Why is there such a contrast between the average rating and the reviews?

hairu said:
The drama is quite bland so are characters, the way things are solved and avoided are trash, overall there wasn't much to the show and people saw that.

AoxxAaron said:
It's because they posted first.

TheKillerAngel said:


This. The new review system (without downvotes) turns things into a race to whoever posts the first review. Those are disproportionately likely to stay on the front, regardless of how well they reflect the audience's opinion.

Yautja said:

This is so damn true. If you don't post your review the DAY a series finishes or when there are no other reviews, it 100% will be buried beneath the ones that came first.

I may often be they guy this post is complaining about as I'm more prone to write or talk about things I dislike, and it's not uncommon for me to have negative opinions about popular series, but it still annoys me to no end seeing certain types of ridiculous negative (or positive) reviews. Getting rid of not helpful option while still having the helpful option is so damn stupid. Like Youtube comment ratings or facebook. That ratio is kind of important.

All that said, ever since like 2017ish the reviews on MAL have generally been complete and utter trash and are best taken with a quarter of a grain of salt. One thing I do is check the persons other reviews or ratings and if certain things are rated ridiculously low or if there's just general inconsistency, and then I just move on if they tick enough boxes. I feel very hypocritical saying this, because looking at my own ratings this very well applies to me, but some people just like to or go out of their way to shit on popular stuff.

As for the top negative review on this particular anime. He's 100% a troll, or got one hell of an inconsistent anime taste palate. Dude's given stuff like Satsuriku no Tenshi, Isekai Maou and Fairy Tale a 10, but High Score Girl, fucking Yojouhan Siwa Taikei, and Hatarku Saibou all less than a 6.

When it comes to guys like this, I just check how inconsistent their ratings or taste seems to be and then ignore accordingly because at some point, it goes past personal preference and opinion on a territory of unexplainable inconsistency.

Yautja said:


In regards to the button, I meant as concept it should go hand in hand with a helpful button. Obviously all places on the internet with such voting options, but MAL in particular, are a shit show and there are obvious reasons why they don't function as they should. Your justification however for the helpful part is the exact same as your criticism, just in the other direction. There is no significant difference to up-voting a review that your agree with as opposed to down-voting one you disagree with. The fundamental issue remains the same. As for your personal opinion, that's ridiculous. There's a very good reason some shows have fairly high or decent scores, but all the reviews are shitting on it, and vice versa.

No, I'm not. If you've seen those shows and read those reviews, you'd know what I'm talking about. I don't need to know him as a person, I can read his reviews, and I've seen the shows. Those reviews are either trolls, or 100% devoid of objectivity. The concept of a review is to evaluate an entity as objectively as possible. There's a significant difference between a review, and an opinion piece. If you cannot admit something you like is bad, or something you dislike is good, you shouldn't bother call it a review or expect other people to treat them as such. There's a significant difference between disliking something popular and objectively good, and genuinely going against the masses and identifying something popular as mediocre for a set of reasons. He's 100% the former. There's no room for discussion there. They're troll reviews or opinion pieces. His picture is a perfect visualization of his reviews.

Play2X said:


Also regarding the NH Button, actually no, the helpful button surprisingly isn't as bad as the Not helpful button. Of course I don't have statistical data and have to speak from personal experience, but since the removal of the not helpful button I had of course hateful bastards who just wanted to insult me, but also a lot of people who gave me a helpful vote even though they did think differently. I, myself, changed somewhat in the same direction. Sometimes there are reviews I disagree with, but which are still well crafted pieces, in which cae I vote them as helpful. Something, I have to admit, I wouldn't have done as long as there is a not helpful button.

And in the second paragraph you start to get obnoxious. Don't get me wrong, I understand you, and agree with you to some degree. Yes, reviews, and in my opinion even the scores on our lists, should be objective. The problem is that objectivity is in itself subjective. Because, without too much comparison between us, I assume we have different ratings on some shows, even though we both tried to rate shows objectively (from our perspective). Simply because we have different values, experiences, skills, standards, and whatnot, we will inevitably arrive at different scores.
Of course, that doesn't mean there are NO troll reviews. I've seen enough of those as well. I.E. Mars of destruction 10 point reviews. Or reviews with mainly opinions whithout any try at examples or anything. Or reviews who give scores completely different from what they wrote. We both have seen that before, I am sure. Well, gtg, will be back in 4 hours, looking forward, mate! Cheers!

Yautja said:


I didn't say it was. I said the issues are the same. Which they're are. Partisanship. People up-vote what they agree with, down-vote what they disagree with. It's impossible for one to be worse than another on a purely functional level. How one can be "worse" than another is simply an illogical position to hold.

If you think I'm being annoying, go read his more outrageous reviews. You're lacking context. I've been fairly kind considering whom I am speaking of. If you're referring to my views regarding objectivity, perhaps you're having trouble admitting something you like is bad or vice versa.

"Objectivity is subjective"
That's a paradox, an oxymoron and entirely contradictory. No it is not. You simply do not understand the words if you think that. Or hold a certain type of inconsistent philosophy that is making it's way around politics and has been in literature for a long while.

Different ratings are due to a myriad of things, and regardless of how objective one person is or rather tries to be, it is entirely possible for a person to be wrong in their rating. Different scores do not mean objectivity is subjective, that is simply fallacious.

Play2X said:


Unfortunately for you, I am right on this one. Like I said, of course, people upvote what they like, and downvote what they don't like. If it would end there, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. However, it is a far more common occurrence of people upvoting things they not necessarily agree with (like a well written review that depicts a different opinion), then downvoting things they agree with, but don't like the way its voiced. Don't ask me WHY it is this way, if were to guess it would be because humanity in general is able to feel empathy. But I don't have any solid proof for that. The point is, it does happen, which makes a helpful button more worth than a not helpful button. On a +/- scale the helpful button outweights the not helpful button because people (except for trolls or malicious people) don't want to be negative. Thats not illogical. Quite contrary.

...Actually, I think of doing this. I've only read the reviews for this anime, but I will see that I do that tomorrow. Sounds like an interesting passtime, and well, perhaps you are right on that single person. However, I want to encourage you not to just people as trolls just because you don't agree with them. Because, from your writing so far, it certainly feels that way to me.

I am aware that TRUE objectivity can't be subjective. 1+1 will always equal 2, that kind of objectivity is of course not subjective (even though I could imagine that people in the future might find ways to proove us wrong. But then again, that would just mean that we simply were wrong. But thats kinda off the charts for now). The problem is, how do you want to OBJECTIVELY rate an anime? If you think about it, thats kinda impossible. We can create standarts on what we rate sure, we can weight the stuff we rate, but there is noone OBJECTIVELY right. I sincerely hope you are not stupid enough to think that just because you rate something in a way you come to think that thats the objectively right score. Just to be sure. Obviously my rating is no indicator for objective scores as well. Nor is the anime community's score as a general. To quote Gigguk: "Tastes change. People change."
Just like people in roman times liked different things than people in the medieval times or the new age, peoples tastes will continue to change. It would be outrageous to think that any one opinion would be objective. Before you might start to argue that the communities' ratings might be objective (which I brought up myself): No. Obviously no. This is a gruesome example, but probably the most effective one. Roughly 85 years ago a certain group rose to power, and a lot of people thought what this group did was right. We can safely say they weren't. Or a less dramatic example, some 500 years ago nearly the whole of humanity believed earth to be flat. Were they right? Well, no.
On that note, of course experts are just as unimportant to objectivity. Those guys merely have an especially big ego.
Well, to end something which took longer than I expected:
"Objectivity is subjective" is unfortunately not a paradox, as the Objectivity I mentioned there is by the rest of my post specified as the standards people use when they rate anime. And those are subjective. There simply will never be an anime which everyone, past, present and future will claim as an universal masterpiece. Why is that important? Because if there was something objectively good, people would combine these things into the ultimate anime. And no, that just will never happen.

Yautja said:


Well the way you worded that makes you sound like you're contradicting yourself, because if people up vote stuff they disagree with, but it is well written, and not things they agree with they are poorly written, things are functioning as they exactly as they should. Helpful stuff goes up. Non helpful stuff goes down. But, like you said. You have no empirical proof, only anecdotes, and frankly, my anecdotes contradict yours because when they were around, I found little to significant abuse of the function. So I guess that makes you unfortunately the wrong one. Youtube's likes and dislikes function reasonably well, as do reddit's when you're not in ridiculously ideological subreddits. Steam is another perfect and nearly 1 to 1 example of this system functioning perfectly. And they even have comments on reviews to reinforce that. And since I have working examples of such systems, I guess that makes me the unfortunately correct one.

Or, perhaps you're making assumptions about someone you do not know about something you've just admitted to being ignorant about. So, to turn that around on you, don't give unsolicited advice or make assumptions / assertions when you're ignorant.

No, people couldn't. That would goes against several laws of logical absolutes. Not unless you're talking about a 1984 future, and in that case, they'd still be wrong, but just unaware of that.

I don't expect entire objectivity, that's near impossible, I'd just like at least a nice 50 / 50 split. Honesty would be good to. Objective enough to realize that something you like is shit, or something you hate is great. This guy does not fall into that.

Just because we don't know something, does not mean it does not exist. There 100% is an objectively right in such regards. This article is does a fantastic job of explaining how that is true. It's so simple even a laymen could understand.

No, I don't, but I do think I can tell if something is largely good or bad and maybe hit a general range. What the exact numerical value is obviously more contentious. I really hope you're not stupid enough to keep making such assumptions.

And some of those age old things still exist today in their original form, and are well regarded, plays such as Shakespeare, music such as Bach, philosophy such as Socrates. They exist because they're good, even if most of their peers have died out.

You're an idiot who's clearly lost track of himself if you think I'd argue community ratings are objective. Within what you've quoted, I've literally said MAL has gone to shit and most of the reviews are trash. And considering I hold that opinion, why on earth would I argue that MAL or other such aggregates, the places where such reviews are produced, usually in line with that general score, are correct? I've also said that it's not uncommon for me to DISLIKE things are that are extremely popular and find them to be awful. So you're doubly wrong in making such a ridiculous argument. I'm not going to even touch the ridiculous false equivalence that is that analogy.

"Experts are unimportant to objectivity."
Hear that Steven Hawking's ghost? You're unimportant to science. Hear that Shakespeare's ghost? You're unimportant to literature. What another stupid tidbit. Good lord.

It literally is. They're antonyms.

paradox: a self-contradictory and false proposition.
objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
subjective: placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

Like I said. You clearly just don't know what the words mean, as the "Objectivity you mentioned" doesn't exist and follows an unsurprisingly flawed and extremely common ideology that is extremely popular through pseudo intellects in many domains, specifically philosophy and literature.

Oh yes there are, there are already examples of such things in music, in literature and in architecture. There's no reason to assume that wouldn't apply to anime. Again, you clearly just lack understanding of such things by assuming someone would Frankenstein an anime out it.

Anyways, this is all radically off topic of the post. So I'd like to kill this here. But considering I always manage to find a wacko looking for an argument, with some crazy beliefs, I doubt that will happen. Figures that the guy that who quotes himself on his own profile, which is accompanied by some highly hypocritical and ideologically inconsistent rating schemes, would be like this.

Play2X said:


I really love to see how you keep on insulting, while I try to treat you with respect.
Lets just refrain from that, shall we? ANYWAYS...

First of all, the WORKING systems of youtube, steam and reddit. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
First, the youtube ones. I don't know about your youtube behavior, but I hope you are aware how flawed the youtube system is. People upload stuff. Their SUBSCRIBERS aka FANS see those videos, and mainly upvote those videos, because they are targetted by those videos. There are a few people who didn't like those videos and downvote. There are some new people who might see those videos. If they don't like it, they just return to the main page, without downvoting. If they absolutely HATE it, they will downvote it. And at the same time some new people will like the video, like it, and subscribe. That, my friend, is how the youtube system works. Only some really public things like the Ghostbusters (whatever year, the female one) trailer, or stuff with which you upset your fanbase (MatPats 'how to tame your dragon' on Film Theory comes to mind) get major downvotes from people.
Steam...STEAM.... we are talking about this site, which allows companies to censor the reviewers, or straight out delete reviews? Nice. I rest my case.
...Actually, I can't say stuff about reddit, because, quite honestly, I don't frequent reddit. Sorry about that :/ But given your other examples, I probably could poke some holes into reddit as well.

Like I said, I can't imagine it myself, and like I also said, yes, that would just mean we were wrong in the first place. Exactly my words. Good thing you confirm them.

I'm with you on the next one. I stalked your list a bit, and found that we have kinda similar tastes, and this one is no different. I would love it, if reviews would take their utmost time with their reviews, find examples of what they like, draw comparisons, etc. We both have written reviews before, and god I've seen more than enough 'This anime SUCKS, it is SO SHITTY, FUCK THIS SHiT!!'. And while my first Cowboy Bebop review wasn't that bad, I know myself that I did a lot of things wrong back then, as I did on my Ping Pong review as well. We can only learn getting better with reviews by doing them. As you are well aware I guess. (Just for reference, even back then I watched both of these shows not just once or twice, but actually 3 times)
But as I said, if you write me the name of that guy on my comments section, I will gladly spend tomorrow with some fun reading.

I actually read that article, and I found it to be really interesting. Some of the points had me for a moment, but thinking about it for a while let me discover some flaws. For example grammer or spelling of words. While there is certainly a right and wrong, those things also change with time. I haven't looked up how often it happens in the english language, but at least in german we have every year some changes to words, because the newer generations use them in a different way, or the rules for letters change, all that kind of stuff. And from one episode of film theory about the Simpsons I also remember that worlds like d'oh or meh found their way into official writing as well.
But let me just get out of the way, how he manages to be wrong.
-There is a difference between good writing and good storytelling-
If we only look at that statement, then yes, he is right. He says that good writing is either technical writing, storytelling, or both. At this point he starts to go wrong (somewhat). It is not either, it is only both. Even if you have the biggest story on earth, if you suck at writing, people will stop at line one, page one. But the same goes for the technical side. You can be the literarry master of the universe, if you are unable to describe what you want to say (to make it less about story driven books) all of your metaphors and hyperboles won't help. The second problem is that, while yes, good writing needs both of those, both are actually, again subjective. Im not talking about obvious gramatical errors here, every writer should be aware that making such simple mistakes is a BIG no-no. But the way you can write technical differs. Some like themselfes their stylistic hyperboles. Some work with interesting tense. Again others love their heavy dialogue, while some are really descriptive. None of these are bad, but they happen to contradict each other sometimes, therefore what is good technical writing is already subjective. The same goes for good storytelling. If you want, I can give you some examples there as well, but for the sake of both of our sanity, I'm keeping this concise.
-There is a difference between your "taste" and the actual quality-
No, actually. The problem is more that people normally stop at 'It just isn't to my taste'. People don't think critically enough about media to actually figure out, what exactly they disliked.
He brings the example of a liver. (I have to my recollection never eaten liver, so don't ask me of the actual taste) Sure, that liver can still be expertly cooked, but he still won't like the liver. Why is that though? Maybe it is because liver is bitter, and his body can't handle bitter food? Therefore even that expert cook will fail to make food for everyone who dislikes bitter food. Sure, those guys can still look at that liver and think 'Yea it smells good and looks amazing, but I can't eat it so, whats the point'. The chef just lost a part of the audience, and the liver isn't perfect anymore.
-There is a difference between writing for publication, and writing for personal fulfillment-
Obviously. The problem is, while he says that 'Most publishers DO NOT think good writing is subjective', he is actually wrong here. Publishers don't care about a good story or good grammer. They care for what sells. And even in that they are not infallible. There are books which just don't sell as good as the publishers hoped, or a prominent example, publishers passed on Harry Potter. Those guys deal with books on a daily basis, and even they can't make sure that they make the right choice.
-Conclusion-
Yes. There is good writing. And there is bad writing. But they are still to large parts subjective, even if he thinks otherwise. Also, since I like to write myself, I trust Brandon Sanderson on that matter more. Beside being one of the best fantasy authors of the modern day, he also does readings on the craft of writing. And his first lection is pretty much this 'I show you some methods I found over the years, some might work for you, some will not, so use what you will like and expand on them.' So, once again, everyone has their own ways of doing things, and there is nothing wrong about it.

Like I said, we have largely similar scores, so it would kinda hurt to say that you are wrong about that ^^ but I can tell from my own experience, that while I usually also hit the same range as most, there are still shows where I find things people simply want to overlook, both for the good and for the bad.

Of course will good things survive. However, those examples kinda proove my point. Don't get me wrong, Bach is my favorite classical composer, but we both know that Bach is more of a niché. People instead listen to shit like Justin Bieber. And I have heard more than enough people say how grating they find Shakespears works to be.

I am aware that you said that. And I merely wanted to make sure that all kinds of arguments people USUALLY bring up are already out of the window. If we both agree that community ratings aren't important: Awesome! One thing more we have in common!

You are using my quotes in ways I didn't anticipated, and also incorrectly. I did not say that they are unimportant to their crafts. However, those guys are still human. Technically were, but well. Lets assume that there is this new guy at whereever Hawking studied. And this guy has a theory, and everything fits, but unfortunately it contradicts STEPHEN motherf'n HAWKINGS theory. Lets assume hawking is still alive, sounds better that way. Because we both know that Hawking wouldn't be like 'I CANT BE WRONG, MY WORD IS LAW!!'. Nope, instead he and that new guy would sit together, they would look over the theory, and find whether that new theory might actually be right. This, by the way, is the same we do just now. We argue, try to make a point for our thesis, and see what comes out of it. No hard feelings, Man!

Thanks for giving me the google definition, unfortunately I am aware of those.
And while I could repeat why exactly I am right, I can see this argument going in circles of 'I am right!' 'you are not!' 'I am right!' 'you are not!'. So I think we should stop this one, exept you still have some actual proof rather than 'No, its not like that'.

There are? Lets hear it then. I haven't found a piece of music which is liked by every human in history to that point, same goes for literature or architecture. Also, of course I wouln't Frankenstein stuff together. But that idea in itself is hillarious. Imagine like Rem from Re:Zero playing Ping Pong with One Punch Man. Heh. But all kidding aside. Imagine what this objectively good would imply. Lets just say people come to the conclusion that the Hero's Journey without the threshold phase and the mentors death would be the objectively best story. Then yay, every story would have that, because people want to sell it. Then people find out that, I dunno, the female childhoodfriend is the objectively best character. You know what comes next. And then, lets say, the universally best opening is by Aoi Eir (I would so like to say that this is actually true, but heh... Damn). And suddenly we have Aoi Eir singing until her throat stops working. Of course we can repeat that for everything. The animation, the sound design, the voice actors. If there was something objectively good, we wouldn't have the choice of so many anime anymore, because there would come something, which gamers describe as a META. To some degree we do see that with Isekai and CGDCT anime.

But yes, I agree. We really went REALLY far away from what this threat is about.
By the way, I had some real fun writing this, so i hope you are not too angry. I sent you a friend invite as well, since you have some similar tastes!

Yautja said:


First off, you dropped the insults first. Second off, that's the first response I insulted you in. Don't like it? Don't dish it.

Yes, and MAL had a working system until they removed it in favor of this neutered one. You can nitpick pedantic little differences all you want, but fundamentally they're all the same system and they all work. None of your criticisms break the system as a concept or in practice. Not on YT, not on MAL. They're barely even sequitur. As for Steam, no they don't allowed censorship. They let developers flag reviews which steam can then check out, but developers cannot removes reviews. So that's a lie on your part. So no, you can't rest your case or poke holes because so far you've not done that. You've nitpicked functional differences between youtube and not youtube, as if it breaks the core concept of upvote and downvote.

No, you said you could imagine people in the future proving us wrong in regards to 1+1 = 2 terms of objectivity. That's patently impossible. There's zero chance in 'us' being wrong there.

So you didn't even know who's reviews I was criticizing, and by extension have no idea what review I was referring to, and you were complaining about my conduct and how I was characterizing him? That's hilarious. Not only did you just contradict your previous comment about having read the review / person I was referring to, you just made my point about you being ignorant, which you ignored for some strange reason, even stronger.

Again, pedantic. The simplest explanation that there is objectively better literature is that very first example. The finer details can be hashed out, but that simple example with the titles makes the point. There is such a thing as objectively good and bad writing.

Your grammar / spelling point doesn't change a thing. It's a genuine non-sequitur. New terms, poor grammar and the like have always been used in literature. Interestingly enough, I mentioned 1984, which has that and Shakespeare who was famous for inventing new words and terms.

You, again, do not understand. No, he says good writing is not the same as good storytelling. Good writing is clear, understandable, flows, etc. Like music. Good story telling is engaging, interesting, has depth. His example is George is great at telling stories, but not good at writing them down. Writing is not the same as story telling. He then uses "Good Writing" again in quotes to signify an alternate usage of the term to encompass story telling. Ironically, what would have been better and more clear is for him to use "Good Literature". A story can be well written, but still suck as a story, or be an incredibly interesting story, but poorly written. That's what he said, and you're literally plagiarizing what he said, and saying he didn't say it because you do not understand. And no, they're not subjective. That's exactly what the opening example dismisses. The next point about classes, grading and the like completely abolish that ridiculous notion.

You're describing different styles and writing preferences as if that somehow changes the fact that some writing can be better than other writing. A bike is an objectively better mode of transportation to a unicycle even though they're entirely different things. A master of karate is still going to get his ass beat by a master of BJJ. Difference of style and preference does not change the fact there are objective quality differences. This is again a fallacious argument. Anyways, I'd soon take the word of an Author with a well backed argument than someone who cannot understand his argument.

What? There 100% is a difference between taste and quality and your argument that is somehow suppose to disprove that does the exact opposite. Those people in you example cannot get past taste preferences. Do you even know what you're talking about at this point? This statement is about differentiating between Objective and Subjective, Preference and Quality. You're trying to have your cake and eat it. Your inconsistent ideology is showing.

He is an author. I don't know what you know about publishing, but I sure know he knows a fair bit. And I'm sure a shit ton of people who watch anime and read manga have seen authors represent publishers in their works, and they 100% do care about quality. What another ridiculous claim without any backing.

No, there is good writing - grammar, spelling, flow, etc. Good story - depth, engagement, etc. And preference, what types of flow, depth, and writing styles, etc a person prefers. Good literature has one or both. You're again using the fallacious defense that different styles somehow destroy objective quality. You're saying that because a fantasy genre exists, it is impossible for sci-fi to be better when that isn't the argument. The argument is that a sci-fi work can be objectively better than a fantasy work. You may like fantasy better, it may be your preference, but a writing in that genre can be worse than a writing in a genre you hate.

No, it doesn't because you said "There will never be an anime in which everyone, past present and future will claim as a master piece" and "objectively right does not exist because tastes change - roman people liked different things than medieval people and it's therefore ridiculous to thing one 'one opinion' would be objective". Those examples completely destroy both those notions and certainly do not reinforce any point you've made.

Oh, are you? Then why did you say "Before you might start to argue..."? No, I don't think you are aware of that. I think you're again trying to retcon what you've said and are assuming either I won't read back on it, remember what you've said or that I will attribute a given meaning that you've no way expressed, such as you "being aware that I don't hold such a belief" even though you said "before I start to argue said belief" or saying that those timeless examples somehow reinforce your ridiculous notion that "Objectively Right" doesn't exist because tastes change and old things are not popular anymore.

Or, you're trying to retcon the meaning of what you said in order to regain some ground. Because this again, is another fallacious example. None of that example some how asserts that "experts are just as unimportant to objectivity. Those guys merely have an especially big ego.". You're again, trying to have your cake and eat it.

Then do it and be wrong. Those definitions show you're wrong. You can stop if you want, but I notice you tend to ignore the things that catch you. Those definitions are from dictionaries. "Objectivity is subjective" is a paradox. Sorry. There's literally millions of results for subjective vs objective. They are in ZERO ways the same thing. You wanna die on this hill, be my guest. Objectivity is not under any conceivable or contrivable light, subjective.

Already did. Bach, Shakespeare, etc. In regards to architecture, there's the Parthenon, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, etc. Also, don't pretend I won't notice you moving the goal posts. Nothing is ever literally liked by every human ever. That is not the same thing as being objectively good or well regarded through out it's entire existence. What another ridiculous fallacy.

This is a circle I'll no longer run in, and no, I won't. Tastes aside, I don't enjoy talking to people this dishonest. Knowingly or not. I'm not angry, I'm irritated at how fallacious and dishonest you've been.I hope you understand and believe me when I say I genuinely hate saying shit like "I'm better and smarter than you" and have never said it before, and do not mean this as an insult, but I seriously think (frankly, I pretty much know) you have zero understanding of what I'm saying and your espousal and ideology are so patently false and inconsistent that the troll / wacko I was referring to originally would laugh at your comments due to how ridiculous they are. You may have had fun, but I'm just disappointed that you seem to think we understand each other, both for your sake and mine. Putting aside the ideological differences, You seem like a nice person, but a lot of what you've said just screams dishonest and I don't like that kind of person.