User blog:4. 1. 22. 5. M97/Blog Critic: The Civil Flame War: My Response

Back from vacation, here to review some mediocre at best blogs. And who better to bash than our very own Man of Steak. If you have been around here long enough, chances are you have ran into him a couple times. He is a very active user and gets around. He's been on my list of Blog Critic reviews I needed to do for quite some time. So begins the MoS chapters of Blog Critic. For those of you who don't know the guy, he's been around this wikia for quite some time, is a chat moderator, and even used to be buddies with Madman97 before it all went f*ckup over differeing opinions and views (Which was mostly Madman97's fault for his stubborn disregard for anything Kirkbride, which you can see in his Season 3 finale of Wabbajack Grinding. Be sure to check it out, even if you are tired of hearing the same old flame war). Speaking of flame wars, I was looking through Man of Steaks blogging record and the first one I saw was ripe for the critiquing. The subject on The Civil War. If you know anything about the fan base for both factions, you know there is a fierce debate between who is justified in taking Skyrim over, the Stormcloaks or the Imperials. The subject has mostly died down from its normally angry state to a dormant volcano, and this blog is from some time ago, September of last year, but Man of Steak did the "F*ck both factions" route, though I am here to see if that's true. Remember readers, the bold text is the blog itself, the normal text is my own. Let's get started.

'''     The Civil Flame War, as you should all know, is the flame war on this wiki between which side, Stormcloaks or Imperials, is better. I personally think this is folly, but we'll get to that later.'''

The Stormcloaks obviously started the war, anyone who argues this is just not looking hard enough.

'''The Imperials betrayed Talos, who is not a great god at all. He was a completly greedy, power hungry man who lived only to fufill his own goals. The God of War. Wait wut, is that you Ares/Mars? No, Ares/Mars, he is not real.'''

'''Stormcloaks Vs Imperials. Some might see it as Racists Vs Religious Betrayers. Others, like myself, see it as Stupid Vs Stupid. Onto our first faction, the newly formed Stormcloaks.'''

Alright, so introductions. I don't know if Man of Steak would really listen to me, but I think he should come up with something better than a brief sentence of exposition, "The Civil Flame War, as you should know." I mean, It's quick and to the point, which I respect, and I know he didn't mean it like this, but say someone didn't know about the flame war. Say they were knew to this whole Elder Scrolls thing and they had no idea what a Stormcloak was. They would feel pretty stupid then right? I know someone probably wouldn't be to bent out of shape about it or even notice, but the wording of the sentence can e misleading sometimes. Take my first paragraph for example. I said, "If you know anything about this, then you know about this," whereas Man of Steaks sentence was flat out, "You should know," as if the reader was supposed to be a lore genius walking into it. My sentence gives you the free space of the word "If" meaning if you don't then that's fine, but if you do, chances are you probably know about the flame war. Man of Steaks is "You should know." It may not be that big a deal, but I am sort of a stickler for Introductions. Let's move on before it ruins my whole day. "The Stormcloaks obviously started the war, anyone who argues  this is just not looking hard enough." (Sigh) Dude, what kind of a statement is this supposed to be. You don't strike me as unintelligent MoS. But this sentence contradicts that notion. Where's the evidence backing this thesis up? Where the heck is the real information. This can and will be taken as simple opinion. "The Imperials betrayed Talos, who is not a great god at all. He was a completly greedy, power hungry man who lived only to fufill his own goals. The God of War. Wait wut, is that you Ares/Mars? No, Ares/Mars, he is not real." ...What the hell? What land of backwards @$$ sentence making are you from?

Why the Talos bashing? It's not relevant to the Civil Flame War is it? I thought the focus was on the debate between the supporters of the Stormcloaks and the Imperials, not the god of war. Why is he a greedy and corrupt man? What evidence do we have of this? EXPLAIN, MoS, EXPLAIN! And don't ask me if that last sentence was supposed to be funny or not. Moving on before I shoot myself in the foot. He refers to the debate as stupid vs stupid. Again, what evidence do we have of this? Presenting a thesis means you need to have support for it. The wording of the introduction paragraph alone makes me not want to take this seriously. AND THIS IS ALL IN THE GODDAMN INTRODUCTION!

'''Some might see these people as freedom fighters. Others see them as racists. Others as religious zealots. I personally hate Ulfric, he is quite obviously power hungry and racist. '''

And they fail to see the true threat by attacking the Imperials.

The cause itself is not half bad, but the worst thing about them is the reason the war started.

Religion.

'''What a stupid, pointless, utterly idiotic thing to start a war over! Grow up, Ulfric. Same goes to your lackys.'''

Alright, so this section is about the Stormcloaks. He gives a little rundown by saying sh*t that doesn't matter and expresses his opinion by saying he hates Ulfric. Gee, I never would have guessed anything in this blog would be opinion. "Obviously power hungry and racist" hmm? (Ahem) Evidence? Fail to see the true threat? What threat? What are you talking about? From someone who has been writing papers since 1996, the whole process is that you have to assume your reader knows nothing about the subject at hand. The evidence has to be presented, otherwise I can take everything you said here and shove it up The Adoring Fan's @$$. Bottom line, you gotta explain sh*t MoS. Then he goes on a mini rant about how Religion is stupid thing to fight over. Personally, I agree, it's not something to fight over, people's beliefs are their own, but I have a feeling that the banning of worshipping Talos was not EVERYTHING the Civil War was about.

'''          Also known as the Legion, the organized, well disciplined main military force of Tamriel. No better than the Stormcloaks. No worse either. Tullius, in my mind, is the exact opposite of Ulfric. But, let's ignore that.'''

While failing to attack the true enemy by also attacking the Stormcloaks, who a truce could have been brokered with.

'''The Thalmor defeated the Empire in the Great War, accept that much. Titus Mede rejected the original WGC which was offered at the start of the Great War, choosing to fight. Only when defeated did the great man finally give in.'''

'''The Imperials don't even attempt to broker a truce till the Dragonborn comes along. Some diplomats.'''

This next one is about the legion, and if you have managed to go this far without seeing a bias, just you wait. Sure, he says the Imperial are no better than the Stormcloaks and no better either, also (SURPRISE) failing to give evidence as to why, and he calls Tullius the exact opposite of Ulfric, then tells us to ingore that. THEN WHY THE F*CK WOULD YOU BRING IT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE!?! Plus he called Tullius the exact oppisite of Ulfric. If Ulfric, in MoS's eye, is a corrupt guy, Tullius must be a saint. The bias doesn't start here. The next sentence's wording is all wrong, which kind of distracts me from the point he is trying and failing to make. I don't know, I kind of just phase in and out while reading this now, I'm not even paying attention to this anymore. "The Thalmor defeated the Empire, accept that much." Who f*cking died and made you king of the lore MoS? People can believe what they want! Personally, I think it was a tie, ending with the signing of the White Gold Concordant. But ignore what I think, because I'm not here to refute. I'm here to kick the sh*t outta this terrible blog. He calls Titus Mede a great man, (Bias? What bias?) Then he insults them for being poor diplomats. Should I even bother to ask for evidence?

   I am part of the Neutral Cause, otherwise known as the Brotherhood of Smart People Who Actually Want to Attack the Dominion.

'''I believe that this war is folly, and both sides should be ashamed of themselves. Starting a war over religion and not attempting to broker a truce? Both sides need to grow up and realise something. The more they fight, the weaker they grow and the stronger the Thalmor foothold grows.'''

'''In all fairness, I would prefer if no war was involved with Tamriel. I am a peaceful person, and most people should accept that violence only leads to more violence. It doesn't solve anything. Peace can solve anything related to violence, provided the means and such are available.'''

Napoleon Bonaparte is a well known man, and here is a phrase from him.

"There are two powers in this world, the sword and the mind. In the long run, the mind always wins."

Another quote from a woman whose name I cannot remember,

"I dream of the day when I will have a child who will ask, "'Mummy, what was war?"

'''Grow up, both sides. Realise that violence solves nothing.'''

This part is his personal opinion. Funny, I thought that was the whole blog. He says he is a part of the smart people who actually want to fight the Dominion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that most people, (the only one I can think of who supports the Dominion is user: Is That So, Well...) wants to fight the Dominion regardless of preferred faction. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves? For what? The Imperials trying to quell a rebellion and the Stormcloaks fighting to reclaim their homeland? Even if their leaders may have questionable motives, the causes are quite noble in retrospect. Then MoS gives us yada yada peace hippie bullcrap. And he gives us a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte about the mind lasting longer than the sword, ironic since Napoleon was a bit of a conquerer himself, eventually getting exiled because of his failed campaigns. And then more quotes and more lessons that are really common sense and serve no purpose in advancing his thesis for the Civil Flame War. Actually, you know what, despite what the title says, this blog has nothing to do with the Flame War surrounding the Civil War but just the Civil War itself. I have no idea what this blog is even about! It's all over the place! He doesn't give evidence for his claims, which can be seen as biased at some points, and most if not all points in this blog can be taken as opinion and thus not a legitimate argument to whatever he was trying to accomplish. But then FINALLY we at least get a mention of his thoughts on the Flame War in his next pararaph.

'''Both sides need to grow up and come to an agreement. Countless pointless blogs and talk pages have been created about this stupid, stupid war.'''

Grow up, please.

.....Excuse me, I need to kill the nearest thing to get out all of my anger in reading this statement. What are you playing at MoS? This has to be some kind of joke. No human being with intelligence would write something like this. Like I said, MoS, you are not stupid! You've shown that you know some stuff! So WHY IS THIS IN YOUR BLOG!?! "Both sides need to grow up and come to an agreement. Countless pointless blogs and talk pages have been created about this stupid, stupid war. Grow up please." Really? Pointless blogs hmm? Well guess what MoS! Yours takes the cake. If there was Razzie awards for worst blog, this would take it, because you know what your problem is? Your head is so far up your own @$$ that you don't even realize the stupidity coming from your own keyboard! Stop talking to us like you're so high and mighty! Us grow up? Look in the mirror dude!

I believe that both sides are stupid.

"It's like playing chess with a pigeon, no matter how smart you are, the pigeon will always knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious."

That is how it feels like telling you people to grow up and stop gabbing about "Oh, this side is better," and "No, this side is."

'''Maturity is often referenced in these flame battles by both sides. The ironic thing is, nobody from either side is mature enough to realise that they are wasting their own time and other peoples time.'''

You believe both sides are stupid? Cool. Good luck with that. Cue random quote, make yourself out to be the smartest guy in the universe, and then go on BASHING MATURITY LEVELS AND WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME!!!!

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WASTED MY TIME MAN OF STEAK, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT!!!

Not this blog.

And the verdict is (Drum ro-Actually, I don't need a drumroll. We all know what rating this is)

DEAR AKATOSH, WHAT IS THIS!?!

Yes, that's a rating, the lowest I can go.

Final Word: So why wasn't this blog a waste of time for me? Because it is a critics dream. It has it all. It is the Joel Schumakers Batman and Robin of all blogs. The writing is bad, the quotes are stupid and pointless, the whole point of the blog is overlooked until the end, the author speaks to us like children, the author is kind of an @$$hole when it comes to stating his opinion that incidently didn't need to be heard. It's just...(sigh) Did you guys know that this is the worst rating I have ever given a review? And dear lord did it come sooner than I had hoped. I never like giving poor reviews. Sure, it makes for fun bashing and joking around, but I don't really like making the user feel like sh*t. Sorry MoS, but the blogging business may not be for you. Stick to what you know best, arguing with Madman97 and the like, and I aplogize for the bad rating, but if you are going to continue writing blogs, just don't do this. The key here is evidence for your points, proper grammar, and drop the use of quotes a little. I found myself not really caring. But as always, it may be beyond me to criticize the way someone writes, but I am only here for your improvement. Hopefully your next blog is better. Blog Critic out.