana by comparing them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is just tragicomic.

The way you're trashing nirvana is the same way you could trash any band. You're trying so hard to downplay and marginalize their impact. The market was also begging for bands like the Beatles or the Stones back in the sixties, so what? Are we supposed to trash them now?

Every era of music has its own specific characteristics. You're perfectly entitled to stay stuck in the seventies and refuse to acknowledge anything after that. But if you do, you're just being a dogmatic thinker, not a music connoisseur. At that point, arguing with you would be a total waste of time.

Look, I don't care for the Beatles, the Stones, The Doors, Pink Floyd, or a lot of other musical giants myself. But if I didn't understand why those bands matter and the massive impact they made on music, I'd be an idiot.

Here’s an even better option:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stereo-Hea...item3f4320cc1c

The shipping on the last one was outrageous—$25. This one is much more reasonable at $6.25.

Actually, I feel the exact opposite—straight cables just stress me out. Every straight cable I've ever owned was either too short, causing too much head or body movement and making them slip off, or if they were long enough, I'd just spend the whole time worrying about where they're going to snag. This "telephone-style" coiled cord is perfect for avoiding all that.

George Sanchez59 said:And look, it’s just some gadget designed by 😉manufacturers
. It isn't exactly cheap, and honestly, it doesn't look like something that won't just snag on everything and tangle itself up.

It's a bit hard to put into words, but my desk setup is such that I'm constantly getting caught on this standard, "flat" cable. It snags on things so often that my headphones end up getting pulled right off my head, which is incredibly frustrating. Plus, I like to move around a little when I'm listening to music.🙂

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Black-Prof...-/301183857501

These look pretty decent to me.

Does anyone have any ideas on where I could find some headphones with a coiled cable, like an old-school telephone cord? I'm looking for something budget-friendly. Thanks!