The Viper

The Viper

    Generating profile stats...


I am who I am, you're either with me, or against me.

Bulletin Board

or to post this comment
  • Patrick Aquino posted 1 hour ago

    Patrick Aquino

    "Yes, school is a definite path to a boring life" Again false. I've talk to several professionals that enjoy their careers so much that they don't consider it a job anymore. They consider it a hobby that they're lucky enough to get paid for. So yeah that notion is still disproven. Saying that school would've lead you a life that you personally would've found boring is a perfectly valid opinion. Saying that school would lead everyone to a life they would find boring is just plain ignorant and over generalization. My childhood wasn't wasted in school. I wouldn't have met some of the most important people in my life if we didn't meet there. It's not impossible to go to school AND do the things you love during your youth. There's a reason those college stereotypes exist.

    I didn't say you don't like Socrates and Descartes. What I'm saying was that they are known for being quite aware of how little they know, admitting they are not perfect. They would have been a good example of people you are actually similar to. Saying that you aren't similar to them was a mistake. That was the point.

    About the proofreading while handwriting thing. Yeah people do that. They're called drafts. And they're typically not shown to other people, making them not humiliating at all. I've always thought that finding out your own mistakes is better than having someone hand it to you. But now you've explained your side of how you do things I get it now.

    You think I actually talk like this to people I know personally? You're a guy I'm arguing with on the internet that has been throwing insults here and there. Of course I wouldn't respond to you in a likable manner. Who I am during debates is very different from who I am casually.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 6 hours ago

    Patrick Aquino

    I'm not saying that graduate school is the only way to stay away from blue-collar jobs, I'm just disproving this idiotic notion of yours that school is a definite path to that boring life you described

  • Patrick Aquino posted 6 hours ago

    Patrick Aquino

    You have got to be joking with those last 2 comments. From now on I'm gonna caps lock the most important parts of my comments so you can understand me better because you are clearly NOT GETTING THE POINT.

    My last reply was a response to "but as it is the logic within the IWC, if you backed the opposition against the ropes, they go full grammar-nazi mode on you to sneak their way out. Job well done, because it's not about CM Punk anymore."

    I was merely pointing out that I DID NOT ask this to be a discussion to be about your past grammar mistakes. YOU ASKED ME what your mistakes are and put EVERYTHING ON HOLD to talk about YOUR GRAMMAR mistakes so you could correct them. You were the one who ignored my last reply that was about wrestling(which is still sitting there unanswered)

    BUT because you gave an ignorant reply and I'll explain to you what's stupid about it.

    "I'm not perfect and I don't want to be Sócrates or René Descartes. I'm not afraid of committing errors and learn from them." Ooooh wow Socrates and Descartes. What a desperate attempt to sound smart. Kid here's a tip. If you're gonna cite people as examples make sure you know what you are talking about. Those 2 weren't known for being perfect, they were widely recognized for their wisdom about KNOWING THEY AREN'T PERFECT. Those 2 are perfect examples for being guys who learn from mistakes but instead you cite them as examples as someone you're NOT LIKE?

    "If I make a mistake or showing weakness, someone knocked me down for it, I'll be trying to overcome it, in other words, improve. If I keep correcting myself to hide my weakness, I'll never overcome it, sooner or later it will be exposed, that's the moment when it really gets out of my hand." You do realize this is grammar right? Correcting yourself isn't weakness, IT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO TO IMPROVE YOUR GRAMMAR. You said you want to learn from your mistakes, but you couldn't even see some of them until I pointed them out specifically. If I didn't point them out to you then you didn't learn from them, YOU WOULD'VE JUST COMMITTED A MISTAKE AND BE COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF IT. That's a MASSIVE difference from learning from your mistake.

    But yeah sure I'M NOT FORCING YOU TO PROOFREAD. I'm just explaining how illogical that reply was.

    And then there's this huge pile of ignorance

    "Good luck with that, but don't get your hopes too high, You'll end up busting your ass off in some shitty factory to get a paycheck from your boss like everyone else. My name is Mr. Reality, this is my diary 101: My whole time spent in the school is in the garbage can, I'm waking up every morning around 6 A.M from Monday through Friday to go to work, put on my work uniform to work like a blacksmith till 3 P.M, eight 8 hours daily. Pure shit. I'm not encouraging you to stop your schooling, the idea is to knock some realistic sense into your head, because back in the school, we all had that illusion and fantasy."

    Are you seriously that stupid? Do you even remotely have any idea what College, Law, Medicine and other graduate schools are for? THEY ARE WHAT PEOPLE TAKE SPECIFICALLY SO THEY WON'T END UP WITH BLUE-COLLAR JOBS(which is the life you just described). I specifically mentioned that I'm planning taking up Medicine school then you mention "My whole time spent in school is in the garbage can" MEDICINE SCHOOL IS FOR DOCTORS. EVERYTHING A DOCTOR DOES IN HIS FIELD CAME FROM STUDYING. Literally everyone I know in my university who isn't stupid enough to fail is guaranteed a great job at this point. PEOPLE WHO FINISH COLLEGE AND GRADUATE SCHOOLS ARE GUARANTEED DOCTORS, ARCHITECTS, LAWYERS, ENGINEERS ETC(ALSO KNOWN AS THE JOBS THAT SOCIETY WOULD FAIL WITHOUT HAVING). If you're good enough to get into and finish in a quality university then only sheer determined retardation will stop you from getting a high pay short hours type of job.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 1 day ago

    Patrick Aquino

    Firstly I did not try to stir the argument to be about grammar. At the end of each of those posts I said that it's merely a tip so you might fix it up a bit. You can clearly read in that comment that the main point was "proofread your next comments". You were the one that put everything on hold to talk about it.

    I've got nothing against people who left school. But I personally wouldn't do it cause I plan to take up medicine. It's a simple career choice.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 2 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    Lol you're insulting me for being a "schoolboy" but you couldn't even see what's wrong with your statement. "School" can be literally anywhere from preschool to Masters and doctorates. Saying "schoolboy" one of the most shallow insults I've ever seen throw at someone. People who aren't in "school" would be old enough to have a job. If I already had a job I wouldn't be wasting my time in the comment section in this site. I mentioned getting kicked out of "school" as something that would make my life "a living hell" in our earlier comments because getting kicked out of my college would ruin my career path. That is what I consider a "living hell".

    ": This is about Randy Orton outperforming CM Punk's matches, but why this is relevant in this argument when it's all started with CM Punk's pipebomb, when I claimed that it's cheap way for him to become a star (Remember, this is how all this thing started), since you believe I'm out of the field with the Roman Reigns point?"

    You really can't see how wrong this sentence is? It's a damn run on sentence to begin with. Now about the last statement about Roman Reigns. Do you even now how to use the word "since"? It's either used as a time reference or a or substitute for because.

    I haven't gone there since January.
    Your english teachers have a lot to answer for since you can't see your own grammar errors

    Saying "when it all started _____" and then adding another parenthesis saying "remember that's where it all started" is also being redundant

    "This is about Randy Orton outperforming CM Punk's matches. Why this is relevant when this argument is about CM Punk's pipebomb being cheap way for him to become a star?"

    That's how simple that could've been.

    Explain to me how "since you believe I'm out of the field with the Roman Reigns point" coherently fits in your original run on sentence.

    "Many said, Orton and Bryan always delivered it last year, but that overflowing shenanigans hurt the qualify of their matches" I wasn't referring to the "qualify" part. I was referring to "but that overflowing shenanigans". "that" should either be removed or replaced with "those" or "the". The difference between that, those and the doesn't seem like a mere spelling error. It seems more like a choice of words. I didn't say anything when I copy pasted it cause I thought it was too obvious to point out.

    "because there's so many wrong detected in your last post" This one doesn't have a spelling error. "so many wrong detected" should be "so many errors detected", "so many wrong things/statements/arguments" "so much error". So many wrong is incorrect structurally

    But like I said in my previous comment, I didn't mention the grammar thing to go back and forth with our old comments. I mentioned it so your next ones would be proofread.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 6 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    I wasn't attacking you personally. Just giving you a tip. That's why I said try proof reading. It exists cause everyone makes mistakes. If I called you a dumbass for making those grammar mistakes then that would be attacking you. But I didn't call you anything. But since you're asking for which ones don't make sense structurally I might as well give some examples(take note I use the word structurally because I still understood what you meant)

    ": This is about Randy Orton outperforming CM Punk's matches, but why this is relevant in this argument when it's all started with CM Punk's pipebomb, when I claimed that it's cheap way for him to become a star (Remember, this is how all this thing started), since you believe I'm out of the field with the Roman Reigns point?"

    The last part about Roman Reigns doesn't make sense

    'Many said, Orton and Bryan always delivered it last year, but that overflowing shenanigans hurt the qualify of their matches"

    You can just read all your previous posts. You'll find several grammar errors. Just go try proofreading before pressing send. It doesn't hurt anybody. I didn't bring up the grammar thing to go back on your errors. I mentioned it so you'll make less in your next posts

  • Patrick Aquino posted 6 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    Take your time. By the way try proof reading your posts before sending them. You really need to polish up your grammar. Some of your statements don't make sense structurally.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 7 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    Roman Reigns is another discussion because he hasn't had a record to prove anything yet. Punk and Orton both have had several years in WWE undergoing several changes along with milestone accomplishments and performances. Roman Reigns is at an early point in his career where he is still developing his mic skills and hasn't had a big 1 on 1 match at a ppv yet.

    "Lost his passion was just a choice of words: Ok, then would explain me why he got knocked down the ladder? Because you didn't explain it. Why can't you say his time was up, was another man's time? Nothing to question his talent, this is how the WWE works, it's a roller coaster."

    I acknowledged that Bryan surpassed him and took his spot didn't I?

    "Bryan's rise, huh? Remember "the summer of Punk" there is no Cena's name in this tagline. So by that logic, I think Cena just supplied the minimum requirement of being Punk's opponent. CM Punk just supplied the minimum requirement of being Ryback's opponent in 2012."

    Because Cena wasn't Punk's only opponent in that period. Unlike Bryan vs Orton though the Cena vs Punk rivalry was acknowledged by a lot of people to be one of the best. Even WWE itself chose that rivalry over Cena vs Orton for the latest game. The main event of MITB wouldn't be as great if Cena wasn't Punk's opponent. All of Punk and Cena's next matches prove that they work best with each other on the mic and in the ring. You can't say that about the Orton vs Bryan feud because other people have proved they can have better matches than Bryan.

    "When you're on top of the mountain with a belt but people are looking the other guy instead I'd call that a failed attempt at a quality title reign: HA, FEED ME MORE! FEED ME MORE! FEED ME MORE! FEED ME MORE! FEED ME MORE! Remember that chant? people were obviously looking Ryback instead of Punk, right?"

    Was Punk immediately relegated to the midcard after that feud? Was he bombarded with irrelevant chants during that Ryback feud? No, he went on to face The Rock twice afterwards giving him one of his best matches of his return. He still held the crowd with his mic skills and put on another match of the year candidate with Cena and then faced the Undertaker in what was the best match of Wresltemania 29. Where did Ryback's momentum go now?
    In comparison, Orton was just brushed away from the main event after he lost to Bryan and was his segments were getting hijacked by YES and CM Punk chants when he wasn't even feuding with them.

    "Was Orton's job to make Bryan look million bucks, Just like it was Christian's job to make Orton look like million buck. People said Christian's career was resurrected in 2011, but for being Orton's b*tch? Double standard."

    Bryan didn't need Orton to make him look like a million bucks. Other guys can make Bryan look better like Cena and Wyatt did. It was mostly Triple H's promos that pumped the crowd with heat.

    "This begs the question why Punk didn't stay there as long as he wants? Remember Punk was frustrated with creative team, he walked out, why he got frustrated?"

    The reports were literally all over this very site. He got pissed at the booking. And he was right to be. Batista without a shadow of a doubt was the wrong guy to pick to main event Wrestlmania this year. And even if Punk wasn't in the main event position anymore he still stole the show with matches against Lesnar and Cena.

    "Punk had backstage issues, but this whole WWE didn't want push him is pure crap. They pushed him before on multiple occasions. Orton has backstage issues too, but it's business over personal issues." Punk lost his title against the undertaker because of backstage politics. He lost the other one cause they wanted the title in the Jericho vs HBK feud (without even giving him a proper match to lose it in, does that sound like they were trying hard to push Punk?). Look it up. Those didn't happen based on failure alone.

    "I like the fact you once said Orton is one of the very best on the roster, and now you're totally contradicting yourself here, you were slowly but surely insinuating Orton can't have a great match"

    I didn't say Orton can't have a great match. I'm saying he couldn't have better matches than Punk's best during the 2011-2013 period.

    Orton miles better than Cena in the ring? 3 of Cena's best matches A. Won a 5 star David Meltzer rating and B. are both the leads for best match in RAW history. (vs Punk and vs HBK). If Orton was miles better than Cena in the ring then why hasn't he had any accomplishments like that? He's faced Punk and HBK but Cena managed to put on better matches with them.

    "If having Match of the Year is the reason one gets push to the top, then how the hell Orton was able to rise to the top more than one occasions and stayed there as long as he did?"
    That wasn't my point. My point is if Orton really was so much better than Punk than it would've been easy for him to outshine Punk. Bryan was able to do it through his ring skills.

    "Tell me, what particularly did Orton do that enhanced Bryan's momentum? You could've put any other main event heel in that situation and Bryan's momentum would've been the same: Well, Orton was the main event heel, lucky Orton! Brock would've had a show stealing match with any other main event star at Summerslam last year, but Punk happened to be the one, lucky Punk too, right?"

    Triple H didn't have a show stealing match with him. When Lesnar faced Undertaker it was the first time in 5 years that Taker's match wasn't match of the night. People argue that his match with Punk was Lesnar's best match since he returned. They didn't do that for everyone who faced him. Only Punk's match with Lesnar was considered good enough to compare to Bryan vs Cena at Summerslam. People don't say that any of Orton's matches with Bryan were Bryan's best.

    "Sorry I missed that part, you said Triple H had Match of the Year candidate with Bryan? where at Wrestlemenia? However, Orton didn't have it, when Orton, him and Batista were in the match that was better than the one between Bryan and Triple H at the same event, that's not a match of the year candidate? your biasness is showing the tthrough the roof.

    Neither of those matches were considered as Bryan definitive best. What's your point?

    "about your last post: I said that pipebomb was overrated, that was my point all along, I've never denied Punk's skills on the mic and in the ring, but his not god either (Don't be confused with good)."

    You've always denied Punk's skills. That was the whole point of this argument. You kept saying that he's nothing without the pipebomb. You're usual comments imply that he's the worst thing on TV or stuff like that. But now that you've acknowledged them I guess there's nothing to be said anymore this specific topic.

  • Patrick Aquino posted 7 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    BTW I also find it funny how you went from "Punk isn't that good cause he had to go off script(which is easier because he just speaks his mind) to get in the main event" to "everything about the pipebomb was actually scripted(which would mean you're implying that he didn't really mean what he said)" 2 completely contradicting arguments

  • Patrick Aquino posted 7 days ago

    Patrick Aquino

    I wouldn't say reigns is a proven number #2. In terms of being pushed maybe. But he's a solidified number 2 guy in my book til he's proven it. But this is another discussion altogether

    About that site you sent me. Firstly that suspension was due to his lack of professionalism that really supports the argument that he shouldn't be the Number #2 guy. However that doesn't explain why Orton couldn't outperform Punk or Bryan. Bryan vs Wyatt outperformed Orton vs Cena for the Unified WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Bryan vs Wyatt didn't need any title match or a great story to outdo Cena vs Orton. Meaning that at any time during Punk's position as the #2 spot he should've been able to outperform Punk if he was really better. But he simply couldn't

    "You sure, they deteriorated because they realized he was losing his passion for the company? Son, stop it, because this doesn't make sense at all. I'm the center of the spotlight, then all of a sudden, I'm losing passion for the company in the time they are pushing me to bask in all the glory, something goes wrong here. Don't you think de-push came first, then he started shown frustration? Which precisely the "frustration" and "banged up" are the reasons he left, according the reports."

    Lost his passion was just a choice of words, Yeah he's frustrated and banged up. Mick Foley and Heyman can verify that he also lost his passion. The de push bothered him but Batista getting the main event was the last straw. He himself said it was Bryan's year. It was part timers getting the main event that pissed him off.

    "Where was Orton in the match of year discussions of the last year Summerslam? Orton wasn't booked to wrestle, but he was booked to win the event. That's what you're missing here."

    I wasn't talking about Summerslam. I was talking about the year. Hell I could ask that for 2011-2013.

    "Orton was overshadowed by Bryan's momentum, huh? How is that possible when the momentum was created by both? Bryan is not a magician to create a phonomenal enviroment by himself without someone to dance with, Bryan was the hero chasing the villain, fans loved it the story. Why can't you simply say Bryan overshadowed Punk, which hero vs. hero is the logical one in this instance? By your logic, Brock vs. Punk feud was all about Brock's momentum, has nothing to do with Punk. Bryan vs. Cena feud, was all bout Bryan, has nothing to do with Cena"

    Tell me, what particularly did Orton do that enhanced Bryan's momentum? You could've put any other main event heel in that situation and Bryan's momentum would've been the same. Triple H and Steph were the ones carrying the feud on the mic. Orton couldn't make a match of the year candidate in his matches with Bryan but Cena(while injured) could. Hell even Bray Wyatt managed to get a MOTY candidate with Bryan. Orton didn't. Orton did nothing but supply the minimum requirement of being Bryan's opponent. He accomplished nothing as impressive in the ring as what Cena, Wyatt and Punk accomplished when they faced Bryan. Punk proved he had a contribution to the Brock vs Punk feud by producing an arguably better match against Lesnar than Taker, Triple H and Cena did. People refer to that time as Bryan's rise. I haven't seen anyone call that as the stellar Orton vs Bryan feud.

    "In WWE what is the resurrection means? I mean what is the goal of every superstar? Winning the World championship, headlining and main eventing PPVs. I've gone from being relevant to aimless dude, then once again rise to the top of the mountain, that's what we call resurrection."

    When you're on top of the mountain with a belt but people are looking the other guy instead I'd call that a failed attempt at a quality title reign. Winning the title isn't everything. The Miz and Jack Swagger have both won world championships before but their legacy won't be anything near the likes of Roddy Piper a guy who hasn't become WWE Champion. I thought we made it clear by now that some title reigns are mere statistics if they weren't good quality wise? If we follow your logic about the belt being the most important thing then Punk is the greatest superstar in WWE behind the 5 or more guys with longer title reigns. But obviously we aren't following that logic since you always use that reign as an argument against Punk.

    " I've explained it on a multiple occasions, and I'll keep explaining it, but you are not willing to understand it, A world title reign equals push, if you fail, then you failed. Why WWE will put one of its most important championship on a guy they are not willing to push him?"

    Pushes are not equal in magnitude. You've seen transitional champions right? The presence of the title doesn't automatically mean that you've been pushed properly. Again you don't have any definitive proof that Punk's backstage issues don't exist. They weren't just documented on the DVD. They also came from sites like the one YOU used to talk about Orton's suspension.

    And since you didn't catch my point last time I'll copy paste it "Here's the bottomline. Yes the Pipebomb was a very effective(and arguably easy) way to get into the main event. However if Punk didn't keep up the quality of his promos and matches he wouldn't have stayed as long. Maybe you can argue that the shoot was cheap but you can't argue that that was the only thing that kept him there. He stayed in the main event on his own merits."

    If Punk was a one hit wonder with the pipebomb then anyone could've dethroned him once the initial hype died down. They couldn't because Punk was good enough to outperform everyone since then.