• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The GtaN Brawl General discussion thread! -Wait, did the title change?

JustNoOne

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,537
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
One useless Sham-Wow rag.

On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Two hacked Wiis and
one useless Sham-Wow rag.

On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Three PS3s
Two hacked Wiis and
one useless Sham-Wow rag.

On the forth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Four Plasma TVs
Three PS3s
Two hacked Wiis and
one useless Sham-Wow rag.

I can't think of anymore :*(
 

Percon

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
1,945
Location
St. Catharines, ON, CA
Erroneous.

Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it.

Santa porn exists

Ergo, Santa exists. :)
That's not how implications work. An implication is valid if the hypothesis is false.

If Rule 34 on Santa was the implication p-->q, where p is "santa exists" and q is "santa porn exists". Even if santa porn exists, the implication (rule 34) would be either be True--> True or False-->True, which are both still valid, so that doesn't prove or disprove santa's existence.

It's possible to have porn of things that do not exist. The only thing that would be "wrong" when talking about rule 34 would be if something existed but there was no porn of it.

yay discreet math
 

.Marik

is a social misfit
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
3,695
At first it was the divorce, but then it was the fact that he didn't like brawl, end of story,

And Marik, I saw in one of your posts you saying MDK was decent, are you kidding me? he was a consistent top three player in our scene when he played and this was off practice once to twice a week alone, nothing else. He also single handedly made our scene a lot better. He's a legend in GTA smash.
I was speaking along simple terms when I said "decent", I'm well aware of how good MDK was.

Also, Merry Christmas GtaN. :yoshi:
 

Toronto Joe

Smash Master
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
4,580
Location
On MSN
fool threatened to stab me,hes trying to become the only joe! time to call up my backup, middle name gogogo...i am now to be called

toronto andrew
 

Iliad

Smash Lord
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
1,570
Location
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Hype = Steven
DarkThrone = Steven
Cyan= Stephen

Can't think of anyone else with the name steven/stephen, but thats 3 right there.

And JNO, nope. No girl names allowed. umad?
 

.decoy

Smash Ace
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
614
Location
Toronto, ON
Fallacy, it doesnt say if there is porn of it it exists : P
That's not how implications work. An implication is valid if the hypothesis is false.

If Rule 34 on Santa was the implication p-->q, where p is "santa exists" and q is "santa porn exists". Even if santa porn exists, the implication (rule 34) would be either be True--> True or False-->True, which are both still valid, so that doesn't prove or disprove santa's existence.

It's possible to have porn of things that do not exist. The only thing that would be "wrong" when talking about rule 34 would be if something existed but there was no porn of it.

yay discreet math
santa is dead.

(+10 to anyone who knows the german guy who famously thought so. although yes i'll admit he didn't say it quite like that, but it is implied. if anyone wants to p/q my implication, i'm open to any attempt.)
 

Cruxis

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
1,127
Location
Egypt
Why is that man putting sunglasses on his face, where hes already wearing sunglasses

Thats just silly.
 

Tin Man

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
6,874
Location
Belconnen, ACT, Australia
That's not how implications work. An implication is valid if the hypothesis is false.

If Rule 34 on Santa was the implication p-->q, where p is "santa exists" and q is "santa porn exists". Even if santa porn exists, the implication (rule 34) would be either be True--> True or False-->True, which are both still valid, so that doesn't prove or disprove santa's existence.

It's possible to have porn of things that do not exist. The only thing that would be "wrong" when talking about rule 34 would be if something existed but there was no porn of it.

yay discreet math
omg, I hate it when yall at UOIT talk math outside of math class
 

Cyan_

Smash Lord
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
1,208
after minus/fools/nickcams posts, i was about to say all this thread needs is a tinman post... rofl and thereis is... this thread delvers.

Now all i need to see is Nasir saying that he'll 3 stalk swordgard and i can die a happy man
LOL, carter. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

2 Steves.

I remember Sauga vs. Vaughan, Joe + Steve dittos.
fun times lol
 

swordgard

Smash Hero
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
5,503
Location
Canada
Hey GTA you guys will be happy, I will be posting a whole lot less in this topic from now on. Minus and many others can finally rejoice(except fool, you won't get that 10 times troll), feel free to whine about MK all day long! Mikey, you were right, this game is solely camping, nothing I can do will ever change how bad this game is. You guys are the best region around and you can believe that till the end of times. And if you ever lose, you can blame how gay the game is with planking/chaingrabbing/camping! See you all!
 

The_Fool

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 25, 2008
Messages
145
I think SG is just embarassed from the time brose totaly ****ed him up. That was pretty own, with everyone watching too. Not even a hard counter saved SG from that humiliation.
 
Top Bottom