__BACK__


Entertainment & Music



We're gonna need a bigger boat.

They just didn't.'

no you really are full of shit.

settingsOptions
There are 35 Replies

Lol why are you guys arguing about subjective things in an objective manner?

Posted December 3rd by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

S.O.H., try to provide a little more effort (or a little less belligerence). You don't have to make a textwall, but something more than saying someone is full of shit would be appreciated.

Posted December 3rd by nullfather
nullfather

nah there is no point in doing that since mariomguy will not get the point.

Posted December 4th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

Then you don't need to bother posting at all, because insulting him will only force him into a defensive stance and drive the thread to a personal place where he looks like a victim.

Posted December 4th by nullfather
nullfather

nah there is no point in doing that since mariomguy will not get the point.


All I saw was him saying "this is actually bad" and you saying "no fuck you this is good". What point could possibly matter much in that kind of discussion?

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

noted but nah.

Posted December 4th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

Hey SOH I'm talking to you and it's relevant. Unless, you think it was more than opinion vs opinion? Because it really doesn't look like it reading back. It looks like it was merely your opinion vs his.

I don't care what he's said in the past, right now I want to know how you seem to believe this is more than opinion vs opinion.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Seriously I want to know. What "point" were you trying to make? It really just seems like you can't stand it when people have a different opinion on things you like. Which is fine I guess. Being passionate about things tends to do that. But you don't seem to be self-aware about it.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I stand it just fine. At this point the back in forth between mariomguy and jet is annoying me because mariomguy just doesn't get the points jet brought up through out the thread. It's frustrates me.

Jet has the patience of a saint it seems that I dont.

Posted December 4th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

If it's going to devolve into questioning why someone is here at all


No one was doing that??? Jeez Jet what's your beef with me? I assume you're talking about me since you brought up "tagging it as irrelevant". Also because of the latter part which happened around when I came in.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

At this point the back in forth between mariomguy and jet is annoying me because mariomguy just doesn't get the points jet brought up through out the thread. It's frustrates me.


Well maybe you need to step back and consider that you're getting upset at someone's opinions and arguments regarding superhero movies then let it go. There are many things much more worthy of frustration.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I'm just upset at the fact that he is that thick headed. I figured he would at least try to change over the years. I'll just lower my expectations.

Posted December 4th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

I figured as much but didn't want to say anything. Eh. Personally I don't think he's quite as bad as he's made out to be. Just happens to be really opinionated in ways people don't like half the time it seems. Nothing harmful about his opinions.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Nothing harmful about his opinions.


Nothing harmful about his opinions at all. What is harmful is how he communicates them.

Posted December 4th by nullfather
nullfather

What is harmful is how he communicates them.


And... how is that?

Posted December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

And... how is that?


Get some popcorn, lad.
https://pastebin.com/ad5DdSN5

Posted December 4th by nullfather
nullfather

Like I'm going to read through all of that once again. At any rate he doesn't seem that bad right now. No doubt the pastebin is a bit overly dramatic anyway.

Also lmao this reminds me of that pastebin that documented my antics when I used a name on 4chan years ago. Good times. Even rose to janitor for a short time which pissed everyone off except my weird little cult following.

Really if there is anything GT could learn from that, it's to not build up infamous figures which is no doubt what that pastebin is attempting to do. Really all of the problems would just go away if you simply ignored what you didn't like with him, and with him it should be easy.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Well still not going to read all of the links, but by the intro of that pastebin you clearly weren't interested in actually ending the problem because you were too busy being entertained by the shitstorm. Pretty sure you were the one who wrote that anyway.

Legitimately though, what the intro is describing could have all been avoided if everyone else did not make him into such a big deal and simply ignored him when he said things they didn't like or seemed unreasonable.

There's definitely been no shitstorms like the Saga over the last couple of years, but this thread is still frustrating as hell.


Sounds like your problem tbh. Better work on that. He's not even saying anything about you personally.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

Really if there is anything GT could learn from that, it's to not build up infamous figures which is no doubt what that pastebin is attempting to do. Really all of the problems would just go away if you simply ignored what you didn't like with him, and with him it should be easy.


You can do that if you like. Just like you can start ignoring me if I'm doing something that you don't like. Feel free to take that liberty, because I am going to continue having discussion on this discussion-based website.

Posted December 4th by nullfather
nullfather

You can do that if you like. Just like you can start ignoring me if I'm doing something that you don't like.


Ah but it was personal in your case. You also say harmful things unlike Mariomguy. Personal issues and actually being harmful are far more sensible things to be frustrated by than... whatever this petty shit is.

Usually to get as much uproar from a community as he did you would have to do something much more than what he's doing. You guys just made it far too easy for him.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

I split all of this out of the Justice League thread because it's completely derailing the thread. If you wish to discuss the state of superhero films, don't hesitate to contribute in that other thread. But if the conversation is going to spin out into some weird personal stuff that is ultimately about how someone presents their arguments or how someone responds to them, continue that here. Those are separate conversations.

Thank you.

Posted December 4th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

My second post here and really my first are on topic though. But especially the second.

Edited December 4th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

You're right. I missed it. Moved it back.

Posted December 4th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

I have a friend in RL who loves movies. Modern movies. Like, the whole bulk of it. The darker, grittier, gloomier, the better. Our arguments in RL are WAYY worse than anything I've said here in the last... 5 years. We're still friends.

Sometimes I get frustrated when people misconstrue my points. I'll say superhero movies are not as great as they could be, and I'll get a response like "Oh, you're biased against superhero movies!" It's like... no, that's not what I'm saying at all. Or I'll say the shows are better than the movies, and I'll hear "Oh, TV has seasons filled with episodes, but a movie has to end in 2 hours..." It gets really frustrating when people keep strawmanning and moving my points from one place to another, and then when I move them back I hear "Oh, you're moving goalposts!" And then someone else will say "I don't know how you have patience with him, he's nuts." Really?

Sam Remi's Spiderman movies (1-2) were far more entertaining than most of the new, modern superhero movies I've seen. And a single episode of Teen Titans, on its own, without any other lead-in, is more entertaining than the conglomerate superhero movies I've seen (Guardians and Avengers). I've seen Iron Man 1 and 3, Captain America, Superman Returns, Man of Steel, and a large portion of Thor (enough to know I just don't like it). And out of all these movies, while I agree Guardians was the best, I'd prefer to watch an episode of Teen Titans over it. And that's not a good thing! I really wanted to like Guardians, but you can't tell me the chemistry between those five was better than Titans. No way!

This stuff starts off as an "opinion," but by backing it with facts to support its reasoning, you can develop an argument. A point that is argued and supported well enough might as well be considered objective. Remember, gravity is still a theory, so expecting hard truths all the time is not going to be useful for anyone. I have an opinion, not from my ass, but for a good reason. If I don't like something I don't just complain about it, I try to figure out why so it can be improved upon.

Posted December 5th by mariomguy
mariomguy

It gets really frustrating when people keep strawmanning and moving my points from one place to another


I find this really hard to believe, given how the most popular format of debate is to take quotes directly from your posts and respond to them. While most other people give direct, honest responses, you are the one that tends to give non-sequiturs and try to slide in more and more ephemeral reasoning to prop up your opinion. In my observation, at least.

If I don't like something I don't just complain about it, I try to figure out why so it can be improved upon.


This is kind of the problem. If you don't like something, you try to find a way to tell people that there's something objectively wrong with it instead of accepting that things like aesthetic choice and personal preference exist. While there is technical success and failure in achieving an artistic goal (i.e. managing to portray the vision that the artist(s) had), the goal itself is not a matter of logic. For instance, the Half-Life series is widely considered to be among the very greatest PC games of all time and it blew people's minds with design wizardry and dramatic pacing that was nearly unprecedented for an FPS, but I wouldn't expect you to like it because it's dark, violent, realistic and not at all along the line of your aesthetics. If you were to say "I'm not going to play it because it doesn't look interesting to me", that would be fine. What's closer to the stuff that I take issue with in your posts would be saying something like "it doesn't look interesting to me because it failed in ways X, Y and Z".

That's bullshit. When you say that you try to find out why you don't like a thing so that the thing can be changed, you're ignoring the fact that your opinion is an active participant as well. You tend to act like your senses are perfect and objective when you're not judging things on their own merit at all. You have an attitude that treats yourself as the baseline, never thinking about finding out why you don't like a thing so you can improve on your own thought process.

The way your posts come off a lot is like you're saying that it's never your fault when you don't like something.

Posted December 5th by nullfather
nullfather

Sometimes I get frustrated when people misconstrue my points.


I get why that is frustrating. Primarily because:

Or I'll say the shows are better than the movies, and I'll hear "Oh, TV has seasons filled with episodes, but a movie has to end in 2 hours..."


You are hyper-simplifying the arguments I've made to misconstrue my point and misrepresent my arguments.


This stuff starts off as an "opinion," but by backing it with facts to support its reasoning, you can develop an argument.


All right, I'll ask:

Do you view my posts as doing this as well? Or do you think my opinion comes "from my ass," and without good reason?


A point that is argued and supported well enough might as well be considered objective.


Not when you are talking about arts and entertainment. There are some technical aspects to art that can be spoken of, but when you start talking about a movie's overall quality, particularly regarding plot and characterization, it is inherently opinion. You can back up your opinion with understandable arguments, but that doesn't suddenly make it "objective."

Posted December 6th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

Usually to get as much uproar from a community as he did you would have to do something much more than what he's doing. You guys just made it far too easy for him.


I can't speak for what he's like right now, as I long ago just adopted a stance of ignoring posts he's in unless he's talking to me, but what happened was:

Mariomguy would typically cause a post to go completely off-topic. He would post something, someone would disagree, then it would devolve into this long-ass argument that generally just seemed to be about whose opinion was more right. Mariomguy also had a tendency to try and position his opinions as fact and tell other people their opinions were wrong... Eventually it would end because he'd annoyed the other person so much that they gave up actually trying to have a conversation with him, or a mod would lock it.

This went on for so long that inevitably it just became a part of the site and the usual suspects would go in and cause trouble with it.

Edited December 6th by Moonray
Moonray

And again at a certain point most of the community would either learn to ignore him, or he'd be banned regardless of what he was or wasn't actually doing. But it never ended entirely.

Posted December 6th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

And again at a certain point most of the community would either learn to ignore him


You're right, toward the end I think most people did ignore it most of the time (or at the very least they stopped responding to it) but it was quite annoying to be reading a conversation and then find it get derailed because Mariomguy replied to it and then the usual stuff followed.

It's easy to say just ignore it but when you are enjoying reading people's opinions on a subject or engaging with someone on a subject, and then that gets cut short because Mariomguy cannot accept that a lot of things are subjective... It's kinda hard to ignore it. It's like if you're watching TV and someone comes and stands infront of it making lots of noise.

The way SOH deals with it isn't right or helpful I agree, but I think it's unfair to suggest that people should just ignore that a problem exists. (And I would go so far as to say I have seen SOH try to aggressively push his opinions as fact in the past... Like if anyone ever dare suggest Last of Us isn't good).

Edited December 6th by Moonray
Moonray

Ah but it was personal in your case. You also say harmful things unlike Mariomguy.


I think you may be underestimating how personal it winds up feeling when someone is constantly saying that things you like suck and are bad for *insert whatever medium you're talking about.* And how personal it sounds when someone makes comments implying that their opinion is "objective fact" based on reason, and your opinion is somehow, by default, incorrect, based on nonsense, and lacks value. Sure, it's not the same tone as coming right out and saying, "you're full of shit" and doing one-liners designed to work someone up, but it's not that far off in terms of its effect.

In this particular conversation, I've remained engaged rather than simply ignored him because the thing I'm enjoying is having to dive into the "whys." I don't get the impression mariomguy respects my opinion in the slightest, and appears never to give me an inch the way I've done his (consider how many times I've said things like, "I agree with that take," or "You're right about the appeal of Spider-man," or "Yes, those shows are really good," to the number of times he's given my arguments any recognition). But I don't like these movies (especially the Cap movies) "just because." I don't even disagree with the basic premise that more can be done with the genre overall. I just don't see it as inherently bad, or ultimately all that different from how genre films have usually gone. More could always be done with noir, for example, but the bulk of those films paled in comparison to The Third Man. I don't find the genre or Hollywood, and definitely not cinema as a whole, to be suffering. But still, I enjoy trying to explain why I like things. I'm not doing anything different than mariomguy in this case, except I'm not suggesting that he *shouldn't* like something.


The way your posts come off a lot is like you're saying that it's never your fault when you don't like something.


I don't think it's anyone's "fault" that they like or don't like something. We can all figure out why we like or dislike a thing, but who really knows *why* those things don't appeal to you? Like I know my love of structure and attention to detail is why I love Edgar Wright films, and is also why I felt indifferent about Stranger Things 2. But my sister felt indifferent about Edgar Wright films and loved Stranger Things 2. We can explain what felt right or off about those things, but I can't really explain why what appeals to me appeals to me, or what doesn't appeal to me doesn't, ya know?

(The problem is approaching art and entertainment as, in any way, truly objective, in which someone is clearly right and someone is clearly wrong. Not only is that not how this stuff works; it comes off as insulting to other people whose opinions on it are no less valid.)


Posted December 6th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

I don't think it's anyone's "fault" that they like or don't like something.


I could have chosen a more accurate word than "fault" in that sentence. I didn't mean "fault" in the ethical sense, more as a brunt and general indication that there is some amount of opinion in play on the consumer side and it's not just the media's "fault". It's a brash term, but I don't think it's unprecedented if he wants to act like it's always the media's "fault" when he doesn't like it.

And, is it that inaccurate? He has a record of ignoring, objectively misunderstanding or misconstruing technical points or verifiable facts about media. I would call the opinions and arguments that he builds on that ignorance to be a fault.

Posted December 6th by nullfather
nullfather

Ah. I gotcha.

Posted December 6th by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

You are hyper-simplifying the arguments I've made to misconstrue my point and misrepresent my arguments.
Do you believe the movies can do a better job of characterization than they do now? Or do you think 2 hours is not enough time for that? Obviously the reason I hope superhero movies would get better is so we have something better to watch, because I've seen better and I know better exists.

That's bullshit. When you say that you try to find out why you don't like a thing so that the thing can be changed, you're ignoring the fact that your opinion is an active participant as well. You tend to act like your senses are perfect and objective when you're not judging things on their own merit at all.
Well, I think in a very logical manner. If a film has a lot of moaning and groaning from the soundtrack, other people post saturated versions of it on Youtube to show people that there was a gem hidden beneath the rubbish, and a lot of people complained about the movie sucking at every turn, I'm pretty sure all this did not just happen by accident. I try to find the reasons for it. WHY did Man of Steel suck? Part of the reason is there was no joy or happiness in the film. It was a dark, edgy Superman where his father made a mistake and died early. Other films that do the same thing to a lesser extent are not "getting it right," they're holding back from what they could be.

Now, I thought of Singin' in the Rain as a good upbeat movie done properly, but if I use it as an example many users in this forum will quote me, literally quote every word I'm saying, but respond "SUPERHEROS DONT SING U SUK," or some variation thereof. This is what frustrates me. I make a good point, but everyone is blind to the point because they either don't know what I'm referring to or they are just looking for any reason to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. Not too many superhero movies have achieved the lofty realms of films like that, so I can't hold up some Hollywood classic and say "THIS IS PERFECTION." The shows were incredible. If they made a movie that was basically a longer, more complex version of Batman: The Animated Series, or Justice League, or Teen Titans, I would much rather watch that movie than anything else DC or Marvel puts out.

All right, I'll ask:

Do you view my posts as doing this as well? Or do you think my opinion comes "from my ass," and without good reason?
No, I think you're just arguing a point different from mine. The movies can be better. Are we in agreement? How can they be better? Well, look at how good the shows are. Look at how good these characters are. Look at how good OTHER MOVIES are. I'm certain you can take all that and arrive at something better than The Avengers, or Iron Man, or Deadpool, or Guardians of the Galaxy. They're superheroes. Let them HAVE FUN, for Pete's sake!

Not when you are talking about arts and entertainment. There are some technical aspects to art that can be spoken of, but when you start talking about a movie's overall quality, particularly regarding plot and characterization, it is inherently opinion.
If Deadpool was more like Aladdin's Genie and the pacing was sped up and the jokes were actually funny, maybe it wouldn't have felt so dragging and boring. I'm not the only one who picked up on this:

There are echoes of Watchmen and Sin City to a film that eventually proves to have more style than substance.

Deadpool tries so hard and is so trying.

Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the film "goes on too long and repetition dulls its initial cleverness"

For IndieWire, Kate Erbland gave the film a 'B-', praising its style, and Reynolds' Deadpool for breaking the superhero mold, but criticizing the overall film for following genre conventions and focusing on "numbing" violence and un-original swearing and nudity.


We can't all be wrong. We've all seen better movies (pfft, a lot). We've seen better parody movies (Naked Gun, Hot Fuzz, Shrek). We've seen better wild characters (The Genie from Aladdin, most characters played by Robbin Williams and Jim Carey). We've even seen better versions of the same character (comics). I think the most ludicrous opinion is the one where things are fine the way they are. There is always room for improvement. With Marvel movies, there's always plenty of room for improvement.

Posted Tuesday by mariomguy
mariomguy

The movies can be better. Are we in agreement?


I mean, yeah, sure. The Dark Knight could have been better and Raimi's Spider-man movies could have been better as well. I'd rather judge a movie based on what it is versus what it is trying to be rather than judge it arbitrarily on what I wanted it or thought it could have been. I'm judging the execution against the filmmaker's objectives rather than my own personal desire. And sure, that factors in sometimes, right? Like some of my issues with the Force Awakens was that it was too derivative of the originals and I had wanted new Star Wars entirely. No Han Solo or Luke Skywalker or Leia Organa, right? That's what I wanted. But I can't make a comment about the quality of the Force Awakens as a film based on what *I* wanted. I can say that I didn't like it because it didn't give me what I desired totally, but I can't say it's a bad film because of that.


Let them HAVE FUN, for Pete's sake!


I'm a bit confused at this comment because Marvel has, by and large, been trying to make movies that are "fun." Guardians of the Galaxy, the Avengers, Ant-Man, Thor: Ragnarok, Spider-man: Homecoming. All of these are "fun" movies. (Thor: Ragnarok is a straight up comedy with a huge Buck Rodgers influence, even.) I think you're conflating the drama of these films with the tone of these films. That there are serious characters or a lot of destruction seems to color your opinion of the films as tonally too dark or serious, but the entire appeal of those Iron Man movies and the Avengers films is that they're fun. You seriously can't keep comparing the tone of something like The Avengers to something like Batman v. Superman. (I also think you're missing the fact that comic books are basically just like soap operas. There needs to be cheesy, melodramatic plot twists and developments.)


Look at how good OTHER MOVIES are.


I'm going to be comparing superhero films to the source material, and as a comic fan, I am going to judge the quality of a comic book movie against that. I have enjoyed Marvel films because, by and large, they have managed to captured the feel of reading Marvel comics. I'm not going to be disappointed because these movies aren't Edgar Wright movies. Edgar Wright or Denis Villeneuve because those are filmmakers that don't come along very often. They literally can't all be great, because then there isn't any such thing as greatness. (And also, their films have flaws too because art is never perfect.)

I'm not sure that I can say that Thor: Ragnarok wasn't good because it wasn't as good as Moonlight. Have to judge it for what it is, what it's trying to be, others in the genre, and the source material.


If Deadpool was more like Aladdin's Genie and the pacing was sped up and the jokes were actually funny, maybe it wouldn't have felt so dragging and boring. I'm not the only one who picked up on this:


This is, once again, the question of who should the filmmakers try to appeal to: fans of the source material, or the general public? Normally, that's not a problem for original content, but it's a bit different when you're making a genre film based on a well-loved property.

All of these complaints about the film are valid from the perspective of the general public, but it comes at the cost of the character. If Deadpool were more like Genie, he'd be less like Deadpool. If the jokes were actually funny (itself an extremely subjective thing), you sacrifice a key part of Deadpool's character - which is that he is a try-hard that throws every joke that comes to his brain out and sees what sticks. His whole schtick is that he doesn't have any filter.

We've all seen better movies (pfft, a lot). We've seen better parody movies (Naked Gun, Hot Fuzz, Shrek). We've seen better wild characters (The Genie from Aladdin, most characters played by Robbin Williams and Jim Carey). We've even seen better versions of the same character (comics)


A li'l nitpick, but Hot Fuzz isn't a parody. But I've seen better wild characters than Jim Carey and Genie. I've seen better parodies than Shrek (lord knows we've all seen better parodies than Shrek). But this is relevant.


I think the most ludicrous opinion is the one where things are fine the way they are.


Ok, fine. I happen to go the other way in that I think the most ludicrous opinion is the one where every movie has to be the most amazing, most perfect movie. I've enjoyed the Marvel movies, so I don't see why it's ludicrous that I think they're fine. They've not really done much wrong by me. They've made movies I enjoyed less, sure.

Posted Tuesday by Jet Presto
Jet Presto

I'd rather judge a movie based on what it is versus what it is trying to be rather than judge it arbitrarily on what I wanted it or thought it could have been. I'm judging the execution against the filmmaker's objectives rather than my own personal desire.
What would be useful in all that is whether or not the filmmaker's objectives were really all that spectacular to begin with. Even if a Hallmark movie does nothing "wrong" in achieving the objectives they set out to accomplish, they could've been much better movies if the framework was broadened to allow that sort of thing. With Marvel superhero movies, they created this framework called "Marvel's superhero movies" and everything falls under that umbrella. That umbrella does not allow for much goofy superhero moments, humor, thrilling, enjoyable fun, powerfully emotional scenes, the use of pacing as a tool, etc. Guardians pushed the boundaries, but it never escaped what a "Marvel superhero movie" was.

If the jokes were actually funny (itself an extremely subjective thing), you sacrifice a key part of Deadpool's character - which is that he is a try-hard that throws every joke that comes to his brain out and sees what sticks. His whole schtick is that he doesn't have any filter.
I believe a film should be judged on its own merits. If the source material is crap, you don't copy the crappy parts to make a good show. Part of what made BTAS great was they took inspiration from the source material but ultimately made their own spin on it, and that made for amazing television. Batman stuff was everywhere in the 90s because of that. What worked in the comics might not work for a movie, so you need to translate mediums in a way that actually makes sense. The Dark Knight did this somewhat successfully. I feel they could've pushed it way more.

Ok, fine. I happen to go the other way in that I think the most ludicrous opinion is the one where every movie has to be the most amazing, most perfect movie. I've enjoyed the Marvel movies, so I don't see why it's ludicrous that I think they're fine. They've not really done much wrong by me. They've made movies I enjoyed less, sure.
No, it's not ludicrous to want your money's worth when all that makes a movie truly great are the small improvements here and there. Those small improvements at the end of the day amount to something really grand. What's the difference between a great film and an OK film? The story flows a little better, the plot is a little tighter, you care about the characters a little bit more, the whole thing feels a little more solidly directed, a little better shot, a little bit stronger, a little more powerful. It's not like you need to make a movie about a media mogul who never had a childhood and invent a new book in cinematography in order to make a fantastic movie, just do the film and your characters properly, and push to make something great. The Incredibles did this. Goodfellas did this. Death at a Funeral did this. The Truman Show did this. Those were all great movies, or at least they felt that way because they didn't hold back. But Marvel's movies don't feel this way. They all feel like they're holding something back and stopping themselves from pushing forward too hard.

If Hot Fuzz isn't a parody, it's a very clever reconstruction, and either way deserves praise for turning genres on its head. Deadpool lacked the oomph of satire and parody, and it certainly lacked the finesse of doing what Hot Fuzz did. It was a rather bland movie with Deadpool cracking poor jokes.

Posted Friday by mariomguy
mariomguy
Reply to: Criticisms of how certain users present opinions.

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on