Any GLBT Wii'ers Out There?

[quote name='Danil ACE']Where are the pics of the naked chicks playing wii?[/quote]
Are you ready?
Can u handle teh h0tne55?
Enjoy
hotchicks-s.jpg
 
[quote name='blandstalker']Are you ready?
Can u handle teh h0tne55?
Enjoy
hotchicks-s.jpg
[/quote]

Sweet - twins!!!!

....sorry couldn't resist, back to topic on hand
 
[quote name='blandstalker']There's not many ways a guy could make a posting asking for female video game friends without sounding like either a dork or a perv. Why, for instance, would a guy want to specifically make an invitation for girls only? What is the first thing anyone would think?[/quote]I see what you're saying but there's the possibility of a guy who prefers the company of girls rather than guys; possibly he's intimidated by the smack talk/machismo/better players. *shrugs*

In other news, dmaul enjoy the three day time out. You really think a link to a topless lady is pg-13? You know better than that.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']There's not many ways a guy could make a posting asking for female video game friends without sounding like either a dork or a perv. Why, for instance, would a guy want to specifically make an invitation for girls only? What is the first thing anyone would think?

Maybe you see the original post in the same light, but it's not the same thing at all. What the OP is asking for is an affinity group, or a group with some degree of shared culture. That should be evident because he asked for GLBT, instead of "Gay guy seeks other gay guys to talk about our Wiis".

CAG is an affinity group. We all share a love of video games, especially cheap ones, but we have a shared culture and history that is more than that. I could reference all sorts of things right now that virtually everyone in this thread would immediately understand and relate to, but perhaps the most telling thing is that I feel totally comfortable trading with CAGs and if I were to meet one in real life (which I have) I would be instantly at ease.

That is what the OP wants to get out of this. Just people to chill with that know where he's coming from.[/QUOTE]
"Gay" should not be a legitimate "affinity group" any more than "white" or "straight" or "green eyed" or "people who can roll their tongues".
 
[quote name='guinaevere']
In other news, dmaul enjoy the three day time out. You really think a link to a topless lady is pg-13? You know better than that.[/QUOTE]

My bad. There was a whole thread with links to that site and "discussion" a while back that made it to a few pages. *shurgs* But, search doesn't turn it up so I guess it eventually was noticed and deleted. Guess I missed it getting killed.

But no big deal, as I was out of town and not aware of the timeout until I logged on 2 hours before it expired today anyway.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']"Gay" should not be a legitimate "affinity group" any more than "white" or "straight" or "green eyed" or "people who can roll their tongues".[/quote]
Uh... yeah. Tell that to the gay emotional support group I help run. I swear it's people like you that are a contributing factor to many GLBT people being afraid to stand up to oppression.
 
[quote name='RyokoYaksa']Uh... yeah. Tell that to the gay emotional support group I help run. I swear it's people like you that are a contributing factor to many GLBT people being afraid to stand up to oppression.[/quote]

Hold on. It's clear that PyroGamer doesn't understand why. Rather than implying he's an oppressor, wouldn't it be better to try and clarify?

PyroGamer quoted my post, but didn't get the point I was trying to make. I used CAG as a metaphor for a reason. CAG is defined by the idea of cheap ass videogames, but it is much more than that. There is a community, an identity, and a set of discussions that starts with cheap videogames but is much broader than the idea upon which it was founded.

Similarly, being gay starts with the obvious definition, but there is much more to it than that. Perhaps PyroGamer has no concept of this, about what a bunch of gay people would have in common or discuss.

That seems pretty clear in comparing "gay" with "green-eyed" or "people who can roll their tongues". Other than asserting that isn't the case, there isn't a whole lot I can say. PyroGamer, you'll have to take our word for it.

The other point PyroGamer seems to be making is that "gay" would be exclusionary or discriminatory, along the lines of a "white" or "straight" group.

But you could say that about any interest group. Anime fans aren't going to be discussing live-action movies, video gamers aren't going to be talking about books, and gardeners aren't going to be comparing Halo strategies. If they want to, they have other places set aside for that.

The idea of affinity groups isn't for exclusion, except for excluding off-topic things. Lego fans aren't going to be wasting their time dissing Barbie -- they're going to be talking about Legos. A group, by existing, doesn't mean that they necessarily have to hate and exclude those who are not members.

And honestly? When gay people get together, they have far better things to do than go around smack-talking straight people.

A final point PyroGamer might be making is that a gay group would be unnecessary because it could simply be folded into the majority group and any segregation is not needed because we all get along just fine. That's a nice idea, like the concepts of color-blind society and gender equality. But reality is a little different. There's proof in this thread. I don't see any white, straight, green-eyed tongue rollers getting hit with this:
:puke:

Honestly, if what the OP wanted was unnecessary, we wouldn't still be talking. And I hope we can keep talking, as it's discussion and not demonization that's going to help people understand one another.
 
[quote name='blandstalker']
The other point PyroGamer seems to be making is that "gay" would be exclusionary or discriminatory, along the lines of a "white" or "straight" group.

But you could say that about any interest group. Anime fans aren't going to be discussing live-action movies, video gamers aren't going to be talking about books, and gardeners aren't going to be comparing Halo strategies. If they want to, they have other places set aside for that.
[/QUOTE]

I took his post to mean more that sexual orientation is just a fundamental characteristic of people just like race and gender. And as such, doing things to keep "together" furthers the idea that gays are "different" and thus facilitates homophobia. Just like the isolation of minorities and whites in geography and social strata perpetuates racism.

But I could be way off. And I don't agree with that, if it was his point. As like people should be able to participate in communities with other gays, minorities or whatever without it perpetuating discrimination. Embracing differences doesn't have to lead down that path.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Any follow-up, spmahn?Souds like somebody's a closet furry to me...[/quote]

...since you asked, I can say that the idea of anyone discussing sexual preference along the same lines as race or gender is personally insulting, the two things couldn't possibly be any less related to one another.

Anyways, while I do agree that CAG is a community, and we we should be free to find common ground in which to relate, sexual orientation is not one of them. This is STILL not an apropriate topic for conversation here, I don't really care if you're gay, or straight, or you like sheep, I don't want to know what it is that people do in regards to that aspect of their life, and really not something you should be proud to share. Leave it in the bedroom, everyone.
 
dmaul hit my point spot on the nose. http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3891909&postcount=107


[quote name='RyokoYaksa']Uh... yeah. Tell that to the gay emotional support group I help run. I swear it's people like you that are a contributing factor to many GLBT people being afraid to stand up to oppression.[/QUOTE]
I think you misinterpreted me. What SHOULD be and what is practical and useful in a given situation are completely different things.

My philosophy is absolutely liberating and completely intolerant of all oppression. I also believe it is practical when properly applied, but no need to explain this all systematically right now.

[quote name='blandstalker']That seems pretty clear in comparing "gay" with "green-eyed" or "people who can roll their tongues". Other than asserting that isn't the case, there isn't a whole lot I can say. PyroGamer, you'll have to take our word for it.[/quote]:lol: Describe this "more" to me. I always like hearing someone attempt to rationalize their stereotypes.

The other point PyroGamer seems to be making is that "gay" would be exclusionary or discriminatory, along the lines of a "white" or "straight" group.
Click to expand...
So you agree that a "straight" group is exclusionary and discriminatory? Good. There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in validity between a "straight" group and a "gay" group. Both are equally exclusionary and discriminatory. Morally, they are on equal footing.

But you could say that about any interest group. Anime fans aren't going to be discussing live-action movies, video gamers aren't going to be talking about books, and gardeners aren't going to be comparing Halo strategies. If they want to, they have other places set aside for that.
Click to expand...
The idea of comparing someone's skin colour to someone enjoying anime is absolutely insulting. Blacks do not share anything in common but 2 things: their skin colour, which is of no more significance than their eye colour, and the fact that they are human beings.

Similarly, gays. However, gays do not even share as strong a bond as blacks. While having dark skin is something purely objective, sexual preferences are entirely individual. Gays only share "sexual preference" if you broaden your definition of "sexual preference" into a grossly encompassing phrase. GLBT is one such phrase. Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transexual -- these groups are not even remotely similar. Why are they of such importance? They are entirely insignificant, only serving as straw dividers between humans, making people believe they belong to one such group and not the other, dividing humanity into poorly contrived boxes.

Even worse is when these such labels describe the majority of society: straight, white, etc. "Straight" people really have nothing of significance in common, the only thing of significance the label "straight" does is facilitate the heteronormative principle of our society.


All this being said: blacks share something in common with each other. Gays share something in common with each other. They share the objective fact that they are oppressed. Hated. Reviled. But this blight is not a blight on "gays", or a blight on "transexuals", anymore than "chains" are a blight on "people who are chained". People who are chained are not defined as individuals by their chains, they are PEOPLE, the CHAINED part is the blight. It's what holds them down. It compartmentalizes them and strips them of their individuality: and in their individuality, their union with all humanity, as each one, a separate individual.

I freely admit that, in our society, gay support groups, GSA, GLF, GAA, etc, are absolutely necessary. But the idea of striving towards a goal of equality, or supporting fellow gays in a group where they feel welcome and at home, is not an "affinity" group. Gardeners don't talk about how to cope with gardener-linchings. LEGO fans don't organize bus boycotts.

And all these groups, in as far as they are legitimate, their goals are not "to have the average black earn as much as the average white" or "to have equal amounts women in executive business roles" or "to have equal marriage rights for all couples". Their goal is this: to make "gay", or "black", or "woman" as insignificant as green eyes or the ability to roll one's tongue.


Sorry for breaking into radical egalitarianism in the middle of a pragmatist discussion, but if people do not share these radical egalitarian beliefs, no social liberation movement will ever amount to anything, and no social liberation movement will ever amount to anything without in turn spreading these radically egalitarian beliefs.


p.s.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Embracing differences doesn't have to lead down that path.[/QUOTE]
But don't you see: when one forms "gay" or "black" groups, they are not embracing differences, they are embracing (false) similarities, which separate them from their true and meaningful differences: their individuality.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']You didn't even bother to put a Q in there.[/quote]

What's the difference between a Q and a G?

I mean no disrespect...I sincerely don't understand the distinction there.
 
[quote name='spmahn']
Anyways, while I do agree that CAG is a community, and we we should be free to find common ground in which to relate, sexual orientation is not one of them. This is STILL not an apropriate topic for conversation here, I don't really care if you're gay, or straight, or you like sheep, I don't want to know what it is that people do in regards to that aspect of their life, and really not something you should be proud to share. Leave it in the bedroom, everyone.[/QUOTE]


You are soI] right!! I mean, gay people are only gay in bed. They aren't REAL people. Of course not! Gay only means 2 people of the same sex have SEXXXXX!! They don't have jobs, families, relationhips, hobbies, problems, etc..like.. other people (YES!! OUTSIDE the bedroom! \\:D/)

So when is it appropriate? Is it inappropriate for schools to have GLBT groups? Lemme guess: Yes. School is just a place for learning and the gay thing is JUST for bedrooms?

This is no different then black people wanting to play games with other black guys. What would be wrong with that..? Nothing. But I'll stop now, since some people just don't get it. Not because they are stupid, they just don't want to get it.

[quote name='bmachine']What's the difference between a Q and a G?

I mean no disrespect...I sincerely don't understand the distinction there.[/QUOTE]

"G" is when men love and are attracted to other men.
"Q" is when men can recite all the tunes in Rent, Annie, Guys & Dolls, and The Wizard of Oz. :lol:

But seriously, I think he meant "Q" as in "Questioning" but I could be wrong on that.
 
[quote name='lilboo']But seriously, I think he meant "Q" as in "Questioning" but I could be wrong on that.[/QUOTE]

That's right.

I think Pyro is missing the idea of hierarchical placement of various social strata. While we'd like to think that whites and blacks should be treated similarly, or straight, gay, or otherwise...the reality is that they are not. The fact that they are not, and that particular groups experience isolation, oppression, and bigotry at the individual level, at the macro level, and even legally, coupled with ideas such as heteronormativity (e.g., the presumption we all have that people are straight until otherwise specified) require such groups. For comfort, for counsel, and for socialization.

We're on a forum for gamers because we're gamers, for example, so we consult like-minded folks for advice and news on upcoming releases, sales, and debate the finer (and not so fine) points of the consoles and the industry. It's the same concept, applied to a non-gaming category.

Openly gay folks have had such a history of isolation and oppression that actively seeking out safe zones is more a necessity and reaction than it is a cause of continued segregation in society (despite what dmaul might argue). I don't see someone seeking to exclude by actively seeking out gay friends for their Wii; I see someone actively seeking to include a group who is relegated to the background in most social circles. Of course, at that point, it's their problem if their friends don't want to play SSBM with them. ;)
 
[quote name='lilboo']"G" is when men love and are attracted to other men.
"Q" is when men can recite all the tunes in Rent, Annie, Guys & Dolls, and The Wizard of Oz. :lol:

But seriously, I think he meant "Q" as in "Questioning" but I could be wrong on that.[/quote]

Ah, that makes more sense. I was thinking Q = queer.
 
[quote name='bmachine']Ah, that makes more sense. I was thinking Q = queer.[/QUOTE]
That would be the Rent part.

And shame on lilboo for lumping it together with Annie and Guys and Dolls ;).

[quote name='mykevermin']I think Pyro is missing the idea of hierarchical placement of various social strata.[/quote]Actually that's exactly what all my points are centered around. I'm a radical egalitarian (in an anthropological more than economic sense), everything I say is directed at a philosophy that demolishes this hierarchy.
While we'd like to think that whites and blacks should be treated similarly, or straight, gay, or otherwise...the reality is that they are not. The fact that they are not, and that particular groups experience isolation, oppression, and bigotry at the individual level, at the macro level, and even legally, coupled with ideas such as heteronormativity (e.g., the presumption we all have that people are straight until otherwise specified) require such groups. For comfort, for counsel, and for socialization.

We're on a forum for gamers because we're gamers, for example, so we consult like-minded folks for advice and news on upcoming releases, sales, and debate the finer (and not so fine) points of the consoles and the industry. It's the same concept, applied to a non-gaming category.

Openly gay folks have had such a history of isolation and oppression that actively seeking out safe zones is more a necessity and reaction than it is a cause of continued segregation in society (despite what dmaul might argue). I don't see someone seeking to exclude by actively seeking out gay friends for their Wii; I see someone actively seeking to include a group who is relegated to the background in most social circles. Of course, at that point, it's their problem if their friends don't want to play SSBM with them. ;)
Click to expand...
I completely agree with everything here, especially the parts I've bolded.

Well, I disagree with you claiming I've missed these facts. I haven't. In fact, I addressed them in my post.

These groups have a purpose, and are needed, but their chief purpose has to be to make themselves purposeless, that is: to change society to such a point that a group for gays is as superfluous and unnecessary as a group for people who can roll their tongues. And every time that a group progresses, that it makes a real lasting difference, it is in furthering their own purposelessness -- making themselves that much more unnecessary.

And I do not believe these groups further segregation in society, because, like I just said, I think their only valid accomplishment is in lessening segregation in society (i.e., making themselves purposeless).

Anyways, I've already adequately addressed it in my other post, if you take the time to understand what I'm advocating.
 
[quote name='PyroGamer']
I think you misinterpreted me. What SHOULD be and what is practical and useful in a given situation are completely different things.[/quote]
Well then, you need to be very clear about what you are saying because it is unclear at times whether you are describing your personal utopia or the real world. As we both happen to live in the real world, it's kinda assumed that any discussions we have take place there. Unless you make it clear otherwise.

:lol: Describe this "more" to me. I always like hearing someone attempt to rationalize their stereotypes.
Click to expand...
I have stereotypes...about myself. Whatever.

I better go quit that gay chorus I'm in. All that time I was embracing false similarities, holding myself down, accentuating insignificant and contrived differences, and being exclusionary and discriminatory.

Who knew?

I always like hearing someone attempt to define me, tell me who I am, and tell me what is and isn't significant about me.

So you agree that a "straight" group is exclusionary and discriminatory? Good.
Click to expand...
Didn't say that. And if you read what I wrote, you would see that I said that it is not necessarily exclusionary and discriminatory. Yes, even a "straight" group. So, basically, I said the opposite of that. Other than that, we agree.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE in validity between a "straight" group and a "gay" group. Both are equally exclusionary and discriminatory. Morally, they are on equal footing.
Click to expand...
"Validity" ? "Morally" ?

If this is radical egalitarianism, why does it sound so judgmental?

There's no reason why a "straight" group or a "gay" group have to be either exclusionary or discriminatory. You have conflated organizing around a principle with excluding all those that do not fit the principle. Because you do the first does not necessitate the second.

We're in the Wii message board now. It's for discussing matters relating to the Wii. It's not really a place to discuss the 360, but it doesn't mean you can't own a 360 or talk about 360 games (if they happen to relate to Wii games somehow).

Furthermore, you can read or post here if you have a Wii, if you don't have a Wii, or if you're curious what it's like to have a Wii. You can read this board, the 360 board, both, or neither.

Is that exclusionary? Discriminatory? In some literal sense, yes. In any meaningful sense, no.

The idea of comparing someone's skin colour to someone enjoying anime is absolutely insulting.
Click to expand...
But comparing someone's skin color to their eye color (which you did) isn't?

Yeah, yeah -- I get it. They're both human characteristics. But you can't have it both ways. Skin color can't both be insignificant and yet so important that a comparison to something else would be insulting.

Is the idea of comparing someone's eye color to anime insulting?

Baffling, maybe. Or pointless. But insulting?

Blacks do not share anything in common but 2 things: their skin colour, which is of no more significance than their eye colour, and the fact that they are human beings.
Click to expand...
A little further on you mention that they also share oppression (...so is it two things or three? I'm confused...). But even that is overly simplistic.

This is where you need to be clear that you're talking about your perfect philosophical world, because the alternative is ridiculous. Your statement bears no resemblance to the actual world we live in.

What you are talking about is the difference between actual, physical differences and social construction. Human beings of all kinds have few actual, physical differences (although there are more than you want to admit) and nearly all of the other criteria upon which they create the ideas of community, identity, culture, etc, are social construction.

There's only one problem with this. Well, two, but let's start with the big one. Namely, social constructions exist and are not necessarily bad.

You are missing the forest for the trees. You can appreciate the individuality of every tree in the forest, but to pretend that there's not a forest in front of you is blind and silly. It exists, whether you like it or not, no matter how many perfect theories and concepts and philosophies you can envision.

Is the forest an arbitrary concept? Sure. Where it begins and ends is hard to determine. Where two forests meet, it might be hard to map out the boundaries. And some trees may just not consider themselves part of the forest. But, again, it's there.

Social constructions serve a purpose or they wouldn't exist. Sure, some constructions are put in place from above to oppress. But others evolve by themselves, for their own reasons. To fill a need. To express an idea. To create a solution. Or even just because.

We live in a world where there are tons of social constructions. Some are good, some are bad, some are neither good nor bad. Radical egalitarianism, by doing away with all of them would create equality, but at what cost? If you bulldoze the forest, all the trees are equally dead. That doesn't seem like the best solution.

Individuality is great. But so is community. We shouldn't have to choose.

Which brings us to that other problem. If we strip away social construction and remove all the divisive, exclusionary elements, we have nothing left but the individual.

Where is the individual supposed to find his or her individuality?

With no definitions, no conventions, no culture, no divisions, how is the individual supposed to assemble all the varied components that make her or him an individual? We're going to have to toss out history, shared experience, ethnicity, all those "poorly contrived boxes" -- the very things that people use to define themselves or rebel against.

Throwing away the dictionary would certainly be liberating. But then, when you're looking for words to describe yourself, you might find that your vocabulary sucks.

I am an individual. I belong to many communities. None of which, by the way, are interested in keeping people out. (Well, the gay ones are. Out of the closet. I'll be here all week.)

I am a multitude, a complex and overlapping Venn diagram, a complex chain of molecules. Rather than seeing division everywhere I look, I see syncretism. Where you see chains, I see opportunity. Where you see divisions, I see distinctions.

Furthermore, your radical egalitarianism is a little too radical for me:
Their goal is this: to make "gay", or "black", or "woman" as insignificant as green eyes or the ability to roll one's tongue.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's your goal, but it's not mine.

Apart from the overwhelming likelihood that they never will be you might want to consider for a moment that perhaps they don't want to be?

Humans have the great ability to build communities. They have the even greater ability to work with and join together with other communities. Best of all, they can embrace the seemingly contradictory ideas of unity and diversity at the same time.

It's not a perfect world. It never will be. But we are more than individuals, more than communities, more than one definition. Why settle for less?
 
[quote name='lilboo']Man. All this because 1 gay fellow wanted to make Wii friends with another gay fellow or 2.[/QUOTE]

Well, he can take it to craigslist, not here.
 
[quote name='lilboo']Man. All this because 1 gay fellow wanted to make Wii friends with another gay fellow or 2.[/QUOTE]

Well, he can take it to craigslist, not here.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Well, he can take it to craigslist, not here.[/QUOTE]


But that's the thing, this is a friendly community. Not an uptight asshole community :) So he's very welcomed to look for who he wanted to play Wii with. But thanks anyway!
 
[quote name='lilboo']But that's the thing, this is a friendly community. [/QUOTE]

Friendly? It's the same as every other game forum. A bunch of angry nerds who flame each other over the most pointless shit imaginable! :D
 
[quote name='lilboo']
At one point, it was a really awesome community. Sigh.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I've been here a couple years less than you, but it's definitely been going down hill and getting more like IGN or Gamefaqs everyday.

It's just not modded tightly enough. The only game forums I've seen that have a reasonable level of discourse are game forum areas on non-gaming sites as they tend to be very tightly modded (i.e. any flaming is suspension or banning). But being non-game sites they don't get enough activity to visit daily.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I've been here a couple years less than you, but it's definitely been going down hill and getting more like IGN or Gamefaqs everyday.

It's just not modded tightly enough. The only game forums I've seen that have a reasonable level of discourse are game forum areas on non-gaming sites as they tend to be very tightly modded (i.e. any flaming is suspension or banning). But being non-game sites they don't get enough activity to visit daily.[/QUOTE]


This is true.
I used to be a mod (in the beginning) until my PC crashed for a few months and I couldnt be online again. Funny thing is, when the "Casting Call" went up..of course I said I'd be interested in doing this again.. for Nintendo forums. I was the only 1 who kept asking..and suddenly a Nintendo forum guide appeared..and it was Io :lol:. I guess we can't have someone like me helping out around here.. ;) Oh well. Whatever his methods of picking people are.. well, they should improve. But thats a WHOLE OTHER topic.
 
The GayGamer.net forums are kinda fun, and the atmosphere seems to be refreshingly less catty than CAG. I'm just not sure if I've got enough time in my life to keep up with multiple gamer forums.

[quote name='spmahn']Well, he can take it to craigslist, not here.[/quote]

Right...because if there's a gay guy looking for other gay guys here, he's obviously trolling for cock...and we certainly can't have behavior like that in the CAG community.

You clearly didn't read the last 6 pages.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Who are you to make that decision?[/QUOTE]

The Morality Police, obviously.

And this thread just keeps opening itself, forcing him to keep reading it!

Poor guy. :cry:
 
[quote name='blandstalker']You are missing the forest for the trees.[/QUOTE]
You're confusing a bunch of tree rows:
istockphoto_114360_tree_rows.jpg

for a forrest:
149745848_c5f67a4f05.jpg




Thanks, but where you prefer poorly cut lines and rows of false "distinctions" and pruning sheers to fit the trees in their lines, I prefer each individual, unique, beautiful tree, cohabiting together with its ecosystem in perfect individuality and community.

Pruning sheers and tree rows might "serve a purpose", but they sure make for an ugly "forrest".


That being said, thank you very much for the discussion, even though we were hijacking the poor OP's thread :D
 
I'm at the top of page four right now and just wanted to chime in right now, even before I'm done reading, this is the greatest off topic flaming (
 
On page six now...

"Ninethousand six hunred forty two minutes! How do you measure a year, lets talk about LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVVVVVVEEEE!!!!"
 
It's

Nine hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes.

If you're going to quote lyrics, get it right.

The show still sucks though. Never been so disappointed when it comes to *ugh* theatre.
 
Someone explain to me, what's the deal with guys claiming to be "bi"? I don't understand that concept. Do you like wiener? If the answer is yes, then you're gay, end of story.
 
Be? Do you mean Bi?

And no, you can be bi. It exists. Just because you don't think so, it still exists out in the real world.
 
[quote name='bmachine']Wow...way to beat an analogy to death, Pyro! :applause:[/QUOTE]
I actually had a longer comparison relating industrial forestation, the indonesian lumber industry, acid rain, saplings, and several species of woodland creatures to our modern social climate... but I digress. ;)
 
[quote name='Strell']It's

Nine hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes.

If you're going to quote lyrics, get it right.

The show still sucks though. Never been so disappointed when it comes to *ugh* theatre.[/QUOTE]

Wow, note the date, Strell and I agree on something.

I had no problem with Phantom, The music man, Stomp, Monty Python's play, Oklahamo, I could go on and on....but RENT SUCKS!!!!
 
[quote name='bmachine']Wow...way to beat an analogy to death, Pyro! :applause:[/quote]And he failed at it, too. I'm a tree planter - we do too plant forests in rows. Sometimes the company hires people in advance to make big-ass trenches for us to follow.
 
[quote name='Strell']The show still sucks though. Never been so disappointed when it comes to *ugh* theatre.[/QUOTE]

Clearly you've never seen Pippin.

*blech*
 
[quote name='spmahn']Someone explain to me, what's the deal with guys claiming to be "bi"? I don't understand that concept. Do you like wiener? If the answer is yes, then you're gay, end of story.[/quote]

I presume you're going for a laugh here but mostly I just think you're a d-bag.
 
Rent was terrible because the ultimate message comes out of nowhere, with NO adequate proper build-up or setting, and then pretends that it was the issue from the beginning.

I have taken the liberty of breaking it down, mofos.

First Half:
Everyone but Angel> WOMG WE CAN'T PAY OUR RENT
Angel> 'Sup doodz
Everyone but Angel> WE CAN'T PAY OUR RENT

Second Half:
Everyone but Angel> WOMGZ WE CAN'T PAY TEH RENT
*Angel dies.*
Everyone but Angel for the last 30 minutes of a 3 hour show> OMFG HOW DID THIS HAPPEN *sings about equality*

That's it.

It would be like if you went to a movie where a couple of guys are driving around shooting people, and then they go to a bar in Mexico, and all of a sudden vampires show up.

OH WAIT THAT'S CALLED FROM DUSK TO DAWN.

Same fucking thing. What a crock of shit.

[quote name='spmahn']Someone explain to me, what's the deal with guys claiming to be "bi"? I don't understand that concept. Do you like wiener? If the answer is yes, then you're gay, end of story.[/QUOTE]

Dude, the world is not black or white.

Also, your question is vague. Lots of pleasure comes from weiner (as you put it), either from myself or from others. Do my own actions of peeling the banana - obvious initated from a male source which is also called myself - make me gay?

Cuz gee, if so, then all men are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top