i don't think he's that good, kinda slow imo

how can he be slow???? O.O all you do is mash q and hit w and rape train everything he's not slow in the least

i think hecarim trundle nunu and lee sin are a lot faster, don't get me wrong i don't play him this is from my friend (he's not a very good jungler).
but i personally think skarner is better at solo top.

no, definitely not. i played skarner quite often. at first i liked him top but now i realize how stupid that is as he naturally pushes the lane

because skarner is a superior solo top

Skarner is the OP jungler though...

i don't think he's that good, kinda slow imo

how can he be slow???? O.O all you do is mash q and hit w and rape train everything he's not slow in the least

i think hecarim trundle nunu and lee sin are a lot faster, don't get me wrong i don't play him this is from my friend (he's not a very good jungler).
but i personally think skarner is better at solo top.

no, definitely not. i played skarner quite often. at first i liked him top but now i realize how stupid that is as he naturally pushes the lane

Different interpretation,
Yet I fully agree with you.

I wonder what shaving is symbolizing here...

I know, but the electric shaver kind of symbolizes efficiency, and replacing the "old" shaving blade. Where as to me, It should be two electric razors and a regular razor.
You can do a lot more than you think on a Mac, even more on Windows, and even more on Linux.
Really the point is, get a computer for what you need, and I'm pretty sure nobody needs a computer to brag about their computer and how it's better.
If you're rich and like the interface: Mac.
If you aren't rich and like games: Windows.
If you are a programmer: Linux.
Theres my rant of the day.
The end.

Electric implies simplicity and ease of use. -Windows
Regular razor blade usefulness but harder for the average Joe to use. -Linux
Well designed, but useless for the task at hand - Mac

Different interpretation,
Yet I fully agree with you.

I wonder what shaving is symbolizing here...

So you're saying they should be allowed to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license, but the church does not have to recognize it?

I guess that could work, it would implement the separation between church and state. But the problem is, their marriage would be valid/invalid from church to church.

My grandparents (man and woman) married at my Lutheran Church. My grandfather was a Catholic, so his church did not recognize the marriage, but my church did. They would not recognize it until my Grandmother converted to Catholicism. The point is, legally they were married, but it varied by church.

It was a pain for them to go through, and a similar problem would come up between gay couples. It seems like a gray area what would be considered a "religious" marriage and what is only a "legal" marriage. Again, it is subjective.

My step father and mother went through the same thing. step father being Lutheran and had to convert to Catholicism. Most gay people don't care for all churches to recognize their marriage. They simply want to be able to claim each other as husband and husband, or wife and wife.

I'm not a huge religious person, but I do believe it should be shared only between a man and a woman. If the law overturns this, then it won't be a big deal, but I will still believe that. I believe that gay couples deserve to be happy, but they can still be together without being "married."

That being said, I don't think gay married people will be damned for all eternity like a lot of psychos say, I just believe marriage was intended for only a man and a woman in the first place.

okay, i can understand your views. My biggest thing about the marriage issue is (which i support them for) in america marriage is becoming more of a legal thing not a religous thing. Where I believe they should be allowed at least a legal marriage. And religious if said church allows such things

So you're saying they should be allowed to go to the courthouse and get a marriage license, but the church does not have to recognize it?

I guess that could work, it would implement the separation between church and state. But the problem is, their marriage would be valid/invalid from church to church.

My grandparents (man and woman) married at my Lutheran Church. My grandfather was a Catholic, so his church did not recognize the marriage, but my church did. They would not recognize it until my Grandmother converted to Catholicism. The point is, legally they were married, but it varied by church.

It was a pain for them to go through, and a similar problem would come up between gay couples. It seems like a gray area what would be considered a "religious" marriage and what is only a "legal" marriage. Again, it is subjective.

My step father and mother went through the same thing. step father being Lutheran and had to convert to Catholicism. Most gay people don't care for all churches to recognize their marriage. They simply want to be able to claim each other as husband and husband, or wife and wife.