Not only quality MMA discussions. There is a lot of fun to be had too, but it doesn't have to be in a spiteful way. I also like having discussions in general. For quality MMA discussions this is not the ideal place, I agree. But there is no ideal place for that, and there still are rare instances and a few posters that do qualify for that purpose.
Why laughably though? Why not just erroneous?
It's not an absurd question. The way you postulated it, people were to quick to be on the hype train because he lost. Which seems to imply they would only have been warranted to be on the hype train if he didn't lose. Why?
Yes, You already said you enjoyed that, to which I asked "Why?" To which you now just repeated your statement, not give an explanation.
I see that mentioned a lot on here. SDers say X, fighter loses, now SDers say Y. But how sure are you that those were the same people? I have asked this quite regularly and most of the time people don't know who said what. They just assume it were the same people, because they come from an emotional place and not from one of reason. I mean it does happen sometimes, that people actually quote contradicting statements from before and after, from the same poster, but that's more an exception than a rule.