>>178
I'm not either >>174 or >>175, but something about the way you write is very familiar. I'm slightly high so I don't know if this makes sense, but your writing seems like the equivalent of an off brand toy, where the manufacturers looked at a the popular toy and took the essence of it, but they didn't get what made the toy good in the first place. And the popular toy was already overrated to begin with.

This isn't an attempt at a personal attack. Just a probably nonsensical observation about the way you write.