The Energon Pub

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:46 pm

Deadpool. wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Deadpool. wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:
Dead Metal wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Sonray wrote:I wonder how long it is before he gets banned....

And, to be honest, it couldnt come sooner. Seriously...all this talk and constant repeating of the same old shite has gotten to the point where i want to shoot myself in the face if i ever hear the word "G1" again!!!

ARRRRGH!

Who got banned???????This threads original poster?????????

I don't think he did, Maybe just hasnt come on in a couple days, or gave up on us because he couldnt force his opinions upon us.

Maybe he's the long lost brother of an other former member who did get banned.

Concepttron?, Tramp?

Who knows.

I really don't think thats the case. Just someone who is a little overzealous when it comes to G1 and now much of it correlates to the movie.

I still love it that he called me a cybergeek but he is the Aspen leader of the autobots.

Maybe he's Tramps counterpart from an alternate universe
A parallel dimension!

Crazier things have happened
Yep. Like "Tramp" returning for a short time...
lol.

SCB was trying to give him a 2nd chance........not his fault that the guy was beyond learning from his mistakes :BANG_HEAD:

by **Deadpool.** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:51 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:SCB was trying to give him a 2nd chance........not his fault that the guy was beyond learning from his mistakes

Uh. What's SCB?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:54 pm

Deadpool. wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:SCB was trying to give him a 2nd chance........not his fault that the guy was beyond learning from his mistakes
Uh. What's SCB?

Opps I ment CB [Cyber Bishop] :sad:

by **Deadpool.** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:58 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Deadpool. wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:SCB was trying to give him a 2nd chance........not his fault that the guy was beyond learning from his mistakes
Uh. What's SCB?

Opps I ment CB [Cyber Bishop]

Oh.....

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:38 am

Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic. ;;)

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:15 am

Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality :grin:

But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

by **Deadpool.** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:16 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

Yep! It's more fun and lively this way.

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:05 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

Actually I find it boring and a tad annoying to trawl through pages and pages of "chat" just to find out what people have actually said about a thread's topic.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:17 am

Burn wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

Actually I find it boring and a tad annoying to trawl through pages and pages of "chat" just to find out what people have actually said about a thread's topic.

Well then your a party pooper :sad:

But its not like there's many people posting on topic right now anyway is there???????I know I'm not stopping anyone from doing so.

by **Sonray** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:35 am

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

Isnt the whole point of the forums for people to chat in?

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:40 am

Sonray wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Burn wrote:Can we start banning people who make no effort to stick to the topic of the thread and just "chat"?

At least the likes of Tramp tended to stay on topic.

Maybe so but he didnt keep his post rooted in reality But hey isint chatting from time to time that make this a fun place to visit????????/

Isnt the whole point of the forums for people to chat in?

Thank you very much :grin:

News Credits: 7 · by **Dragonslayer** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:35 am

I'm just amazed that this thread has gone on for 5 pages and hasn't been locked yet. And the dude who started it dropped off after page 2.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:49 am

Dragonslayer wrote:I'm just amazed that this thread has gone on for 5 pages and hasn't been locked yet. And the dude who started it dropped off after page 2.

Im amazed that he dropped off, either willingly or forcibly we may not know, but the way he presented himself initially doesn't lead me to believe that he would let this die willingly.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:13 pm

Robinson wrote:
Dragonslayer wrote:I'm just amazed that this thread has gone on for 5 pages and hasn't been locked yet. And the dude who started it dropped off after page 2.

Im amazed that he dropped off, either willingly or forcibly we may not know, but the way he presented himself initially doesn't lead me to believe that he would let this die willingly.

Agreed

News Credits: 3 · by **LuckytheWonderLlama** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:31 am

I thought the credits said the Movie was "based on the Transformers toy line from Hasbro". :-?

How dare you try to use logic to argue on teh internets!

News Credits: 1 · by **Leonardo** » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:32 am

Isn't it obvious? Everyone at Dreamworks and Hasbro forgot that they had based the movie on G1 and therefore no-one picked up on the fact that the credits were too vague prior to release. Deep down, though, they know that G1 was the driving force behind this movie. It is what Dr. Scientist might call "a fact".

by **Mattamus Prime** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:31 pm

Yeah this post should be deleted. I gave up on this post real quick. People just can't let it go sometimes.. so I did.

I stopped reading or replying... it was basically a bunch of trash talking anyway. What's the point.

ANYONE READING THIS SHOULD JUST LET THIS POST DIE FOR f*** SAKE.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:00 pm

If you want the thread to die, the easiest thing to do is not post in it and let it slowly drop off of the front page.

Or ask a moderator to lock it if it really means that much to you that no one posts in this thread anymore.

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:02 pm

LuckytheWonderLlama wrote:I thought the credits said the Movie was "based on the Transformers toy line from Hasbro".

And whats your point???????That could inclued G1 and all the others. :grin:

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:05 pm

Robinson wrote:If you want the thread to die, the easiest thing to do is not post in it and let it slowly drop off of the front page.

Or ask a moderator to lock it if it really means that much to you that no one posts in this thread anymore.

I can never understand why anyone would call for the shutting of threads that they dont like.If you dont like it dont read or reply to it.

News Credits: 11 · by **Robinson** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:19 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:If you want the thread to die, the easiest thing to do is not post in it and let it slowly drop off of the front page.

Or ask a moderator to lock it if it really means that much to you that no one posts in this thread anymore.

I can never understand why anyone would call for the shutting of threads that they dont like.If you dont like it dont read or reply to it.

It's his thread to begin with, he feels he can dictate whether or not it should go away.

I feel mostly it's because he may have not received the response he intended. Whether thats the case or not no big deal.

One thing though Mattimus if you do read this. (There is no sarcasm or ill will intended when I say this)
We dont need a new picture of a real life vehicle photoshopped into a transformer attached to every post that you make. A lot of them have been seen and are impressive but not needed. If there is one that you like resize it and make into a sig, if you dont know how ask around someone can help.

by **autobot commander** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:20 pm

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:If you want the thread to die, the easiest thing to do is not post in it and let it slowly drop off of the front page.

Or ask a moderator to lock it if it really means that much to you that no one posts in this thread anymore.

I can never understand why anyone would call for the shutting of threads that they dont like.If you dont like it dont read or reply to it.

i'm not quite fond of matty, can we ban him :???:

News Credits: 226 · by **Burn** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:21 pm

Mattamus Prime wrote:I stopped reading or replying... it was basically a bunch of trash talking anyway. What's the point.

The point is, there's a difference between trash talking and having a difference of opinion.

Not everyone on discussion forums are going to agree on everything. That's what makes them enjoyable, putting your views out and having someone read it and offer a different perspective on things.

by **autobot commander** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:21 pm

ignore

News Credits: 1 · by **sto_vo_kor_2000** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:43 pm

Robinson wrote:
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
Robinson wrote:If you want the thread to die, the easiest thing to do is not post in it and let it slowly drop off of the front page.

Or ask a moderator to lock it if it really means that much to you that no one posts in this thread anymore.

I can never understand why anyone would call for the shutting of threads that they dont like.If you dont like it dont read or reply to it.

It's his thread to begin with, he feels he can dictate whether or not it should go away.

I feel mostly it's because he may have not received the response he intended. Whether thats the case or not no big deal.

One thing though Mattimus if you do read this. (There is no sarcasm or ill will intended when I say this)
We dont need a new picture of a real life vehicle photoshopped into a transformer attached to every post that you make. A lot of them have been seen and are impressive but not needed. If there is one that you like resize it and make into a sig, if you dont know how ask around someone can help.

Wether he started the thread or not....it does not make it his thread.The thread is a public fourm and once started belong to all the members here :grin: