Brandon Neal Hatfield

12/31/1999? Isn't it a little late for Y2K problems?

As a GeekSquad agent, I have one thing to say:

You Engadget readers are just jealous.
Everyone wants to be an agent.


Sincerely,

Agent B. Hatfield
Counter Intelligence Agent
BB Precinct 390

definately mac support would be a plus.

My favorite moment, oddly enough is when Samus confronts Mother Brain in the ultimate showdown in Super Metroid.

I have wanted this game since the day I heard about it. I'm just too poor to be able to get it! Pick me, your loyal Engadget reader.

This would make a wonderful wedding gift for my cousin.

Wow, that's a pretty ridiculous post, if you ask me. Perhaps then, the gay gripe isn't with the "apparent lack of the right to marry," but with the "definition of marriage." Let's keep the right, but change the legal definition. You can keep whatever definition you want, and I'll keep mine. Let's just respectfully disagree, and I won't marry you, if you won't marry me.

That being said, please don't mock education. I've studied these issues at length in graduate school. That's why I have a Master's Degree. Education has taught me that ignorance is the problem, not the solution. Your above post: ignorant.

@Kokomadeta

What are you talking about? Proposition 8 was a referendum that PASSED in the state of California, effectively BANNING Gay marriage. It was largely supported by ANTI-gay marriage groups and supporters. Therefore NOTHING in Prop8 would have remotely included what you described.

Education is a good thing. The BEST way to understand this, thankfully. I am very learned in regard to this entire issue. That's also why I stick with the APA and what they officially discuss in regard to the nature of homosexuality and it's implications in the real world. Religious leaders might have their own divine inspiration to tell them what is right, and wrong, but not empirical facts.

@Kokomadeta

In response to: "What they want to do (and was proposed for law in the whole prop. 8 thing) is give them additional rights for their lifestyle (I have a whole other argument about that too) that would infringe on religious rights."

I'm a little surprised by this. I subscribe to a religious belief that it is not wrong for two men to marry. Now whose religious beliefs are being infringed upon? Further, even if gays are eventually allowed the same civil rights as everyone else, NO ONE is going to force you into a gay marriage you don't want. I promise.

Guys, I think you're missing the point.

While many of you are picking up that the ad attempts to "fight hate with more hate." It's actually using sarcasm and rheteroic to inflame.

Now. Consider this: If any of those stereotypes hit a nerve, then the ad did what it was supposed to do. As a gay man, I don't react when people use gay as a prejorative term, but I also don't like it. The feeling you might have gotten reading that stereotyped statement is precisely the irritated or disgusted feeling I might feel when I hear someone refer to something truly undesirable as "gay".

Easy for you to say, but you're not gay, I'm assuming, so naturally, it wouldn't bother you.