If You've Got Flames You're Doing it Wrong

Originally Posted by Shodan

So you admit that I'd easily win a GC if this site were at 2010 standards?

Honestly I haven't read enough of your stuff but most of the Olympic level 100m runners would win gold easily 20 - 30 years ago. It's kind of an irrelevant point. You think if UA was around now within 6 months he wouldn't be one of the best battlers on the site?

I'm not having a go at you at all but it strikes me as such a stupid point when people say they would easily beat these greats from years ago.

Originally Posted by Shodan

So you admit that I'd easily win a GC if this site were at 2010 standards?

Honestly I haven't read enough of your stuff but most of the Olympic level 100m runners would win gold easily 20 - 30 years ago. It's kind of an irrelevant point. You think if UA was around now within 6 months he wouldn't be one of the best battlers on the site?

I'm not having a go at you at all but it strikes me as such a stupid point when people say they would easily beat these greats from years ago.

[captchabarz]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Honestly I haven't read enough of your stuff but most of the Olympic level 100m runners would win gold easily 20 - 30 years ago. It's kind of an irrelevant point. You think if UA was around now within 6 months he wouldn't be one of the best battlers on the site?

I'm not having a go at you at all but it strikes me as such a stupid point when people say they would easily beat these greats from years ago.

Isnt it unfair to say that todays battlers are better than the ones that battled back in 07-010?

The concepts used back then were obviously fresh and had the wow factor. If we use the same concepts now, itd be played. So its unfair to judge them according to that.

I would read a hundred UA verses over some complicated crappy bullshit that isnt worded right just to make it look like its "complex". These dudes try hard to be like Chilla Jones and Daylyt but dont set their bars up in a readable way which in turn affects the readability. A dope concept is useless if it isnt executed right.

And I also think its unfair that credit is given to todays battlers when they beat a HOF who was active in their era. Most of us dont transition well because frankly we either stop battling or lose interest. You beating them in their prime in a neutral era would actually speak volumes. Thats why i find it to be bs when people compare todays battlers to the old heads.

[captchabarz]

Originally Posted by Nicholas

Honestly I haven't read enough of your stuff but most of the Olympic level 100m runners would win gold easily 20 - 30 years ago. It's kind of an irrelevant point. You think if UA was around now within 6 months he wouldn't be one of the best battlers on the site?

I'm not having a go at you at all but it strikes me as such a stupid point when people say they would easily beat these greats from years ago.

Isnt it unfair to say that todays battlers are better than the ones that battled back in 07-010?

The concepts used back then were obviously fresh and had the wow factor. If we use the same concepts now, itd be played. So its unfair to judge them according to that.

I would read a hundred UA verses over some complicated crappy bullshit that isnt worded right just to make it look like its "complex". These dudes try hard to be like Chilla Jones and Daylyt but dont set their bars up in a readable way which in turn affects the readability. A dope concept is useless if it isnt executed right.

And I also think its unfair that credit is given to todays battlers when they beat a HOF who was active in their era. Most of us dont transition well because frankly we either stop battling or lose interest. You beating them in their prime in a neutral era would actually speak volumes. Thats why i find it to be bs when people compare todays battlers to the old heads.

[HIGHpothasis]

Originally Posted by captchabarz

Isnt it unfair to say that todays battlers are better than the ones that battled back in 07-010?

The concepts used back then were obviously fresh and had the wow factor. If we use the same concepts now, itd be played. So its unfair to judge them according to that.

I would read a hundred UA verses over some complicated crappy bullshit that isnt worded right just to make it look like its "complex". These dudes try hard to be like Chilla Jones and Daylyt but dont set their bars up in a readable way which in turn affects the readability. A dope concept is useless if it isnt executed right.

And I also think its unfair that credit is given to todays battlers when they beat a HOF who was active in their era. Most of us dont transition well because frankly we either stop battling or lose interest. You beating them in their prime in a neutral era would actually speak volumes. Thats why i find it to be bs when people compare todays battlers to the old heads.

This Man is slightly Genius. Factsssss!!!

[HIGHpothasis]

Originally Posted by captchabarz

Isnt it unfair to say that todays battlers are better than the ones that battled back in 07-010?

The concepts used back then were obviously fresh and had the wow factor. If we use the same concepts now, itd be played. So its unfair to judge them according to that.

I would read a hundred UA verses over some complicated crappy bullshit that isnt worded right just to make it look like its "complex". These dudes try hard to be like Chilla Jones and Daylyt but dont set their bars up in a readable way which in turn affects the readability. A dope concept is useless if it isnt executed right.

And I also think its unfair that credit is given to todays battlers when they beat a HOF who was active in their era. Most of us dont transition well because frankly we either stop battling or lose interest. You beating them in their prime in a neutral era would actually speak volumes. Thats why i find it to be bs when people compare todays battlers to the old heads.

This Man is slightly Genius. Factsssss!!!