Midrange and aggro are my favorite play styles. However, I just broke through rank 15 earlier today [Standard] and the experience taught me a lot about patience and tilt management. I saw a lot of Spectral Cutlass Rogue, Dragon Warrior, Control Priest Variants, Control Warlock Variants, and so much Midrange Hunter. I was running Deathrattle Hunter and after teching in a gluttonous ooze, it helped a lot verse the rogues. Learning to read my opponents and making smarter decisions using Tracking and DK Rexxar helped me a lot as well.
The fact of the matter is the metagame is the metagame. You can play to win [if that is your idea of fun] or you can play for fun and accept your losses. As much as I love aggro decks, because I can squeeze in more matches in the same amount of time, this metagame has really taught me a lot about going against control and such. While I empathize with you, OP, the truth is we can't always have the same metagame. It isn't fair to the other classes/play styles. Hopefully, once rotation happens, a lot of lategame tools will be gone and we'll see a varied metagame.
Literally any meme deck can reach rank 5 in wild. Especially a tier 2 deck with 3 bad cards.
Even shaman with Hex and windfury "works" too and can probably reach legend too. That doesn't mean it isn't far, far inferior to actually running good cards.
You cut much needed burst that Heroic strike gives for a mediocre 2drop.
Hex and Windfury are not "bad" in Even Shaman. Whether or not they belong in the deck depends on what decks you encounter more, really. Against Priest, both cards can be very good, against Rogue obviously not so much. At higher ranks, Rogue is probably more popular at the moment, but Even Shaman is relatively flexible, and adding two or three cards to target specifc matchups doesn't make the deck much worse. Some even suggest to include two Golakka Crawler by this point, specifically to target Rogue and the occasional Pirate Warrior. The deck's strong core allows these modifications.
That's not the same as a "meme" deck. Though honestly, I am currently at rank 7 in Wild, and I see a lot of different decks. So, I suppose any somewhat decently built deck stands a chance, and I'd agree that Pirate Warrior is not a bad choice, even with experimental cards like Skycapn.
The problem is indeed that streamers influence the opinions of others in such a strong way that small changes in decklists are disposed as bad, when they're well thought out.
And I know that reaching Legend doesn't mean anything. Still, all the arguments were about people reaching Legend multiple times. So it has to mean something, right? Otherwise, those arguments are completely worthless.
What else is important then? The time in which you make it to Legend? I made it from 20 to 5 in about 8 hours of playing. Around 130 matches on three days. The occasional up and down from rank 7 to 6 and back was annoying but nothing new to me. It's always like that.
I don't really think that anything of this is important. OP wanted to have an answer were all the aggro decks are, because they enjoy playing them. And I just wanted to stop by and give my friendly advice to try wild. If you play Pirate Warrior with Heroic Strike or not is your business. I made the experience that I'm playing better without it. Maybe, you don't play Pirate Warrior at all and enjoy Shaman, Paladin or Rogue. That's fine, too. I have fun with my build, I don't want to keep you from having fun with yours. What I wanted to do is giving a bit of advice: Don't trust streamers, data or "professionals" blindly. Experiment with your deck. Try to fine-tune it. Make it better. Make it more fun for you to enjoy it.
You seem way too fixated on ranks at this point. I care about the opinion of people who have proven themselves. Such as control (see one of my previous posts) and vS, people who analyse data of nearly all ranks week in week out. Not that of a few John/Jane does who reached legend with a different build once or twice.
You suggested someone in this thread to use a pirate warrior build which I deemed inferior, and I called you out for it because I don't like misinforming people. That is all.
I see the aggro crowd, Blizzards target audience, made a thread for themselves. You just have to accept longer games is just wallpaper for your mindlessness to shine. That is the unspoken agreement between your kind and the devs. It has made HS great, like Trump making America great again. So why you worry?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I see the aggro crowd, Blizzards target audience, made a thread for themselves. You just have to accept longer games is just wallpaper for your mindlessness to shine. That is the unspoken agreement between your kind and the devs. It has made HS great, like Trump making America great again. So why you worry?
The only difference is that HS isn't great any more.... Ooooh he went there.... heh heh heh! :-D
The problem is indeed that streamers influence the opinions of others in such a strong way that small changes in decklists are disposed as bad, when they're well thought out.
And I know that reaching Legend doesn't mean anything. Still, all the arguments were about people reaching Legend multiple times. So it has to mean something, right? Otherwise, those arguments are completely worthless.
What else is important then? The time in which you make it to Legend? I made it from 20 to 5 in about 8 hours of playing. Around 130 matches on three days. The occasional up and down from rank 7 to 6 and back was annoying but nothing new to me. It's always like that.
I don't really think that anything of this is important. OP wanted to have an answer were all the aggro decks are, because they enjoy playing them. And I just wanted to stop by and give my friendly advice to try wild. If you play Pirate Warrior with Heroic Strike or not is your business. I made the experience that I'm playing better without it. Maybe, you don't play Pirate Warrior at all and enjoy Shaman, Paladin or Rogue. That's fine, too. I have fun with my build, I don't want to keep you from having fun with yours. What I wanted to do is giving a bit of advice: Don't trust streamers, data or "professionals" blindly. Experiment with your deck. Try to fine-tune it. Make it better. Make it more fun for you to enjoy it.
You seem way too fixated on ranks at this point. I care about the opinion of people who have proven themselves. Such as control (see one of my previous posts) and vS, people who analyse data of nearly all ranks week in week out. Not that of a few John/Jane does who reached legend with a different build once or twice.
You suggested someone in this thread to use a pirate warrior build which I deemed inferior, and I called you out for it because I don't like misinforming people. That is all.
Yes. You deemed it inferior. That is your opinion on the matter. That 's okay. But do not try to tell me what advice I may give to others or not. Because in the end it is just that. An opinion. The data that is analyzed only shows that everyone netdecks the same list and no one thinks about it. Of course this data won't change if a majority continues to listen to streamers without adjusting the decks.
If I started streaming with this list and would prove multiple times that I can reach legend with it, the data would also shift, more people would play this version of the deck. But that doesn't necessarily mean the list is perfectly tuned. As it was said before: A few suboptimal cards don't matter in a deck for reaching legend. In my opinion, Heroic Strike is one of the suboptimal cards. Why? It is basically a spell that says 2 Mana 4 damage. It doesn't do anything to develop your board, it doesn't synergyze with any other card in the deck (it would with Sharkfin) and it is a one-time use.
What I'm trying to say is: We're discussing opinions here. Something that can not and should not be discussed.
You say card x is bad, I say card x is good. You "prove" it by just pointing to the data that doesn't say card x is bad, only that it isn't played often. That data is formed of deck lists which are shaped by opinions like yours. Of course you think that data supports your opinion, when it is in fact just a collection of opinions, but not a base for an argument.
In my eyes, I'm as much of a worthy person as any streamer is. I am not a John Doe to myself, those streamers are. I have my own opinions and the same right to speak as they do. Just because I am not as famous as them doesn't make my opinion less worthy than theirs. Of course, to you, my opinions isn't worth anything, because you may have forgotten that those streamers are just normal people, too. And of course, streamers are always right with their opinions. No streamer ever has made false predictions of cards that became meta relevant later, but they dismissed them as unplayable. *sarcasm*
I see the aggro crowd, Blizzards target audience, made a thread for themselves. You just have to accept longer games is just wallpaper for your mindlessness to shine. That is the unspoken agreement between your kind and the devs. It has made HS great, like Trump making America great again. So why you worry?
The only difference is that HS isn't great any more.... Ooooh he went there.... heh heh heh! :-D
Am i popular? no. (my pro MTG time is over 20 years in the past)
Did i build metadecks before they got known? Yes (including T1).
Do i build off meta that work competative? shure. Thats what i target and have the most fun. It´s what made me hold Nr. 1 position in my country for 1,5 years in MTG.
Do i build decks that fail? Of course many get stuck at 50% reaching R4+ and thus are at best T3 but might still be fun.
Do i play slow decks. Bet on it. I prefer synergie and value. I outplay my oponent knowing/anticipating his deck while he is in the dark ;-). Slaming all down and in the face hoping he draws bad enough is one of the most booring playstyles i can imagin. I mainly play tempo, midrange and control types with large tech/counter potential. I barely play aggro or OTK. That´s my personal style and i am fine if others have fun with a diffrent preference.
Yes. You deemed it inferior. That is your opinion on the matter. That 's okay. But do not try to tell me what advice I may give to others or not. Because in the end it is just that. An opinion. The data that is analyzed only shows that everyone netdecks the same list and no one thinks about it. Of course this data won't change if a majority continues to listen to streamers without adjusting the decks.
If I started streaming with this list and would prove multiple times that I can reach legend with it, the data would also shift, more people would play this version of the deck. But that doesn't necessarily mean the list is perfectly tuned. As it was said before: A few suboptimal cards don't matter in a deck for reaching legend. In my opinion, Heroic Strike is one of the suboptimal cards. Why? It is basically a spell that says 2 Mana 4 damage. It doesn't do anything to develop your board, it doesn't synergyze with any other card in the deck (it would with Sharkfin) and it is a one-time use.
What I'm trying to say is: We're discussing opinions here. Something that can not and should not be discussed.
You say card x is bad, I say card x is good. You "prove" it by just pointing to the data that doesn't say card x is bad, only that it isn't played often. That data is formed of deck lists which are shaped by opinions like yours. Of course you think that data supports your opinion, when it is in fact just a collection of opinions, but not a base for an argument.
In my eyes, I'm as much of a worthy person as any streamer is. I am not a John Doe to myself, those streamers are. I have my own opinions and the same right to speak as they do. Just because I am not as famous as them doesn't make my opinion less worthy than theirs. Of course, to you, my opinions isn't worth anything, because you may have forgotten that those streamers are just normal people, too. And of course, streamers are always right with their opinions. No streamer ever has made false predictions of cards that became meta relevant later, but they dismissed them as unplayable. *sarcasm*
I'm not inerrable. But neither are they.
Again, the reason I agree with Control isn't because he's a streamer, it's because he has proven to be a pirate warrior expert.
vS use data to not only show popularity, but also effectiveness.
You do/are neither (at least not to those extents) so of course I will follow their advice over yours. It is the most logical thing to do. I don't care about popularity. Stop trying to play the victim because you're lesser known than the people above. That isn't the reason I disagree with your deck list.
All you have done so far is painted a few scenarios in which Sharkfin is effective.
Let me do the same for Heroic strike: From turn 5 onwards, as a pirate warrior, do I want to draw a (at best) 2 mana 3/3? No. Do I want to draw 4 additional face damage that might very well win me the game? Yes.
Yes. You deemed it inferior. That is your opinion on the matter. That 's okay. But do not try to tell me what advice I may give to others or not. Because in the end it is just that. An opinion. The data that is analyzed only shows that everyone netdecks the same list and no one thinks about it. Of course this data won't change if a majority continues to listen to streamers without adjusting the decks.
If I started streaming with this list and would prove multiple times that I can reach legend with it, the data would also shift, more people would play this version of the deck. But that doesn't necessarily mean the list is perfectly tuned. As it was said before: A few suboptimal cards don't matter in a deck for reaching legend. In my opinion, Heroic Strike is one of the suboptimal cards. Why? It is basically a spell that says 2 Mana 4 damage. It doesn't do anything to develop your board, it doesn't synergyze with any other card in the deck (it would with Sharkfin) and it is a one-time use.
What I'm trying to say is: We're discussing opinions here. Something that can not and should not be discussed.
You say card x is bad, I say card x is good. You "prove" it by just pointing to the data that doesn't say card x is bad, only that it isn't played often. That data is formed of deck lists which are shaped by opinions like yours. Of course you think that data supports your opinion, when it is in fact just a collection of opinions, but not a base for an argument.
In my eyes, I'm as much of a worthy person as any streamer is. I am not a John Doe to myself, those streamers are. I have my own opinions and the same right to speak as they do. Just because I am not as famous as them doesn't make my opinion less worthy than theirs. Of course, to you, my opinions isn't worth anything, because you may have forgotten that those streamers are just normal people, too. And of course, streamers are always right with their opinions. No streamer ever has made false predictions of cards that became meta relevant later, but they dismissed them as unplayable. *sarcasm*
I'm not inerrable. But neither are they.
Stop trying to play the victim because you're lesser known than the people above. That isn't the reason I disagree with your deck list.
All you have done so far is painted a few scenarios in which Sharkfin is effective.
Let me do the same for Heroic strike: From turn 5 onwards, as a pirate warrior, do I want to draw a (at best) 2 mana 3/3? No. Do I want to draw 4 additional face damage that might very well win me the game? Yes.
I don't play the victim, I'm defending my opinion against your oppressive behavior "please don't tell people to run Sharkfin fan in pirate warrior".
This is exactly one scenario you have painted there. And with a Cannon on board and an equipped weapon, a Sharkfin Fan on turn 5 is just as good as the Heroic Strike. Okay, no... it is even better, because it stays on board and also reduces the cost of Skycap'n Kragg. Cannon+Sharkfin is so much more effective. Would you play Heroic Strike in turn 2 if you've played a weapon in turn 1? No. Would you play Sharkfin? Of course.
Again, don't tell me, what to do, what advice I might give, or not. To me, you are just the John Doe that tries to hold me down.
I think that when it comes to netdecking, adjustments are needed for the current metagame. If secret mage, secret paladin, and secret hunter are rising up, I'm going to need secret tech. If weapons are prevalent, you're going to want to tech in an ooze and so forth. I use VS reports as sort of a guideline and tech in other things I see on ladder.
For example, I was using Deathrattle Hunter but I saw another Hunter that was using Defender of Argus. I looked over my deck and took out a wing blast for Defender of Argus and was immediately impressed by the results. I look that VS Report and netdecks as a generalized idea of what I want in my deck.
I draw inspiration from what I see in my opponents' decks on ladder and adjust accordingly. Defender of Argus allowed me to give my eggs 1 attack as well as taunt so my opponent had to silence, remove, or trade into them, running the risk of a 5/5 dino on my board that they may not be able to handle...or pass on their turn. That ONE little thing made a MASSIVE difference. I think that netdecks are helpful, but the player should tailor them to suit their own individual needs as well.
I don't play the victim, I'm defending my opinion against your oppressive behavior "please don't tell people to run Sharkfin fan in pirate warrior".
Yet you're still trying to, wrongly, I might add, dismiss the people I referred to. Basically boiling it down to "they have a bigger audience b-but they're wrong too sometimes". Audience and playrates are of no relevance to me, never have been, and I don't understand how you ever assumed this in the first place. I care about actual statistics and the opinions of experts, and not:
This is exactly one scenario you have painted there. And with a Cannon on board and an equipped weapon, a Sharkfin Fan on turn 5 is just as good as the Heroic Strike. Okay, no... it is even better, because it stays on board and also reduces the cost of Skycap'n Kragg. Cannon+Sharkfin is so much more effective. Would you play Heroic Strike in turn 2 if you've played a weapon in turn 1? No. Would you play Sharkfin? Of course.
Again, don't tell me, what to do, what advice I might give, or not. To me, you are just the John Doe that tries to hold me down.
painting scenarios like that one. Because a scenario is just that, a scenario. You not even being able to understand that from my previous post kind of worries me. Let me try and make it as simple as possible. Nearly every card can be made to look insane in certain scenarios. Let me give another one (Please keep in mind this time that this is an example and nothing more, thanks.): Small-Time Buccaneer is insane in pirate warrior. Against hunters, priests, warlocks, warriors and sometimes even paladins it's a 1drop with 3 attack. Wow, that's insane!1!
I dismiss them because they are of no relevance to me. Like I am to you obviously. I don't watch those streamers. I get my data from tempostorm or hsreplay and of course, I netdeck, too. But I don't just copy a decklist. I talk with other people about those lists, together we make adjustments, share experiences and new ideas for those decks, try them out, rinse and repeat until we find the optimal list.
And you don't seem to be able to differ between examples of scenarios that I had in my games, and scenarios that you make up to make me look stupid.
Your whole argument structure is based on putting yourself above others with false quotes like "they have a bigger audience b-but they're wrong too sometimes". You want to make yourself look smarter and try to insult others, but I won't condescend to this niveau. From this point on, I won't answer to your offensive comments anymore, even though it is quite amusing how you try to make me look like an idiot with your examples. Consider yourself ignored. Have a nice day.
Midrange and aggro are my favorite play styles. However, I just broke through rank 15 earlier today [Standard] and the experience taught me a lot about patience and tilt management. I saw a lot of Spectral Cutlass Rogue, Dragon Warrior, Control Priest Variants, Control Warlock Variants, and so much Midrange Hunter. I was running Deathrattle Hunter and after teching in a gluttonous ooze, it helped a lot verse the rogues. Learning to read my opponents and making smarter decisions using Tracking and DK Rexxar helped me a lot as well.
The fact of the matter is the metagame is the metagame. You can play to win [if that is your idea of fun] or you can play for fun and accept your losses. As much as I love aggro decks, because I can squeeze in more matches in the same amount of time, this metagame has really taught me a lot about going against control and such. While I empathize with you, OP, the truth is we can't always have the same metagame. It isn't fair to the other classes/play styles. Hopefully, once rotation happens, a lot of lategame tools will be gone and we'll see a varied metagame.
Good Luck and Happy Gaming! <3
Hex and Windfury are not "bad" in Even Shaman. Whether or not they belong in the deck depends on what decks you encounter more, really. Against Priest, both cards can be very good, against Rogue obviously not so much. At higher ranks, Rogue is probably more popular at the moment, but Even Shaman is relatively flexible, and adding two or three cards to target specifc matchups doesn't make the deck much worse. Some even suggest to include two Golakka Crawler by this point, specifically to target Rogue and the occasional Pirate Warrior. The deck's strong core allows these modifications.
That's not the same as a "meme" deck. Though honestly, I am currently at rank 7 in Wild, and I see a lot of different decks. So, I suppose any somewhat decently built deck stands a chance, and I'd agree that Pirate Warrior is not a bad choice, even with experimental cards like Skycapn.
You seem way too fixated on ranks at this point. I care about the opinion of people who have proven themselves. Such as control (see one of my previous posts) and vS, people who analyse data of nearly all ranks week in week out. Not that of a few John/Jane does who reached legend with a different build once or twice.
You suggested someone in this thread to use a pirate warrior build which I deemed inferior, and I called you out for it because I don't like misinforming people. That is all.
That's why i play my Renowock nobody expect it. :)
I see the aggro crowd, Blizzards target audience, made a thread for themselves. You just have to accept longer games is just wallpaper for your mindlessness to shine. That is the unspoken agreement between your kind and the devs. It has made HS great, like Trump making America great again. So why you worry?
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
The only difference is that HS isn't great any more....
Ooooh he went there.... heh heh heh! :-D
Yes. You deemed it inferior. That is your opinion on the matter. That 's okay. But do not try to tell me what advice I may give to others or not. Because in the end it is just that. An opinion. The data that is analyzed only shows that everyone netdecks the same list and no one thinks about it. Of course this data won't change if a majority continues to listen to streamers without adjusting the decks.
If I started streaming with this list and would prove multiple times that I can reach legend with it, the data would also shift, more people would play this version of the deck. But that doesn't necessarily mean the list is perfectly tuned. As it was said before: A few suboptimal cards don't matter in a deck for reaching legend. In my opinion, Heroic Strike is one of the suboptimal cards. Why? It is basically a spell that says 2 Mana 4 damage. It doesn't do anything to develop your board, it doesn't synergyze with any other card in the deck (it would with Sharkfin) and it is a one-time use.
What I'm trying to say is: We're discussing opinions here. Something that can not and should not be discussed.
You say card x is bad, I say card x is good. You "prove" it by just pointing to the data that doesn't say card x is bad, only that it isn't played often. That data is formed of deck lists which are shaped by opinions like yours. Of course you think that data supports your opinion, when it is in fact just a collection of opinions, but not a base for an argument.
In my eyes, I'm as much of a worthy person as any streamer is. I am not a John Doe to myself, those streamers are. I have my own opinions and the same right to speak as they do. Just because I am not as famous as them doesn't make my opinion less worthy than theirs. Of course, to you, my opinions isn't worth anything, because you may have forgotten that those streamers are just normal people, too. And of course, streamers are always right with their opinions. No streamer ever has made false predictions of cards that became meta relevant later, but they dismissed them as unplayable. *sarcasm*
I'm not inerrable. But neither are they.
Great means more Trump then.
We make our world significant through the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers.
I like KitsuLeif´s answer :-).
I am also a deck builder/theocrafter.
Am i popular? no. (my pro MTG time is over 20 years in the past)
Did i build metadecks before they got known? Yes (including T1).
Do i build off meta that work competative? shure. Thats what i target and have the most fun. It´s what made me hold Nr. 1 position in my country for 1,5 years in MTG.
Do i build decks that fail? Of course many get stuck at 50% reaching R4+ and thus are at best T3 but might still be fun.
Do i play slow decks. Bet on it. I prefer synergie and value. I outplay my oponent knowing/anticipating his deck while he is in the dark ;-). Slaming all down and in the face hoping he draws bad enough is one of the most booring playstyles i can imagin. I mainly play tempo, midrange and control types with large tech/counter potential. I barely play aggro or OTK. That´s my personal style and i am fine if others have fun with a diffrent preference.
Again, the reason I agree with Control isn't because he's a streamer, it's because he has proven to be a pirate warrior expert.
vS use data to not only show popularity, but also effectiveness.
You do/are neither (at least not to those extents) so of course I will follow their advice over yours. It is the most logical thing to do. I don't care about popularity. Stop trying to play the victim because you're lesser known than the people above. That isn't the reason I disagree with your deck list.
All you have done so far is painted a few scenarios in which Sharkfin is effective.
Let me do the same for Heroic strike: From turn 5 onwards, as a pirate warrior, do I want to draw a (at best) 2 mana 3/3? No. Do I want to draw 4 additional face damage that might very well win me the game? Yes.
I don't play the victim, I'm defending my opinion against your oppressive behavior "please don't tell people to run Sharkfin fan in pirate warrior".
This is exactly one scenario you have painted there. And with a Cannon on board and an equipped weapon, a Sharkfin Fan on turn 5 is just as good as the Heroic Strike. Okay, no... it is even better, because it stays on board and also reduces the cost of Skycap'n Kragg. Cannon+Sharkfin is so much more effective. Would you play Heroic Strike in turn 2 if you've played a weapon in turn 1? No. Would you play Sharkfin? Of course.
Again, don't tell me, what to do, what advice I might give, or not. To me, you are just the John Doe that tries to hold me down.
I think that when it comes to netdecking, adjustments are needed for the current metagame. If secret mage, secret paladin, and secret hunter are rising up, I'm going to need secret tech. If weapons are prevalent, you're going to want to tech in an ooze and so forth. I use VS reports as sort of a guideline and tech in other things I see on ladder.
For example, I was using Deathrattle Hunter but I saw another Hunter that was using Defender of Argus. I looked over my deck and took out a wing blast for Defender of Argus and was immediately impressed by the results. I look that VS Report and netdecks as a generalized idea of what I want in my deck.
I draw inspiration from what I see in my opponents' decks on ladder and adjust accordingly. Defender of Argus allowed me to give my eggs 1 attack as well as taunt so my opponent had to silence, remove, or trade into them, running the risk of a 5/5 dino on my board that they may not be able to handle...or pass on their turn. That ONE little thing made a MASSIVE difference. I think that netdecks are helpful, but the player should tailor them to suit their own individual needs as well.
Good Luck and Happy Gaming! <3
Yet you're still trying to, wrongly, I might add, dismiss the people I referred to. Basically boiling it down to "they have a bigger audience b-but they're wrong too sometimes". Audience and playrates are of no relevance to me, never have been, and I don't understand how you ever assumed this in the first place. I care about actual statistics and the opinions of experts, and not:
painting scenarios like that one. Because a scenario is just that, a scenario. You not even being able to understand that from my previous post kind of worries me. Let me try and make it as simple as possible. Nearly every card can be made to look insane in certain scenarios. Let me give another one (Please keep in mind this time that this is an example and nothing more, thanks.): Small-Time Buccaneer is insane in pirate warrior. Against hunters, priests, warlocks, warriors and sometimes even paladins it's a 1drop with 3 attack. Wow, that's insane!1!
I dismiss them because they are of no relevance to me. Like I am to you obviously. I don't watch those streamers. I get my data from tempostorm or hsreplay and of course, I netdeck, too. But I don't just copy a decklist. I talk with other people about those lists, together we make adjustments, share experiences and new ideas for those decks, try them out, rinse and repeat until we find the optimal list.
And you don't seem to be able to differ between examples of scenarios that I had in my games, and scenarios that you make up to make me look stupid.
Your whole argument structure is based on putting yourself above others with false quotes like "they have a bigger audience b-but they're wrong too sometimes". You want to make yourself look smarter and try to insult others, but I won't condescend to this niveau. From this point on, I won't answer to your offensive comments anymore, even though it is quite amusing how you try to make me look like an idiot with your examples. Consider yourself ignored. Have a nice day.
So you really didn't understand a thing I was saying huh? Guess I was talking to a brick wall after all, shame.
Oh well, if these posts offended you then I was wasting my time to begin with anyway. Good luck on your future endeavours :)
That's what she said...