Social Peach and other random Discussion (Social Thread)

[john!]

We should not have to become stepford ***s to have our rights recognized.

well of course not. but if that's what it took, would you do it?

 

[mers]

well of course not. but if that's what it took, would you do it?

What kind of rights are those? "If you just fall in line and behave like we want you to, you can have your gay marriage."

That's not how rights work. If a group of people have to act differently to get equal status, they don't have equal status.

 

[john!]

i'm just being practical. the gay community (or any disadvantaged community, for that matter) can either fight the institutions already in place to get what they want, or they can work with said institutions to get what they want. i'm just saying that the latter approach might be the best option. now of course there's no leader to tell them what to do or think, but when you want to enact change, the end result of your actions needs to be taken into account. that's not to say that gays who don't conform to society are "wrong"... but they may be setting back their cause by acting that way.

 

[MacD]

if only the blacks had stayed with separate but equal, martin luther king shouldn't have had a dream

if only the women had be content with raising kids and taking care of the house

btw, if you look at cultures outside of america, you'd realize how far behind we are when it comes to lgbt etc. Hell, in Taiwan, what we call drag queens are a popular form of entertainment and are recognized as their own gender with a special word, and they are equals in society. (at least i think it was taiwan.)

America is all about freedom. Why shouldn't people fight to act how they want and still be treated equal?

 

[outofdashdwz]

(at least i think it was taiwan.)

Thailand

This thread is really interesting.

DoH's posts are really eloquent haha I like reading them

 

[thesage]

it seems to me that sage is trying to help the gay community by giving his opinion about how they can have a better chance of being accepted by mainstream society. when people label you as "gay", if you act like any other person would normally, that label begins to lose negative connotations and people begin to accept you more. it's just how human psychology works.

i know a few openly gay people, and the less they make "being gay" a key part of their personality, the more fun they are to be around. i also know a few people who aren't openly gay, but act gay and almost certainly are. this pisses me off the most.

This x1000. I generally dislike anybody that makes one thing a central part of their personality.

Their efforts on heath care were supposed to be framed as both an economic strategy and about health care, because it would lower costs and save families money, etc. But the republicans framed it as more government control and death panels, and because the democrats have no spine they lost the tone of the debate. MA electing a Republican isn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be; Coakley wasn't that engaging and committed a number of gaffes during her campaign, while Scott Brown is charming and a social moderate. An electable Republican in Massachusetts is quite different from one in Texas.

No, it wasn't an agenda. It was an all consuming issue that allowed for nothing else to get done; it sucked up all the oxygen in the room and went on for far too long, and once it was started the Dems couldn't back out of it. It was stupid to go for it first, they should have gone for something easier.

This is starting to get off topic and we both agree on the relevant point here. Democrats pursued a policy that was harder to pass than gay rights and are now suffering the consequences of it.

The idea that DADT doesn't affect you just shows how poorly the Democrats have done in framing the issue; not only is DADT a national security issue, as we have discharged hundreds of Arab linguists in the past decade - linguists that we need when combating global terrorism as well as in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan - but it's also a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, as the military has wasted all that money in training and providing for these discharged soldiers, but also has to train the new recruits to replace them. Considering how much of our federal budget and deficit is made up of the defense budget, I think most Americans would support anything that is a rational costcutting measure that doesn't weaken our armed forces. The dems just aren't smart enough to frame it as such.

This is not news to me. The government wasting a couple more dollars on one more ineffective or hurtful policy is not as big a deal as the entire economy tanking in my point of view. I think it's dumb but I still care more about other issues and this one is just a symptom of an overall problem (wasteful spending) in our government on all levels.

Third parties aren't really viable in American politics; the last time a third party came into prominence was the Republican party in the mid 1800s. There's too much outside influence that's bent on maintaining the status quo for any party change to be enacted.

Third parties usually don't rise to prominence due to multiple issues. I honestly think it's better politically for gays to support a third party that supports their rights that doesn't even get any seats instead of supporting a party that halfheartedly supports them and in the long run doesn't do anything for them.

And I had heard of Obama in 2008...considering how he rose to national prominence in 04 with his speech at the DNC.

Less than 1% of americans watched that.

British politics and American politics are so different that argument doesn't hold water. Britain is much more civil and less polarized than America; they did away with slavery with a vote 50 years or so before we kicked off our war to end it.

The british just made them servants and the like so it didn't really change anything. Also British people (and Europeans in general) are much more racist than Americans. Their countries are based on race. Also British parliament members yell at each other and use ad-hominem attacks much more than American Congressmen.

Also the civil war was not about slavery. It was about state's rights. Slavery essentially continued after the civil war. Grant's attitude towards reconstruction is more than enough to show for that.

Also, let's just let black people in the South convince people to vote for their right to attend school. The rights of minorities should NEVER be voted on because the minorities always get trampled by the tyranny of the majority; we saw it with Prop 8 in California, even though the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis of both the state constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Except that's just how blacks got their rights. The reason prop 8 didn't pass probably was due to the religious latino voters.

Additionally your argument is heteronormative and disgusting, frankly. It essentializes gay people to stereotypes and caricatures and ignores all the normal gay people out there; just like not all Republicans are Palins, not all gays are Carson from Queer Eye. It's the most outspoken and most outrageous people who get attention in our culture.

I'm saying that the way the gays are portrayed in the media is what emphasizes the stereotypes. How gay people act is as diverse as how straight people act. It just seems that a loud annoying minority of the gay community seems to speak over the rest of them. If all outspoken republicans (I'm talking about voters) acted like Palin, wouldn't you eventually associate that negative behavior with all republicans? That's how the majority of people against homosexual rights that aren't religious view gay people (even the ones that do probably view them that way). I personally don't think this.

The strategy for the gays should be that we should just keep suing until we get our way, because the law and the courts are on our side. That's where most of our legal success has come from because our elected representatives are spineless.

That's a terrible strategy. Lawmakers can just make it so that you having any rights at all is illegal or ignore the decisions of the courts. You need to have your rights written on a law of some sort.

sage: You seem very solidly in favor of people's rights to do what they want. If so, how can you not be OK with gay people expressing themselves in the way that they choose?

I have to accept how everybody expresses themselves? There are straight people who I don't like because of how they express themselves. Should I accept how all gay people act simply because they are a minority? I do believe that everybody has a right to act how they want. Does not mean I have to like or respect how they act. I'm not ok with people "expressing" their religion towards other people in a forceful way, but because they are allowed to act that way I have to be ok with it?

We should not have to become stepford ***s to have our rights recognized. That is ridiculous, and that mentality is what relegates gay people to the archetypes of either the sassy gay friend (the must have accessory for straight women) or the sexless castrados of Wisteria Lane, who are allowed to be seen and not heard, whose affections are deemed too risqué for prime-time while heteros can have simulated and implied sex. There's a clear double standard, and your mentality only serves to keep gays in their place - as second place citizens - until we learn how to act from the heterosexual white man and his definition of what constitutes normal gender behavior

Those stereotypes are what are emphasized by the gay community. Show that your attitudes and personalities are as diverse as the heterosexual community. Being gay should not be automatically associated as acting in any sort of specific way, yet it is. Fight those stereotypes instead of promoting them.

if only the blacks had stayed with separate but equal, martin luther king shouldn't have had a dream

if only the women had be content with raising kids and taking care of the house

Both blacks and women demonstrated that they were valuable parts of america, not only socially, but also economically and politically and that is the main way they got their rights recognized. That's what the LGBT community needs to do. Constantly saying saying we deserve rights because that's the right thing won't get you anywhere.

btw, if you look at cultures outside of america, you'd realize how far behind we are when it comes to lgbt etc. Hell, in Taiwan, what we call drag queens are a popular form of entertainment and are recognized as their own gender with a special word, and they are equals in society. (at least i think it was taiwan.)

Do you realize how messed up that is? Treating an entire class of people as entertainment? Let's do that to little people too... They are SO funny, I'm sure they'd be fine with that... And considering the majority of the world, we're pretty far along in lgbt rights. There's still some work but considering Romania's attitude to gay people, its ranking on how socially developed it is compared to other countries, and how many countries there are in the world, is extremely depressing.

America is all about freedom. Why shouldn't people fight to act how they want and still be treated equal?

What? I'm saying people should fight to be able to act how they want. I'm criticizing how gay people are going on about accomplishing that though. They have put an enormous effort with little to show for it compared to other comparable countries (ie western europe and the asian tigers and japan).

 

[MacD]

Do you realize how messed up that is? Treating an entire class of people as entertainment?

Maybe i should have phrased it better. There are men who dress in drag everyday, some put on shows some just go about life normally. They are treated as equal and have a special word to refer to their gender. Just like how in America, some people dress and drag just because, and some do so and put on shows, only these people are looked down on by society as a whole.

What? I'm saying people should fight to be able to act how they want. I'm criticizing how gay people are going on about accomplishing that though. They have put an enormous effort with little to show for it compared to other comparable countries (ie western europe and the asian tigers and japan).

who said that any of what i said was directed at you in the first place?

 

[thesage]

Oh ok.

I heard in my sociology class that there's an island somewhere where the natives think you're not normal unless you have homesexual relations until you're like an adult or something.

Humans are weird lol.

 

[pheX]

wow first look at the peach social thread and there is already a gay discussion going on. Peach mains and those stupid stereotypes!

 

[Composeur]

Indeed. On a related not, what does everyone think of Peach's comportment in real life? Is she really the total sloozy that Falcon clearly has his rocks up for, the one who feigns innocence but sleeps with half the football team...

Or do those big, beautiful lashes gild eyes who truly do widen in horror when she first learns of this other, debased reputation she's somehow acquired...?

What do we think: is her smile and fun-loving tennis playing wholesome and pure, or does it belie some wild debauchery she has in store for later?

 

[DoH]

Uh no. School segregation was legal until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Brown v. Board. Black people in the South would have never earned the right to a fair education via voting because the majority usually votes down the rights of minorities. Interracial marriage bans were struck down in Loving v. Virginia. Women didn't get the right to birth control without Griswold v. Connecticut, which was later expanded to unmarried couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird , which finally culminated in Roe v. Wade. Women couldn't even get a comprehensive Equal Rights Amendment to be ratified by all the states, you really think gays should try and convince law makers to grant them rights? Our rights are enshrined in the 14th Amendment - the equal protection of laws applying to all citizens - but they have not been articulated as such yet because the Court doesn't have a majority to expand those protections, because the courts have been dominated by conservatives for some time. However, the court has given us our biggest win yet - striking down anti-sodomy laws in the us in Lawrence v. Texas - while all Congress has managed to do is get attacks based on sexual orientation changed to a hate crime. Law makers can't rescind all the rights that we would gain with Court decisions, they couldn't even get a marriage ban amendment passed in 04 when they majorities. Judicial review is essential in protecting the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

There's no cohesive gay community because being gay is just one component of a person's identity; women were united by their gender and blacks by their skin, while sexuality is a much more fluid concept. Portrayals of gays as negative is the media's fault for taking the easy way out and resorting to stereotypes.

PS; Peach is a ****.

 

[john!]

Indeed. On a related not, what does everyone think of Peach's comportment in real life? Is she really the total sloozy that Falcon clearly has his rocks up for, the one who feigns innocence but sleeps with half the football team...

Or do those big, beautiful lashes gild eyes who truly do widen in horror when she first learns of this other, debased reputation she's somehow acquired...?

What do we think: is her smile and fun-loving tennis playing wholesome and pure, or does it belie some wild debauchery she has in store for later?

she's a **** and we all know it

edit: mostly a nice post d'oh, but you seem to automatically assume that all "rights" are a good thing, and that the government should give out as many as possible. suppose i re-wrote your quote like so:

Unborn children lost the right to life with Roe v. Wade.

...which would spawn a debate about which group has "rights" and which group doesn't. it's not so simple as to say that everybody should have as many rights as possible, because often times they tend to conflict with each other. another good example would be a corporation's "right" to create pollution vs. the citizens' "right" to not have their environment trashed.

 

[DoH]

That assumes that they had that right to begin with, but seeing as how they are not autonomous and no one had ever articulated that right as strictly theirs, then that right would not have been "lost." Seeing as how fetuses aren't people, then they don't have rights. Even if they were, the right of the mother supersedes any (possibly fictitious) fetal right that can never be articulated.

All rights that expand equality - unless there's a warranted reason to restrict those rights - are generally good. There are good reasons to ban things like incest, but not reasons to ban gay marriage.

 

[Ambix]

That assumes that they had that right to begin with, but seeing as how they are not autonomous and no one had ever articulated that right as strictly theirs, then that right would not have been "lost." Seeing as how fetuses aren't people, then they don't have rights. Even if they were, the right of the mother supersedes any (possibly fictitious) fetal right that can never be articulated.

(playing devil's advocate because i'm bored)

The issue really isn't that clear cut.

For starters why are "rights" even the focus of the argument, when "rights" basically translates to immunity from arbitrary laws and punishments. Should this sort of thing even be regulated? Can it? Abortions have been happening since the beginning of our species....ILLEGAL abortions have been happening since the beginning of law.

Moreover when you say these rights only belong to "people" what are you using as criteria for determining if someone is a person or not? Sentience? species? It's believed that dogs, depending on the breed, have roughly the same intelligence has a 3 year old child.

Promotion of one's own species is a powerful drive. It's why we'd give these "rights" to ourselves but not animals, fetuses, alien life forms, etc. It's pretty selfish.....but selfishness keeps you alive and fed for the most part.

There isn't really a logical answer for this debate right now. It's simply too complicated. There are too many factors to consider.

....which means it's largely a debate of morality.

Is it moral to promote your own species (or yourself) over another or is it moral to extend these "rights" to other creatures because they can't claim them or defend themselves?

I don't really have a preference because I haven't got ovaries and even ifI did have them I usually ignore most forms of authority anyway so i'd come to my own conclusion depending on the situation.

All rights that expand equality - unless there's a warranted reason to restrict those rights - are generally good. There are good reasons to ban things like incest, but not reasons to ban gay marriage.

(Still playing devil's advocate)

Competition is the defining force here and it's an extremely subjective point of view.

Objectively The reason to ban things like incest is because it weakens us as a species. Kids with down syndrome are a burden on resources and genetics, and incest is commonly held to be immoral.

Competition is also the reason gay marriage is banned. Your sexual preferences offend their (those in power, the majority, whatever) sense of morality. Also bear in mind that the world's population was a lot smaller in days gone by, and making babies was sort of important. Farmers for instance needed a wife to make babies with so they had readily available sources of labor to work their farm and expand their lands and produce more food which ultimately benefits everyone. That isn't something a homosexual man could do.

At the end of the day it's you vs them instead of humans vs non-humans like it is with incest in most cases.

I don't agree with anti-homosexual sentiment.......I can just understand why they fight you on the subject. It's only natural and it's hard to get pissed at them for doing it.


Not to mention....Marriage has no practical uses except for the tax purposes and insurance benefits anyway. Why do we need it to be happy?

I don't need my relationship "official" or quantified for it to matter to me. The government isn't the divine authority.

Also, Racism against african americans has gone down quite a bit in the last few generations....probably because of how stupid our parents have been acting on the issue. It irritates the fuckshit out of me when I hear my dad talking about how much he hates niggers. Anti-homosexuality beliefs will probably burn themselves out in the coming generations in the same way.


EDIT:

I apologize if I mispelled anything, made strawman arguments or logical fallacies, or deviated from the subject.

I was bored and threw this post together in a few minutes.

All i know is that my gut says maybe.

 

[john!]

my favorite part was when he just stated that "fetuses aren't people" as if it was a scientific law

 

[Ambix]

my favorite part was when he just stated that "fetuses aren't people" as if it was a scientific law

You missed my point.

It's not that fetuses aren't people....it's that we don't gain any real benefit by increasing the population any more.

It just causes more competition for resources which is why abortion is mostly an argument of morality right now.

who gets put first and why? Mother? Fetus? society?

There isn't a clear cut answer because it's an argument of morality. It's also why I didn't comment on abortion being right or wrong.

Responses like the one you just gave me are the main reason I avoid that shit.

 

[john!]

no i understand what you're saying. we have to determine what constitutes the basis of "right" and "wrong" before we can make any fully rational decisions, and there are various schools of thought regarding the issue. i didn't respond to his fetus statement earlier because i didn't want to start an abortion debate. it just seemed really funny in retrospect.

 

[thesage]

Whoops forgot about this thread....

 

[stingers]

 

[Ambix]

 

[crismas]

^ DEAR GOD that's trippy.

 

[DoH]

@Ambix.

No.

People's rights and laws are not to be subjected to morality, because morality is inherently arbitrary. What's moral for you is not universal, and to try and create laws based off of something as personal as morality is subjective at best. This is why our laws are structured out of a rights based framework. Stealing is illegal not because it is right or wrong (because how would such thing be determined?) it's illegal because it's an infringement on property.

Competition is not the reason gay marriage is banned. Firstly, gays and straights are competing for different resources. Men are not going to go for lesbians when looking to make babies. Secondly, the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation is so recent in the scope of human history that issues of needing children to work the farm were far resolved by the time people started legislating their heterosexism into law. Additionally, gays can reproduce with modern technology, and also we can adopt all the excess children you irresponsible breeders are bearing. And did you just insinuate that people who practice incest aren't human? lawl. If you're going to restrict freedoms you need rational reasons to; incest isn't restricted because of the squick factor or the Bible, it's restricted because it harms society for various reasons. Social taboos also help keep it in check.

Finally, marriage has several benefits. It's one of the core components of a civilized society. Marriage stabilizes men and promotes partnerships that stabilize a modern society, from providing stable homes to children, having a a stable sex life, and even a longer lifespan; it's not just about tax exemptions. As capitalism introduced more freedom to nations, so did their attitudes change. Opponents of gay marriage say that we're seeking to redefine marriage; however straight people have already, past tense, redefined marriage. Marriage is no longer the traditional definition, where one man made the gift of property called daughter to another man which became the property called wife. People were able to marry by choice and for love, something that runs very contrary to the traditional definition of marriage. As times have changed, the current definition of marriage has changed as well, as it has become a partnership of equals, to the point in which it makes no logical sense to exclude same-sex couples from making that same level of commitment. It's cute that you don't feel like you need the government to sanction your relationships; you might feel differently if you were a minority who had those rights denied to you.

@john!

Fetuses don't have the same rights as people from a legal perspective. There are some protections, especially in the third trimester, but generally from the first through second they are the property of the mother and not an autonomous, sentient entity. You're right in the sense that what I said was not scientific fact; however at the point where science is inconclusive, that is irrelevant. We use logic to determine our results at this point, and logically you don't prioritize the rights of something that is unborn over the rights of a living mother.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

you could bounce a ball off that wall of text

 

[Ambix]

It's clear that you're passionate about this subject but passion can have a lot of negative effects on people too if you're not carefull.

I'm not entirely sure if you read the first line of my post because you didn't really give any indication that you did and I can't read your body language over the internet, so in an attempt to avoid misunderstandings i feel i should start with this:

@Ambix.

No.

People's rights and laws are not to be subjected to morality, because morality is inherently arbitrary. What's moral for you is not universal, and to try and create laws based off of something as personal as morality is subjective at best. This is why our laws are structured out of a rights based framework. Stealing is illegal not because it is right or wrong (because how would such thing be determined?) it's illegal because it's an infringement on property.

That may be how it should be in an ideal world however our world is far from ideal. Morality is inextricable from almost all aspects of our life. We see things subjectively. Stealing isn't just illegal because it's seen as an infringement of property.

It's also seen as immoral. It's illegal because ideally we should be able to exist without resorting to barbic forms of competition (stealing, murder, etc) to survive and society believes that such methods are no longer needed. Society feels there is a "better" way... since that's the case it's clearly immoral to infringe on someone elses property when you have other means to sustain yourself.

Morality is the root.

Competition is not the reason gay marriage is banned. Firstly, gays and straights are competing for different resources. Men are not going to go for lesbians when looking to make babies. Secondly, the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation is so recent in the scope of human history that issues of needing children to work the farm were far resolved by the time people started legislating their heterosexism into law. Additionally, gays can reproduce with modern technology, and also we can adopt all the excess children you irresponsible breeders are bearing. And did you just insinuate that people who practice incest aren't human? lawl. If you're going to restrict freedoms you need rational reasons to; incest isn't restricted because of the squick factor or the Bible, it's restricted because it harms society for various reasons. Social taboos also help keep it in check.

When I said competition was the reason for the ban on gay marriage I didn't mean physical competition. Emotional, moral, philosophical, random abstract concept, etc.

Your morality is in direct competition with theirs. They are threatened by you and are attempting to muscle you out. How is that not competition? =/

Additionally, homosexuality as a sexual orientation really isn't all that new. If your basis for making that claim is legislation then it could be argued that old world taboo's ultimately served the same purpose. When you get right down to it what's the difference between anti-gay legislation and anti-gay taboos? They both discourage homosexual activity by providing negative consequences for offenders.

Getting arrested and tried is today's version of getting lynched or shunned by your farming community.

@incest comment: that was basically my position too. =/

Finally, marriage has several benefits. It's one of the core components of a civilized society. Marriage stabilizes men and promotes partnerships that stabilize a modern society, from providing stable homes to children, having a a stable sex life, and even a longer lifespan; it's not just about tax exemptions. As capitalism introduced more freedom to nations, so did their attitudes change. Opponents of gay marriage say that we're seeking to redefine marriage; however straight people have already, past tense, redefined marriage. Marriage is no longer the traditional definition, where one man made the gift of property called daughter to another man which became the property called wife. People were able to marry by choice and for love, something that runs very contrary to the traditional definition of marriage. As times have changed, the current definition of marriage has changed as well, as it has become a partnership of equals, to the point in which it makes no logical sense to exclude same-sex couples from making that same level of commitment.

Marriage isn't a core component of society. Exclusive romantic attachment is a core component of human social interaction. There is a difference. The urge to avoid loneliness is instinctual in most humans. Society isn't built on it. It's built to accomodate it.

Moreover, the statement "marriage stabalizes men and society" was poorly phrased. You make it sound like all marriages stabalize men and society which can't be true and it seems like there would be more of a correlation between marriage and stability than anything else. correlation, causation, etc.

Relationships in general (non-romantic included) do tend to have a positive effect on people though. A peice of paper isn't going to magically make your relationship more productive. I get by perfectly well in this manner actually.....the vast majority of my relationships are/were non-romantic. My good friends are mostly the smashers in memphis and they give me exactly what I need out of life. Government approval isn't going to suddenly make that any "more" true than it was yesterday.

Most people (if not all) can get everything they need out of life on their own. Relying on the government for emotional fullfillment seems silly.

I do, however, agree with your assertion that the definition of marriage has changed. At the end of the day I do agree that it's stupid to exclude gay's from getting married....i just would like to refer you to my above statement. You don't need a bunch of silly titles, papers, or tax breaks to have a relationship with someone and you don't need them to provide a loving home for a child.

tl;dr

Marriage doesn't stabalize society. Relationships do. You have them.

It's cute that you don't feel like you need the government to sanction your relationships; you might feel differently if you were a minority who had those rights denied to you.

Unless being gay drastically changed my personality (which by your previous arguments it shouldn't), I still wouldn't give a flying tinwhistle shit what the government had to say about my relationships.

It's mostly a product of confidence. I'm emotionally self-sufficient for the most part.

What's the point of free will if you can't make up your own mind about the important things?

 

[Requiem]

I enjoy eating babies.

 

[indigestible_wad]

I enjoyed this thoroughly.

 

[Darkshooter]

As an Ice Climbers player, Ive gotta drop by and say this: I dont know how Id do against Armada, but by god the thought of it terrifies me.

 

[Teczer0]

I wish I was an ice climbers player

 

[Darkshooter]

Well I myself like playing Peach, Mario, Ice Climbers and Falco.

I wish I was an ice climbers player

Why not drop by here? http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=11759977#post11759977

 

[The Irish Mafia]

The thought of teczero killing me every time he grabs me just made me piss myself in fear.
Then I remembered he already does kill me every time he grabs me.

 

[crismas]

^ LMAO! Truth... for liek everyone. Such a jerk

 

[Teczer0]

Wow I haven't been here in forever...

For that matter everyone else seems like they haven't been here in forever

 

[MacD]

why post in the social thread about nothing when you can post in the tactical discussion about nothing

if only somehow people looked here and talked here

 

[Teczer0]

LMAO yea... *sigh*

Oh and Vanz, we totally do need to play some day man >_<. My semester should be relatively easy so we should prolly be able to play a lot more.

 

[MacD]

maybe if we start talking here, others will join in

so how bout them.... uhhhh, errrrr... how bout that game!!!!

lololol thinking about sports in the peach boards makes me lol

 

[Cia]

LMAO yea... *sigh*

Oh and Vanz, we totally do need to play some day man >_<. My semester should be relatively easy so we should prolly be able to play a lot more.

Definitely. I was gonna wait before I told anyone this, but I'm moving to midwest soon

AKA never gonna play melee again out there.

So we gotta play before that



BTW it's been almost 2 months since my last tournament (ROM3)

 

[john!]

Definitely. I was gonna wait before I told anyone this, but I'm moving to midwest soon

AKA never gonna play melee again out there.

where in the midwest? we aren't that desolate lol, unless you're moving to the dakotas or something

 

[Teczer0]

Definitely. I was gonna wait before I told anyone this, but I'm moving to midwest soon

AKA never gonna play melee again out there.

So we gotta play before that



BTW it's been almost 2 months since my last tournament (ROM3)

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

I am so sad right now

 

[MacD]

vaaaaanzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

you lame butt

 

[crismas]

Definitely. I was gonna wait before I told anyone this, but I'm moving to midwest soon

AKA never gonna play melee again out there.

So we gotta play before that



BTW it's been almost 2 months since my last tournament (ROM3)

WTF!!!!!!!!!! WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SO SECRETIVE ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!!!111111 FDJAFJDKLSAJF =/ I'm a sad panda. You're moving away and then Haley might move, and then I'll be like emo forever

Or I can just travel more to see you guys

Or, you're trolling.

Oh the possibilities.