I think it may be, and not just because of the irony of how awful the PS3's advertising was in the beginning...
The premise is a bunch of game characters (some exclusive, some not) meeting in a bar and talking about a revered figure to whom they owe their lives and successes... which turns out to be a PS3 player named Michael. Yeah, that's pretty sweet - shades of Tron and "The User" and all.
Part of me wants to point out that the fact that these allegedly-disparate characters all "go together" so well - sure is an aaaaaawful lot of gruff-voiced, stubble-faced angry white dudes in there, eh? - is just more evidence of how bland and staid modern game design has become; or to point out how much more powerful this same premise might've been in an era when it would've been guys like Master Higgins, MegaMan, Rygar, etc. chilling in that bar... (same part that kinda just did point that out, I guess...) but all things considered, that's pretty terrific stuff. Well done.
40 comments:
True, I'm personally surprised that Sony beat Nintendo to the punch on this one, but whatever. If this ad picks up like I think it's going to there's going to be a ton of rips from Nintengod, Micropunks, and as many publishers as are willing with an arsenal of personal IPs. Cosplayers are going to be in HEAVEN!
what's really great about this is how it puts the emphasis on telling stories; and I don't simply mean the stories of each disparate game, the ad opens up the idea that the act of gaming itself could be a story.
This is what the industry needs more of, at least in terms of its image to the public at large: gravitas. not every game needs to have the intellectual heft of a Joyce novel, but it'd be nice for the culture to think they do. or at least have the seed planted in the public consciousness that says, "hey, this means something to us."
Regardless of whether I'm reading too much into a videogame commercial, maybe you'll agree with me in that I hope that this ad means that we are far, far past the days of "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2."
Agreed on the "Gamers telling a story bit," especially the note where Cole McGrath (absolutely EPIC live-action interpretation by the way) talks about how "he" brought out his good side.
And the "Omaha" scene is actually a bit touching, with the soft musical cue and all.
In the end, I got up and hugged my PS3. Then I watched Robocop on netflix. Good day.
-Chris
Part of me wants to point out that the fact that these allegedly-disparate characters all "go together" so well - sure is an aaaaaawful lot of gruff-voiced, stubble-faced angry white dudes in there, eh? - is just more evidence of how bland and staid modern game design has become
Well they could have put in Jak, Ratchet, Sackboy, the Eye Pet, Sly Cooper and a Mod Nation Racers driver, but they wouldn't fit in and would have pushed the budget even higher.
Part of me wants to point out that the fact that these allegedly-disparate characters all "go together" so well - sure is an aaaaaawful lot of gruff-voiced, stubble-faced angry white dudes in there, eh? - is just more evidence of how bland and staid modern game design has become
Well they could have put in Jak, Ratchet, Sackboy, the Eye Pet, Sly Cooper and a Mod Nation Racers driver, but they wouldn't fit in and would have pushed the budget even higher.
They actually did put Sackboy and Ratchet in. Sackboy is playing chess, whereas Ratchet's face can be seen when Altair speaks up. Albeit poor Ratchet coulda stood out a little more, I love that character. ^^
...Ach! Drat. Small correction as it seems I can't edit posts on blogs. :/ That'd be Ezio rather than Altair. Left side. Sorry 'bout that.
Eh, it's okay. Sony still doesn't really seem to think too much of its games division
Of this generation? Oh yes. This is the best videogame ad I've seen this gen. Of all time? Third best. The very best is the original smash bros ad. Sorry, nothing can top those four beating the shit out of each other, and pikachu getting his little as tossed by his tail.
"or to point out how much more powerful this same premise might've been in an era when it would've been guys like Master Higgins, MegaMan, Rygar, etc. chilling in that bar..."
That's fucking ridiculous.
You couldn't have the world war 2 guy talking about omaha beach if it was that ensamble.
That guy is based on real heroes, and mario is all fake.
It's rightly the climax of the ad, because it reminds us of the great sacrifice made by the greatest generation...and it's much more touching than any of the soft heroes of the early nintendo franchises would have ever been.
That's also why it's all male soldiers that are part of the narrative; it's designed to build up to the pathos that lies in referencing the greatest generation. It's an aesthetic choice, and it reinforces the climax.
I'm not saying that women can't be great soldiers by the way - I'm saying that during world war 2, they weren't the ones storming the beaches, an action which has become emblematic of perhaps the greatest heroic sacrifice of all time.
By using the soldier archetype as the basis for the ad, the reference becomes all the more clear.
You're a movie crittic. How can you not see that's what they were going for here?
I loved this new ad campaign, not exactly sure if its better at selling to those who don't already have these gaming experiences though, that's what I liked about Kevin Butler and the does Everything campaign.
I also have a hard time saying it's the very best when we had http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdWkKKSckNk which told us exactly what this generation was going to be about.
@Mads: How about Kratos, Cole, Ezio, Ratchet, Chell, Drake, Sackboy, Snake, ...? This ad represents gaming, and I believe those characters represent it much better than two random war guys, which are better representatives of the real world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3k0yJB6IVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_u6JlDmXg&feature=related
I'm just gonna leave this here.
I'm personally surprised that Sony beat Nintendo to the punch on this one,[...]
Would nintendo not have to care about their devoted users before they would make a commercial celebrating them?
Unfortunately, this commercial left me feeling completely alienated. A bunch of manly men swapping war stories and singing the praises of a guy, with almost no women anywhere, and of the two who actually do anything, one's a secretary and the other's singing the praises of a man.
Woo, exclusion.
I've been telling people that this was the SECOND GREATEST AD EVER!!! It's the best video game commercial that anyone could see. If only I had a PS3.
"Would nintendo not have to care about their devoted users before they would make a commercial celebrating them?"
You're right. I won't be feeling the love until they give me at least twenty-five free games. Twelve so far, with ten more coming? That's just pathetic.
"
@Mads: How about Kratos, Cole, Ezio, Ratchet, Chell, Drake, Sackboy, Snake, ...? This ad represents gaming, and I believe those characters represent it much better than two random war guys, which are better representatives of the real world.
"
You'll notice that all those speaking, or spoken about, fit the soldier archetype up to the point where the world war 2 soldier starts talking in his southern drawl. Their stories and narratives are those of men fighting against all odds, gearing up to the point of the only "real" hero there, the world war 2 soldier...and the player becomes eponymous with another soldier storming omaha.
It's the kind of thick pathos that attributes one of the biggest acts of heroism in human culture (or such it's recognized, anyway) to the player of a videogame.
Michael couldn't very well have been a girl, without making the attribution less convincing (it would be slightly jarring to hear of a girls-name brandishing soldier storming omaha beach).
You'll notice that the stories which are shared before getting to the soldier all involve a similar narrative, and attempt to invoke the sense of brotherhood miniseries such as band of brothers, saving private ryan and the pacific all used.
And really, you think only women and non-caucasians don't have a sense that these character are worlds apart from them? Likeness isn't the point here, otherwise there'd be at least one fat hero inthere.
It's about the pathos, and I don't see how they could've done this better with any other commercial.
@ Valium
Why do you feel excluded precisely? Do you think you're more excluded than the average, overweight, boy likely to be watching this?
wait, didn't Nintendo already do a multi-character commercial with Smash Bros. 64 back in the day anyway? Nintendo's has pretty much refined the art of fanservice to pure ambrosia
@Mads
You know that question is disingenuous, made to deliberately ignore the point and a very real problem, and you know why.
And if not, you have my pity.
Finally, Sony gets back to its roots. I'm getting flash backs to ps1 commercials now.
Although as pointed out, and after reading the comments yes, this does seem pandering to a very specific "young adult white male" audience.
@Mads
You sicken me. You want to reduce our greatest generation to an advertisement punch line. Are you really so easily manipulated? It is one thing to find enjoyment of seeing are favorite video game characters being portrayed by actors. Its another thing to even try to say that all those men who died in WW2 amount to nothing more then a marketing joke of some guy on a couch as some type of poetic narrative of "greatness". Now that you mention it, that is actually down right awful. This is actually a very sickening commercial.
Also, I don't think an assassin, "treasure hunter/thief" Nathan Drake, or "Super hero/Villain"Cole count as soldiers.
Although I can't tell if your being sarcastic, this is the internet after all.
It reminds us that no matter the genre, no matter the format; It's the GAMER that matters because without them... The games are nothing.
@Bob
Nobody cares about Master Higgins or Rygar anymore, nor do they care that you think most of the patrons of the bar looked the same. (Especially since you must have apparently missed the Spartan, the Greek Goddess, the Sackboy, the Lombax, the Italian assassin, Sweet Tooth, the baseball player, Solid Snake who's just about as fictional as a soldier gets, the football player, the monster guy, and Paul)
Here's a real question for you, did you see Sony doing anything like this a few years ago? What about the other two?
Kind of reminds me of the Pixel Palace. That said, it's pretty nifty. It's too bad Sony thought of this now, near the end of the PS3's cycle. But, it works. Now, how long before the fanfiction, or the petitions go out for a PS3-style Smash Brothers clone? I'm guessing...soon?
@Valium
"
You know that question is disingenuous, made to deliberately ignore the point and a very real problem, and you know why.
And if not, you have my pity.
"
You give me too little credit. I'm honestly interested in your answer.
If you want to talk about a very real problem, ok, lets talk about it. I promise I won't ignore the issue. But you said you were completely alienated. I'm trying to wrap my head around what the issue is, because that sure as hell isn't very specific; why you were alienated, how you would want things to be instead of how they were, what exactly is wrong, those a questions I was curious to have answered.
The followup question was poignant, yes, but it wasn't meant to make you look stupid for bringing up gender issues, which I think you think is the reason why I asked it...I think. Look, I apologize if that's how it came off, my goal isn't to bully you, or to do something underhanded.
The question was meant for you to say something along the lines of "look I'm a woman, and not having any more women in the environment made me feel like this was an environment in which women don't belong, which makes me feel like an outsider looking at something not meant for me. A male, any male, is not as likely to feel excluded, because whereas exclusion based on gender has been outrageously common, and to a degree still is, exclusion based on age, weight or accomplishments are much less common". You know. An explanation that makes sense of things.
The thing is, I don't bloody well know if any of what I just wrote hits the mark in any way, because apparently you took offense. So I'm still left with a lingering sense that there may be something I'm missing.
@Lockgi
"
You sicken me. You want to reduce our greatest generation to an advertisement punch line. Are you really so easily manipulated? It is one thing to find enjoyment of seeing are favorite video game characters being portrayed by actors. Its another thing to even try to say that all those men who died in WW2 amount to nothing more then a marketing joke of some guy on a couch as some type of poetic narrative of "greatness".
"
Yes, you're absolutely right. I just said that all those men who died in WW2 amount to nothing more than a marketing joke.
Those were very nearly my exact words, and certainly my exact meaning.
That's me being sarcastic, for the record.
I'm not sarcastic about cole fitting a soldier archetype, or drake fitting a soldier archetype, however...But that's besides the point I want to make, so if you don't think they fit that archetype, fine, I'll let you have that point, it's not really important to the overarching argument whether you can legitimately call them soldiers. These characters were chosen because the transition from tough-guy hero to tough-guy hero is the certerpiece of the advertisement. It is the buildup to the most revered icon which matters. It's roughnecks sharing warstories, which is something only a small number of characters are fit to do.
Also, if this advertisement is sickening, so was every trailer pimping saving private ryan; after all, they featured the celebration of the greatest generation, but at the same time wanted you to go and give steven spielberg som money.
Just because it's commercial doesn't mean it can't have artistic merits, and that's what this has. Is it wrong to push this kind of credit onto the player? Is it self-serving to celebrate the player as though he was a world war 2 hero? If so, isn't it wrong to celebrate him within the context of a game where he also takes on the guise of a world war 2 hero?
Look, I'm not saying you're wrong to feel this way about the ad. I think that's a legitimate criticism, and I can respect it...but saying that portrayals of real life recognized heroism don't jibe with commercial products is kindof a big can of worms. Speaking for myself, this level of borrowing a modern icon of good is ok. If that sickens you, so be it, be sick, but I'm glad we live in a world where our icons are a part of our (deeply commericalized and corporatized) culture, such as it is, and I wouldn't have them hiding in the history books, never to be let out.
@Mads
I counted four women in that commercial. Two were nothing more than window dressing. One was a secretary who said absolutely nothing. The last, the only one with a speaking part, who was standing in a room full of manly men talking about the awesome things they've done was only fit to speak of the awesome things the MAN standing next to her had done.
It's more than just that there were few women. It's that there are few women AND they're not allowed to be relevant in any way, shape, or form, who exist either as decorative items or extensions of a man.
And whether it screws up on other grounds is, quite frankly, completely irrelevant to my point. Bringing up things like overweight males is not an attempt to understand. It's a textbook derailing tactic.
well excuse me if I haven't read any textbooks on sexism. Not everyone on the internet is acting in bad faith.
It might be a textbook derailing tactic, but I was _not_ attempting to derail the discussion. So blame me for being clueless about the finer details of gender discussion derailment, fine, I already apologized.
It doesn't change the fact that I was attempting to understand why you complain about exclusion and you mocked me because of your presumptions.
Anyway, are you saying that, nomatter the aim of the narrative, and nomatter the intertextuality of the narrative, if there are fewer women than there are men, and if none of these are given a role as prominent as the, say, the 4-5 most prominent men, you categorically feel excluded and alienated because you're a woman?
Because if I'm hearing you right, those are the implications of your arguments.
If so, what if a narrative really won't work with enough women in those positions? Should such narratives just not be made?
Lets take the story of the soldier storming omaha beach, because that will let me recontextualize your comments in such a fashion as to hopefully get the nuances you haven't yet detailed out. There were no women there, so noone can make a short celebrating those soldiers without you automatically feeling excluded?
In the original battle, the fact that the soldiers were male was completely incidental to their heroism and their task! Women might just as well have been there, if not for old (admittedly lopsided) social norms!
Do you feel like you're less able to feel empathy with such a soldier than the average male, even though you know that most women could be in just such a situation and do such things just as well as an average male? That the choice of male soldiers was done for historical accuracy, not to promote one gender ahead of the other?
@Mads
The particular "many bad things" derailing technique is not a matter of being educated on matters of feminism. That's a basic aspect of civil discourse. When you respond to, "X is a problem," with, "Why is X a worse problem than Y?" that is out of line regardless of context and a transparent attempt to either dismiss discussion of X outright or reduce to a competition over whether X or Y is the bigger problem more worthy of acknowledgment.
Bringing up Y serves no purpose but to obfuscate and dismiss, rather than acknowledging X. It's trolling, and if that was not your purpose, than you are, quite simply, incompetent.
Then, you go WAY into strawman territory, by claiming that everything should always have women in the fore at all times regardless of context when you are, in fact, completely ignoring the context of the very commercial we're talking about, where the narrative would be completely unaffected by the inclusion of women and, in fact, would only be enhanced as the purpose of the commercial is as a representation of video gaming, would it not do to portray that as at least remotely welcoming to more than a third of the gaming market rather than making it look the part of an obvious boys' club? There's no in-univers justification like you're implying. It's not like the Shawshank Redemption, where the entire thing takes place in a men's prison, nor Wall-E where the majority of the characters are asexual robots. The narrative would not be reduced in the slightest by having Lara Croft talk about the awesome things she's done, or one of the women of Final Fantasy doing the same.
You try to dismiss (a running theme) this issue as if it's an isolated case, an exception, rather than a problem that is undeniably endemic to gaming as a whole and in dire need of addressing. Can I relate to a male character? Of course, but the question's irrelevant. Can a man relate to a female character? Absolutely! So why is it that there's not a single woman with agency in the entire commercial?
"I feel alienated because there's not a single woman with agency in this entire commercial," is in NO way trying to advance women over men, so stop trying to dismiss the problem as aspirations towards reverse discrimination. I'm not demanding historical innacuracy. After all, there's an alien and a Greek goddess in that cosmic nexus of a bar.
Everything about your points is structured to avoid, withdraw, and dismiss the issue rather than engage it. Stop being an ass.
@Valium
It's not exactly Playstation's fault that the most recognizable games in the past few years have a lack of women in them. That's a problem with the industry, not a problem with Sony issuing this commercial. As for the example of Lara Croft, she's seen more of a sex symbol of game culture than an actual representation of what a real female character would be. As for the Final Fantasy example, I for one have never played a FF game, and even though I do know of the series, I don't know any female characters where I would go "Oh, she's from Final Fantasy!" On the flip side, despite never having played God of War, I know full well who Kratos is.
The point of the commercial was to have the most recognizable and respected characters in gaming in recent times speak up about gamers. To be honest, I can't name any recognizable female characters with actual character arcs aside from "I'm a girl, look at me" off hand that exist on the Sony platform. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it the fault of people who made this commercial? Not particularly.
On a side note, it might have been better if they had made it more clear that there were both pictures of men and women on their walls. If you zoom in, you can see a few, but it's not very clear at all and I do get the "we're all manly men" vibe out of it. And yeah, I guess they could have included Lara Croft in there, but in reality adding another woman would not have detracted the "manly men" vibe. It is entirely possible that the marketing team wanted to market the add towards men and not really towards women, but we can't know for sure.
@cdstephens
Of course, none of that makes the commercial less alienating. In fact, the prevailing presentation of the console gaming market as a boys club serves to make it that much more alienating and accentuates existing problems.
Holy goddamn. Brava Sony, brava.
Reminds me of my MGS1 Snake costume days.
P.S. I wore it everywhere and no one noticed.
>>Part of me wants to point out that the fact that these allegedly-disparate characters all "go together" so well - sure is an aaaaaawful lot of gruff-voiced, stubble-faced angry white dudes in there, eh?
Well, it is a bar, and there are a decent amount of customers that aren't necessarily in the angry white dude category, like Lightning, and the aforementioned Sackboy. Plus, David Hayter makes everything more awesome :)
I'm pretty sure the choice of the name "Michael" was delibarate; I immediately thought of the archangel in Christian mythology (played at one point by John Travolta). Seeing the etymology behind the name makes me think that Sony got the evocation they were looking for.
"
The particular "many bad things" derailing technique is not a matter of being educated on matters of feminism. That's a basic aspect of civil discourse. When you respond to, "X is a problem," with, "Why is X a worse problem than Y?" that is out of line regardless of context and a transparent attempt to either dismiss discussion of X outright or reduce to a competition over whether X or Y is the bigger problem more worthy of acknowledgment.
"
Wow. That is so incredibly wrong.
A simpler version of the argument originates with deductive logic, and is the proof by contradiction, but it has a parallel in predicate logic that involves quantification, which is exactly what you mention here.
It is a legal (truth preserving) logical argument that is, among other things, used to prove a number of mathematical and logical lemmas, corollarys and theorems in those fields.
Its a classic reduction argument; if you have several givens, such as
X is greater than Y
Y is greater than Z
And you intend to prove that "Z is greater than X" is a falacy, then you _need_ to use the very technique you say can't exist in civil discourse.
My intention was never to move the focus off of gender issues, it was to say "well, these people are also far removed from the content of the ad, and the ad was _certainly_ not made to alienate _them_ (and it doesn't); unless you're further removed than this group of people, your alienation cannot be the advertisements fault".
It would force you to make a comparative analysis, not a competition (since it's a given that the group I talked about aren't alienated, and therefore aren't a problem), as you put it; it is, however, the _only_ way you can logically prove a certain kind of fallacy. There litterally is no other way. If that was off the table in all civil discourse, we wouldn't have and understanding of alternating current electricity, as just one example.
And in this case, getting to know about why you were more alienated than the average audience? _exactly_ what I wanted to know, and really very pertinent to the discussion in the first place.
As I said before (and I'll say it again), I'm sorry if you feel like I was being a bully, but if this is the reason for your reflective dismissal, you're way off base.
@ Valium
That aside, I'm engaging the issue as much as I can, and there you go, with several ad hominems...and you have the nerve to talk about civil discourse.
Have you even considered for a moment that I'm _not_ trying to dismiss your issue, or that I _don't_ have an agenda?
But fuck it, it doesn't matter. You finally told me what you wanted to be done differently, and I can deal with that without any extrapolations since that's _concrete_.
Anyway, replace Nathan Drake with Lara Croft? Yeah, I could see that. I can see how the narrative would've worked just as well, and I can see why, if you're a lara croft fan, that would be a problem. There's enough male characters between drake and the soldier that you can still invoke a band of brothers feel, and I suppose a bolder producer would've tried for that feel with even more women intermingled (though I can't tell whether he could've pulled it off with the same degree of success).
Which is going to feel like unnecessary exclusion, and I can understand why that would bum you out.
Of course, she isn't PS3 exclusive, and doesn't have a particularly powerful association with the playstation brand, so I can see why they went for nathan drake instead.
I don't think they did it because of sexism, as cdstephens points out as well, but I understand why you felt excluded now...and because you had convincing arguments mixed in with your ad hominems, I find myself in agreement that it could've been avoided.
@Mads
I never made any claims about how the commercial treats people of various body types. I never said the commercial mistreats women more than the overweight. I never said a single word about body types, and whether or not people of various body types are treated better or worse has absolutely nothing to do even tangentially with anything I've been saying.
Whether X or Y or Z is greater is a platform you tried to force upon me to invoke the oppression olympics.
And on what grounds do you dare claim to speak for all overweight people in saying that they don't feel alienated? Even if you're overweight, you do not have that authority, and thuse the fundamental premise that overweight people are alienated is nonexistent.
So. You're using a comparison that I never made which is based on a completely bunk premise and then claiming you're the rational one because the method of comparison you hadn't presented is technically sound even though it isn't valid due to completely bunk inputs and all this is structured such that you don't have to address the content of my point, reducing it to a move to dismiss.
Why do I assume you're trying to dismiss without engaging? Because everything you've done up until this point has BEEN a move to dismiss without engaging.
Here are two lists, one of silencing tactics, the other of derailing tactics. These are not things you need to extensively understand feminism to avoid doing; they're things you need to not be an ass in order to avoid. They're matters of basic logic and civility.
derailingfordummies.com/
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Silencing
I count about eighteen that you've pulled either explicitly or implicitly in this conversation. How can I not conclude that you're trying to dismiss the point without address?
And tell me. If there isn't a single iconic female hero in the entire line of PS3 exclusives, how does excuse anything, rather than making the entire problem a thousand times worse and thus that much more worthy of being pointed out?
"
And tell me. If there isn't a single iconic female hero in the entire line of PS3 exclusives, how does excuse anything, rather than making the entire problem a thousand times worse and thus that much more worthy of being pointed out?
"
I'm confused. Where did you see me claiming that?
I was arguing that the producers weren't acting in bad faith. I wasn't saying that Sony wasn't. Or that there isn't sexism in the industry. I agree with those statements.
"
Why do I assume you're trying to dismiss without engaging? Because everything you've done up until this point has BEEN a move to dismiss without engaging.
"
Really, and the point where I accepted that there was a fashion in which the commercial could have been crafted to legitimately give a woman agency rather than a man, such that it would have worked at least as well...at that point, I was trying to dismiss your point? Zuh?
The mere fact that I agree that there actually is a problem, because you've made sense (among your wild accusations and ad hominems), should give you a hint that I never _was_ trying to dismiss your point.
Or is there something on those webpages about male scumbags suddenly turning around to agree with people as a derailing tactic too? Some "if you can't beat them, join them" strategy?
"
Whether X or Y or Z is greater is a platform you tried to force upon me to invoke the oppression olympics.
"
I argued that there is a reasonable use for the argument, when you said there wasn't. Now you're just restating your initial (wrong) presumption. I already adressed that. I don't really see why I should do it again.
"
So. You're using a comparison that I never made which is based on a completely bunk premise and then claiming you're the rational one because the method of comparison you hadn't presented is technically sound even though it isn't valid due to completely bunk inputs and all this is structured such that you don't have to address the content of my point, reducing it to a move to dismiss.
"
I didn't think the input was bunk. I don't think overweight nerds feel excluded or alienated by the ad. You apparently do, but in general, I don't believe so. There are probably going to be exceptions, but yeah, I really don't think it's the norm.
And...hold on...somehow, my question was structured so I wouldn't have to adress the content of your point? Huh?
I distinctly remember asking you to elaborate on your point, and giving you the other question as a followup? If I wanted to derail, that seems like the wrong way to go about it.
If I wasn't interested in the point, why would I ask you the first question?
Oh, and here's another reason I wasn't trying to derail you; you're a horrible person. No really. You've ridiculed me from your first reply to me to the last. You clearly think I'm a waste of space because somehow I managed to phrase my question in a way that it matched a pattern of derailment, and you've proceded to pile on me from that point on. I'm an ass. I'm clueless. You "feel sorry" for me. You're persistently doing your darndest to humiliate me.
If I wanted to derail you, I I probably wouldn't put up with that without saying something back.
I definitely wouldn't end up agreeing you had a point, of course, but more pertinently, I would've walked out if I didn't want to understand your point, because you're awful, and obviously trying to make me feel awful.
Fortunately, a couple of posts back you finally elaborated on your point such that I could understand it, so now I don't have to put up with your crap any longer.
@ Valium the problem with your argument is that all the speakers are not glorifying there on actions. there Paying homage to Micheal, so even if you added another voiced female, it would still be empowering of a man. the only way it seems to me that this wouldn't anger you is it was to "Jessica"
I consider one and all should look at it.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.cheap nintendo wii
Post a Comment