Going along with the depressingly over-analyzed topics we seem to be finding interest in, here's one that's sure to get people riled up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANL2pHgJD0
2:10 - 2:40 is the only part of the video i watched and i must say 10/10 video scotty.
edit: ok I watched the rest. the first guy seems to be of the opinion that homosexuality is not a choice but genetics. I think it is both genetics and environment that lead to homosexuality.
As for homophobia, I think anyone against homosexuality is a douchebag. It's not like being against Twilight or somthing, because that's your opinion. I put it on the same level as hating someone for their skin color. However, just because they're a douchebag doesn't mean I will rant to them about it, they are free to be assholes in their own minds. Homophobia is only a problem when they act on it.
Quote from: Scotty on February 23, 2012, 10:35:03 PM
Going along with the depressingly.....
But the last one was about happy. :P
Quote from: Scotty on February 23, 2012, 10:35:03 PM
...over-analyzed topics we seem to be finding interest in, here's one that's sure to get people riled up!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ANL2pHgJD0
Oh, are the gay wars back on so forums?
I don't condone nor hate on someone for their choices. I don't agree with homosexuality or lesbianism but I won't go around bashing on people for who they want to be with. Live and let live. The only thing that grosses me out is public affection(not just a hug or kiss on the cheek). Whether it be 2 guys or a guy and a girl making out in public, it's just wrong.
Eh, there is a difference between homophobic people and people that just hate homosexuals. Homophobic people can't really help it any more than say someone who was arachnophobic. Its just something that's ingrained into their minds.
I'm kind of against the whole term "homophobia." I know a lot of people who are against homosexual behavior, but they aren't necessarily afraid of gays, nor do they automatically hate them. Making that assumption is comparable to assuming that someone who is against underage drinking would automatically hate their kid if the kid got caught drinking. The issue is the act, not the person.
I'll issue a challenge to everyone who finds this worth deliberation:
I would like to hear one valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The catch is that you cannot use religion as the justification. Seems most of the bible freaks around here like to denounce the old testament, saying that Jesus came along to white-out all the outrageous claims that the old testament had (adultery = death, homosexuality = evil, rape = marriage, etc...), so you cannot use religious scriptures as a reason. Can anyone name one good reason why we should outlaw gay marriage?
Guess I'm feeling perky after my state's senate decided to allow gay marriage, I'm curious as to why it took so long.
I can't.
Quote from: Scotty on February 24, 2012, 10:58:13 AM
I'll issue a challenge to everyone who finds this worth deliberation:
I would like to hear one valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The catch is that you cannot use religion as the justification. Seems most of the bible freaks around here like to denounce the old testament, saying that Jesus came along to white-out all the outrageous claims that the old testament had (adultery = death, homosexuality = evil, rape = marriage, etc...), so you cannot use religious scriptures as a reason. Can anyone name one good reason why we should outlaw gay marriage?
Guess I'm feeling perky after my state's senate decided to allow gay marriage, I'm curious as to why it took so long.
I think most people that oppose it are brought up in a traditional family with a man and woman married. Men and women can produce children together, not artificially, and this I think is one of the strongest points people raise against it. If people were meant to be gay, they would naturally be able to have children together. Like I said I'm not for or against it, basically just neutral. It doesn't affect me personally so why should I care if a guy wants to marry a guy or girl marry a girl.. It's pretty pointless to protest against.
Quote from: stick d00d on February 24, 2012, 03:00:51 PM
Quote from: Scotty on February 24, 2012, 10:58:13 AM
I'll issue a challenge to everyone who finds this worth deliberation:
I would like to hear one valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The catch is that you cannot use religion as the justification. Seems most of the bible freaks around here like to denounce the old testament, saying that Jesus came along to white-out all the outrageous claims that the old testament had (adultery = death, homosexuality = evil, rape = marriage, etc...), so you cannot use religious scriptures as a reason. Can anyone name one good reason why we should outlaw gay marriage?
Guess I'm feeling perky after my state's senate decided to allow gay marriage, I'm curious as to why it took so long.
I think most people that oppose it are brought up in a traditional family with a man and woman married. Men and women can produce children together, not artificially, and this I think is one of the strongest points people raise against it. If people were meant to be gay, they would naturally be able to have children together. Like I said I'm not for or against it, basically just neutral. It doesn't affect me personally so why should I care if a guy wants to marry a guy or girl marry a girl.. It's pretty pointless to protest against.
I'd hardly call it "strong". Maybe bigoted, but not strong. When they are so opinionated that they feel they have to oppress their beliefs and morals on others just because they feel different about it than others, that's bigoted.
I find it similar to Jessica Watson's attempt at circumventing the world in a sailboat. Everyone thought they knew everything about parenting and sailing, saying she wasn't qualified to do it. That she was too young. They labeled her parents as awful for even allowing their 16 year old to do the trip by herself. They tried hard to bar her from going, and had absolutely no right to do so. All of a sudden, they feel that they are the experts on parenting, and sailing, when they don't know dick about it. At 16, this girl had more experience and knowledge about sailing than anyone who thought they were qualified to open their mouths. Heck, she has more experience coming from her family than almost any sailor in existence.
I view bigoted anti-gay folks the exact same way. Just because they consider themselves the experts in the definition of the term marriage, through all their divorces, and children who grow up to be lousy slops, they're definitely qualified how to tell others to be happy and who to spend their lives with.
By 'strongest' i just meant like the main reason most people are against it. Marriage shouldn't be discriminated against, just like race, religion, etc. How can you tell other people what to believe in and wrong from right? It just causes more hate and unnecessary bullshit.
Quote from: Scotty on February 24, 2012, 03:54:33 PMI find it similar to Jessica Watson's attempt at circumventing the world in a sailboat. Everyone thought they knew everything about parenting and sailing, saying she wasn't qualified to do it. That she was too young. They labeled her parents as awful for even allowing their 16 year old to do the trip by herself. They tried hard to bar her from going, and had absolutely no right to do so. All of a sudden, they feel that they are the experts on parenting, and sailing, when they don't know dick about it. At 16, this girl had more experience and knowledge about sailing than anyone who thought they were qualified to open their mouths. Heck, she has more experience coming from her family than almost any sailor in existence.
I actually think that's a horrible analogy. You think people who are against homosexuality are the same as people who are against allowing a 16 year old girl sail around the world by herself? You see how there's a difference right? On the one hand, you have people attempting to live their lives the way they see fit, without harming either themselves or anyone else. On the other, you have a young girl who wants to put herself in potential danger (regardless of how experienced anyone is, or what age they are, sailing that far on your own is dangerous) and her parents allowing her. It's different...
What really annoys me is that homophobes won't bat an eye at hundreds of celebrities that have 15 divorces under their belt, or straight couples that get married on a whim and don't even truly love each other, but God forbid one gay couple that actually does love their partner have the same benefits that straight couples get.
This doesn't necessarily apply to other countries, but in America, the constitution specifically declares all people to be equal. If all people are created equal, judging people based on their sex is unconstitutional. I don't see how that's hard to understand.
Quote from: Scotty on February 24, 2012, 10:58:13 AM
I'll issue a challenge to everyone who finds this worth deliberation:
I would like to hear one valid reason why gay marriage should not be allowed. The catch is that you cannot use religion as the justification. Seems most of the bible freaks around here like to denounce the old testament, saying that Jesus came along to white-out all the outrageous claims that the old testament had (adultery = death, homosexuality = evil, rape = marriage, etc...), so you cannot use religious scriptures as a reason. Can anyone name one good reason why we should outlaw gay marriage?
Guess I'm feeling perky after my state's senate decided to allow gay marriage, I'm curious as to why it took so long.
Meh, just found this (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02) with some quick Googling. It's from 2001 and on a Christian site but it does cite sources, so I guess it gives us something to discuss.
Marriage is recognized by the government(tax breaks and such). Gay marriage is prohibited on the grounds that marriage is a religious ceremony that must be kept the way it is. The government is promoting religious values, the government is disregarding Separation of Church and State.
That's how I've always seen it.
Quote from: Hikarikuen on February 24, 2012, 10:39:22 PMMeh, just found this (http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02) with some quick Googling. It's from 2001 and on a Christian site but it does cite sources, so I guess it gives us something to discuss.
This should be disregarded in my opinion. For one thing it was prepared by a biased group. In addition, you can pretty much do anything you want with charts and graphs and numbers.
What I find particularly interesting is that they are comparing homosexuals in long term commited relationships to married straight couples. For one thing, their whole point is that
marriage needs to be upheld. So if that's the case, then commited couples should have nothing to do with that. Yes, you can't use married gay couples because there aren't enough of them to have a large enough group for statistics. But there is a fundamental flaw in using commited couples. Having been in both situations, long term committed relationship and married, I can say that there is a definite difference in how the couple feels about the relationship. The marriage itself is an additional level of commitment, whether symbolic or legally. To add to that, how many of these commited homosexual couples were ever going to get married. It stands to reason that at least a percentage of the couples in the study would not ever get married. There are straight couples that do that. Stay in a long term commited relationship and then break up after a period of time without ever getting married.
Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.
Quote
What really annoys me is that homophobes won't bat an eye at hundreds of celebrities that have 15 divorces under their belt, or straight couples that get married on a whim and don't even truly love each other, but God forbid one gay couple that actually does love their partner have the same benefits that straight couples get.
Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.
Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.
Quote
What really annoys me is that homophobes won't bat an eye at hundreds of celebrities that have 15 divorces under their belt, or straight couples that get married on a whim and don't even truly love each other, but God forbid one gay couple that actually does love their partner have the same benefits that straight couples get.
Dear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.
Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.
Marriage has
not always been a religious affair. It was once thought of as a private matter, but christians made it into a pact with God back in the early AD and slowly started adding other rules and obligations throughout the years. Marriage is not inherently a christian tradition. It has been used throughout history by many different cultures for many different reasons, even before Christianity was around. If a gay couple wants to be married in a church, it should be up to that specific church on whether or not they want to marry that couple. I do not believe in forcing churches to marry couples they do not want, but I also believe churches should be able to marry who they want if it is within their beliefs. This goes without saying that these ceremonies should be completely separate from any government laws. Any benefits from getting a religious marriage should come from the church alone, and if you are looking for legal benefits, you must also obtain a civil union.
Using a system like this allows gays to get a civil union without the religious aspect involved, and if they do want the standard religious marriage that goes along with it, they can find a church that is willing to marry them. Anybody that thinks a gay couple should not be allowed a civil union or a marriage from a church that supports gay rights is very obviously imposing their narrow minded world view on that couple and the church.
Oh and fyi, there's a clear cut difference between being a judgmental bigot and acting on that bigotry. You can be disgusted by gay marriage all you want, but when our government takes away the right of people to get married based on their sex, that's sexism. It means we're treating people differently based on their gender, which is totally illegal and morally wrong. The world would be a better place if we stopped judging and started accepting people for who they are.
Jake, I don't understand the purpose of your last paragraph. Can you clarify a little with regards to why you're saying that and what it has to do with my post?
My question wasn't so much about marriage, just homosexuality as a whole. It's just that the current hot topic is gay marriage. Oppressors have made it very clear that they want homosexuals to disappear, and now that gay marriage is finally being legalized, those oppressors are getting up in arms over it.
Saw this today and thought it applied rather well to Jack's remarks:
"Claiming that someone else's marriage is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet."
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Dear Scotty, I am a little uncertain about the meaning of your question. Are you asking for a reason against gay marriage or against homosexuality? Putting aside for the moment my objection to homosexuality itself, I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...those things.
What does it matter to me if people want to call each other what they're not? Well, I can't answer that without drawing on my personal beliefs and that discussion is bound to include scripture.
You're already delving into religion by attaching "religious affair" to the definition of marriage. I, for the life of me, cannot possibly understand how people want to get into technicalities such as interpretations of a word (marriage) and use that as leverage. It's a freakin' word, and everyone feels that they can sit there and say "Marriage means man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman!" What the hell does it matter, it's a
word that everyone is apparently interpreting in their own way to justify their opposition against those who don't agree with them.
And I'll clarify Jake's last paragraph for you. Everyone (particularly the government who ultimately decides whether or not gay marriage is legal) who says "you're not good enough to get married" when it comes to homosexuals and marriage is sexist, oppressive, and self-centered. Sure, you can think whatever you want, you can do whatever you want, everyone has the right to pursue happiness. When it crosses the line is when you think that what
you want is not what others want, and what
you want is going to prevent others from doing what they want to be happy (to a reasonable extent obviously). It's how I view life. Do what makes you happy, but the minute that what you're doing is stepping on someone else's right do the same, you are wrong.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AMIt is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken).
You are mistaken. You can be married by a civil marriage officiant and have a completely non-religious marriage. The person that married me and my wife was herself of a particular religion, but as far as her technical affiliation there was none, and we were not married in a church or any other place of god. Furthermore, the only thing that actually holds any weight is the actual marriage document. This is a government form. Anyone, regardless of where or how their wedding ceremony is held, must have this document to be considered legally married. In that sense, in the sense of the legal meaning of the word, marriage is not a religious affair at all. And that meaning is what should be used to determine the laws of who should be allowed to be married. That is to say, everyone.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AMDear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.
You're kind of making our point. You're saying the bill of rights is about protecting people from the government. In other words, the government should not stand between two people wanting to be married (in the legal sense). You are right that the constitution does not allow the government to tell religious institutions what to do. But that's not what anyone is saying. No one is saying that it is unconstitutional that churches won't marry gay couples. It is that the government won't recognise a civil marriage of a gay couple.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.
I believe I made a fairly valid point about the accuracy or validity of the study in question. Simply based on logic alone I see a flaw. Based on that, I believe, in the context of this discussion, the study should be disregarded in any kind of argument. It just isn't a valid enough point to me. You can make whatever assumption you want based on that study, but I will consider it to be an invalid assumption. You have as much right to believe it as I have to discount it, but the point of calling up a study like that is to back an argument.
By the way, the term marriage simply means "an intimate or close union". Notice that, in this definition of the term, there is no referrence to sex, people, numbers, or any other qualifier. The term itself, if you really want to get technical, can literally apply to any union of anything. Of course, this is an invalid definition of the term in a discussion of the constitutional legality of same sex marriage. As is the religious definition of the term.
Quote from: Lingus on February 29, 2012, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AMIt is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken).
You are mistaken. You can be married by a civil marriage officiant and have a completely non-religious marriage. The person that married me and my wife was herself of a particular religion, but as far as her technical affiliation there was none, and we were not married in a church or any other place of god. Furthermore, the only thing that actually holds any weight is the actual marriage document. This is a government form. Anyone, regardless of where or how their wedding ceremony is held, must have this document to be considered legally married. In that sense, in the sense of the legal meaning of the word, marriage is not a religious affair at all. And that meaning is what should be used to determine the laws of who should be allowed to be married. That is to say, everyone.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AMDear Jake, I do bat an eye at people marrying and divorcing as if they're playing musical beds. I do not approve of people who marry on a whim and don't even understand what love means. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. Also the constitution does not protect people from being judged by others. I can be as judgmental as a KKK-Nazi if I want and the bill of rights has nothing to do with that. The bill of rights is about protecting people from the government.
You're kind of making our point. You're saying the bill of rights is about protecting people from the government. In other words, the government should not stand between two people wanting to be married (in the legal sense). You are right that the constitution does not allow the government to tell religious institutions what to do. But that's not what anyone is saying. No one is saying that it is unconstitutional that churches won't marry gay couples. It is that the government won't recognise a civil marriage of a gay couple.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
Dear Lingus, Any group is biased. You won't find a group anywhere that everyone will agree is unbiased because bias is part of what makes us human. It's just the downside of nicer words you hear all the time like 'perspective' or 'worldview' or 'outlook on life'. I think of biases(in general) as nothing more than the price we pay for being different from each other. The question is whether or not a publication is deliberately untruthful simply to support the bias. And I highly doubt you(or I) know enough about this organization and that publication specifically to make any kind of accurate ruling in that field.
I believe I made a fairly valid point about the accuracy or validity of the study in question. Simply based on logic alone I see a flaw. Based on that, I believe, in the context of this discussion, the study should be disregarded in any kind of argument. It just isn't a valid enough point to me. You can make whatever assumption you want based on that study, but I will consider it to be an invalid assumption. You have as much right to believe it as I have to discount it, but the point of calling up a study like that is to back an argument.
By the way, the term marriage simply means "an intimate or close union". Notice that, in this definition of the term, there is no referrence to sex, people, numbers, or any other qualifier. The term itself, if you really want to get technical, can literally apply to any union of anything. Of course, this is an invalid definition of the term in a discussion of the constitutional legality of same sex marriage. As is the religious definition of the term.
Bravo! So now back to my previous question: Without using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized? Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?
Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about semantics i think.
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
... I object to gay marriage on the grounds that it is a contradiction in terms. Marriage is what marriage is, has been, and always shall be. It is an intrinsically religious affair, the marriage ceremony being performed by a religious authority and never by some government official(unless I'm mistaken). Its definition has been unchanged for ages: A man and a woman. Now, I couldn't care less about tax benefits or what else have you. They can have 'em. I object to the use of the terms 'marriage','husband', and 'wife' to describe things that are not...
Quote from: Jackabomb on February 28, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
.. I don't care about so called 'benefits' either. They can have 'em. It's the term marriage I'm against. ...
Like many discussions we get down to what words mean. And this really is a different subject, but non the less my view is idk about the word people use in this case. I say let the same sex people have their "Marriage like"(hope that term is ok with you Jackabomb) ceremonies! :)
Quote from: Scotty on February 29, 2012, 05:09:59 PMWithout using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized? Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?
I don't think there is one (if that wasn't already clear). The only reason I can see anyone objecting to same sex marriage is because it goes against their own personal view of what marriage should be about. That is not a valid reason.
Quote from: ARTgames on February 29, 2012, 06:01:01 PM
Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.
(Semantics) And yes, I agree.
Homophobia's one of those things that our grandchildren will laugh at. Totally illogical and quickly on the social decline.
Quote
Bravo! So now back to my previous question: Without using religion as a reason (since Lingus did a fantastic job of separating the two), what is one valid reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized? Is it just that the majority of the opposition wants to oppress their religiosity on all the impressionable fuzzy-wuzzies of the world?
People are going to go by whatever their parents taught them, or by their own personal beliefs. Honestly, with religion aside I guarantee 60-70% of the people would still be opposed to gay marriage. When a person is that set in their ways, it's tough to reason with them. Gay marriage can (and is) being legalized and will most likely be legalized in some other (if not all) states soon.
Quote from: Lingus on February 29, 2012, 07:51:59 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on February 29, 2012, 06:01:01 PM
Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.
(Semantics) And yes, I agree.
I just bursted out laughing. Awesome.
Quote from: Jake on February 29, 2012, 11:16:24 PM
Quote from: Lingus on February 29, 2012, 07:51:59 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on February 29, 2012, 06:01:01 PM
Reading Jackabomb last last post it seems just to be about schematics i think.
(Semantics) And yes, I agree.
I just bursted out laughing. Awesome.
lol, im just glad he could figure it out and correct me. Some malapropism for me.