Lurker > red sox 777

Tsunami: you also missed the point of most of the topic.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

The same amount of SFF as in Mario/Samus or Link/Sonic, would account for that difference.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Good post, Djoker. I'll go even further: Cloud/Seph have a better chance of winning with 55%+ than Link/Ganon do. Of course, there's a very very low chance of either of them posting 55%.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I'd have a pretty good laugh if Link wins the final two matches in this rivalry format even worse than he would in 1v1. It's plausible that he could get 54% on Cloud/Seph, but shooting for 65% on Mario/Bowser is quite a tall order.

I really doubt he'll get either of those.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Let's just get the next 2 days over with.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Oh boy, another Link match tonight. Link matches always make the contest more interesting, and we badly need that in this contest.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

All the format changes killed the Noble Nine. 'Tis a shame we couldn't have tested them in 1v1 24 hour matches.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Still though, while I do agree that not knowing how the utility function is generated doesn't mean you can't apply math to it (any more than Pauli, Dirac, Bohr or Planck not knowing what generates quantum mechanical phenomena stopped them from applying math to experiments), how are you supposed to deal with inconsistent competing utility functions? Because it's relatively apparent that humans do not embody just one agent but several.

Economics tends to handwaive this by saying that if you don't have a consistent utility function, you are irrational and we don't care what you think. Which is possibly a big reason of why economic models don't seem to work too well a lot of the time. Doesn't help Smuffin's case though, because he's also arguing for treating people as rational agents.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Lagrange multipliers aren't that hard though! They're not nearly as bad as most of the math you need to really do economics.

Certainly, they're not hard. They're what's needed to do the most basic econ problems.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

speculative villification aw yeah

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Yeah, the Trainers look pretty done at this point. Their best hope is that Mario/MMX had a lot of SFF, but if that's the case, the Mario can probably win the SFF battle against the Trainers too.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

But how long should a buyer expect continued service for? Surely not forever.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

They like money. I feel like simple observation of their campaign contributions and the resulting policy can establish they have motivation to cut social services so that they can have more money.

The money ends up right back in their pockets anyway. All they have to do is buy stock in the companies that sell things to poor people. The rich want lower taxes, but if taxed, they don't particularly care how the government spends the money.

It's the middle class that's obsessed with the idea of controlling how other people spend their money. In addition to trying to control the poor, they try to control the rich too through excessive regulation. So the middle class instituted all these government regulatory programs. But the joke is on them, because the rich (especially the largest banks) are better at navigating and manipulating the maze of regulation in this country, so in the end it is the middle class that is regulated into bankruptcy by their own policies. The trend is:

1. Bad economic panic. Like the Great Depression.
2. Middle class outrage against the rich.
3. Politicians capitalize by expanding government.
4. Later, the rich take control of those new government mechanisms, and use them against the middle class.

It's hard to feel sorry for the middle class when they are the architects of their own problems.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

They will rank their needs and decide accordingly. Needs are ranked ordinarily, not numerically, which makes using math impossible. If I rank my needs as follows:

1. Sandwich
2. Video Game
3. DVD

It doesn't mean the sandwich makes me three times more happy than the DVD.

No. Just no. Just because preferences are ordinal, does not mean we cannot apply math. We would want to know how many of each item the person wants to buy. As long as they have a utility function (meaning: for any 2 baskets of goods, they know which one they would choose), we can apply the math.

If you don't think this, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of economics.

Note: no one is saying that we care about how much more they value the sandwich than the DVD. We care about the number of each they need to buy, at which they are indifferent between buying another sandwich or another DVD.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Consider: Who looks best in this situation: A millionaire, a middle class person and a working class person all say that poor people deserve whatever they get and shouldn't get welfare. The two rich people look like as if they're callous and heartless while the working class individual is praised for his hardiness and independence.

Exactly, the rich do not have the motivation to put restrictions on welfare, but the middle class (including working class) does.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

this is a republic, the voters don't decide anything. more often than not where you see a direct connection between someones interests and government action is who is donating the most money and doing the most lobbying. which makes me curious, I haven't followed the illegal light bulb issue very closely, who stands to profit from this?

On issues like this they do. Same with social issues like sentencing laws. Even if there are prison companies profiting in that example, they only succeed because of voter hysteria. Candidates suffer for being accused of being "soft on crime," never mind that soft on crime often means "interested in justice."

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I'm curious about your "middle class" thing. Has this actually been shown anywhere? I remember reading a study saying that the highest rates of welfare naysaying come from neighborhoods with large amounts of social welfare going in and the explanation ventured was that the people who don't draw welfare want to show they're rich enough to not be on welfare, so they demonstrate radical opposition to it.

No, it's pure speculation. But the middle class is really big, a big majority of voters easily, so anything the government does can basically be pinned on the middle class. And those are exactly the kinds of people you're describing that I'm criticizing. They want to distance themselves from the less fortunate, and make themselves feel superior.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

To be really harsh: The middle class likes to make itself feel better about how it is losing economically to the rich by tyrannizing the poor. So you see stuff like the Florida idea to drug test welfare recipients, you see ever harsher and more idiotic zero tolerance and mandatory sentencing laws, etc. All so the middle class can feel superior to someone.

We may be moving toward a future in which ever more jobs are outsourced overseas, and there is little left in America to do but to be a capitalist or else receive assistance. If we should arrive there, the middle class, shut out from wealth, will rue ever imposing the restrictions on the poor that will then be imposed upon them.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

The government gives out food stamps because it is in their best interest not to have people starving in the streets. It is not in the government's best interest to fund anyone's drug habits, so why should they be wasting taxpayer dollars to do so?

Why is that in society's best interest? If a poor person would rather not spend his handout on food, isn't it in society's interest for him to spend it on whatever is best for him? A person will spend money on whatever he thinks is best for himself. And he is in the best position to know that. Indeed, he decides that.

If you mean: because other people don't want to see people starving in the streets, okay. But why should we care more about people not wanting to see starvation in the streets than we care about treating people equally and no one as a second class citizen?

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

no. even physical addictions to drugs, the withdrawal won't kill you, you just need to stop being a ***** about it.

You're missing the point. And using moral reasoning. Need =/= good for you.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

...you don't understand how addiction works, do you?

If you are addicted to something, then by definition you need that thing really badly. That's how addiction works.

"Need" and "good for you" are two different things.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I literally just finished the chapter in Man, Economy, and State where Rothbard rejects mathematics as contributing anything useful to economics whatsoever. I just ask because it seems like you're fairly close to independently reaching the same critical analysis that they did: that economics is based entirely on human action.

I'm assuming there's something deeper to that statement, because it's obvious that economics is based on human action.......that's what it's defined as the study of. The study of choice.

If he rejects math.......well, he's really far from modern economics then. Modern economics is all about math, it can be quite detached from reality at times. You literally can't solve any problems without using multivariate calculus.* I think I'd be pretty accurate in calling modern economics the application of math to life.

*For example, say an illiterate family in India is deciding whether to send their kids to elementary school or have them work on the farm. What will they do?

Answer: They will sit down and solve a multivariate calculus problem which will tell them the answer.

On an individual level, it seems patently ridiculous- basically unless you have a decent knowledge of math, you cannot be rational. The idea is that people will guess pretty close to what the theory says they should do, or at least given a large group of people the wisdom of crowds will prevail, which makes sense. But it is quite amusing nonetheless.

So why don't we?

The other posts sum it up. The middle class doesn't want to, so politically it isn't done. There's no economic reason for food stamps instead of cash, the real reason is moral outrage by the middle class.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Not according to them, or, you know, they wouldn't. I'm just curious, and this will sound like I'm trying to insult you or anything but I'm really not. Have you ever read any Mises or Rothbard?

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with Obama and Krugman! And yes, you are right that payday loan shops must make people better off because they would not exist otherwise. However, they do not make people very much better off. Government handouts followed by increased taxes later would help people a lot more than payday loan shops. If the difference is large enough, the theory could work, in theory.

As for Austrian economics, it's really out of vogue with economists currently (as is the classical Keynesian theory talked about a great deal in the public and in the media, but which economists basically universally agree is wrong). I haven't read Mises or Rothbard's original works, but economics isn't a subject where you really need to read original works- the important thing in economics texts is always the math equations, not the text. The text is just commentary. The theory stands or falls by the soundness of the math, and the reasoning/assumptions it employs.


Ah, but that would require them to admit that individuals know best how to spend money for themselves. Think of the slippery slope there! Once you admit that, the government might as well not even exist. Here's a thought for you. Why don't we give people cash instead of food stamps?

IMO we should definitely give cash instead of food stamps. It shows respect, and is morally the right thing to do. Economically speaking it also strictly dominates food stamps, because people can buy with cash anything they can with food stamps, and a lot more.

My impression of Obama's economic policy is that if there's a part of the theory he really believes, it's that financialization is a good thing. He's not a socialist because he hasn't demonstrated any desire to redistribute wealth to the poor. Even when the economic theory that could justify stimulus says to give handouts to the poor, he doesn't do it. That suggests he's not interested in redistributed wealth, except to the banks and 1% maybe. The big priority seems to be on preserving the status quo, and so we continue to spend trillions trying to put patches on a leaking ship.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Samus doing a lot better than this implies that she'd take Ryu/Ken, which in turn implies she could take anything in this bracket outside the big four teams. I have a very hard time buying that, not with Ridley as her partner and the lukewarm performances they have managed before today. If that IS indeed true - that Samus can beat Fighters, Ninjas, Snakes, and X/Zero despite having such a weak partner, then Cloud's chances are thrown right out the window.

Trainers are still going to finish a lot higher here than against Ryu/Ken, so it still seems like they'd beat her. Same with X/Zero. Cloud/Seph > Trainers pretty clearly, so same with Snakes. Which leaves Ninjas, but considering Samus would be way over 50% (probably 60%) in a 3-way poll with them, it says rivalry factor is pretty powerful if they are even close to her.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

1. Government transfer payments really only affect the very poor, yet the middle class (and the relatively wealthy for that matter) would undoubtedly ALSO like to be able to purchase more things than their current income allows. Before you say "well nobody will lend to poor people" be advised that is totally untrue. There is an entire market of payday loan shops for poor people which the government is trying to shut down.

We're not talking about wanting to buy more things in an absolute sense: people always want to buy more things. We mean people want to reach their optimal spending amount based on their expected lifetime income. Payday loan shops charge absurd interest and basically no one should ever use them. It's like throwing money away. People can afford a lot more stuff if they're borrowing at 2% instead of 200% interest. At 200% interest, unless you're going to die of starvation, it probably increases your utility just to wait until later to buy stuff.

2. A lot of the things government spends public money on are things that it has a monopoly on. It's not as if we have a scenario of "poor people would like to use roads, but can't afford to, so the government goes in debt to ensure there are public roads that are free." The poor people aren't sitting around saying "At least I don't have to pay for roads, therefore I'm satisfied with being poor" or any such thing.

Indeed. If the Obama administration really believes in the theory, they should be giving handouts to the poor, not spending it on public works or giving it to banks.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

And that's the point.

Everything Nintendo is so pressed beneath Link's boot that they can't ever hope to get out from under it.

That's not just Nintendo. That's all games except for FFVII. All the actual Nintendo games sans RBY would get doubled easy by OOT. Melee and Brawl got 26% and 30%. SM64 got 24% once. LTTP, SMW, and SMB3 would be real lucky to get 33%, they'd probably be happy with 30%. RBY's 37% is a standout performance.

In games nothing RBY could ever do could overcome OOT's huge natural strength advantage. But this is a different format. Here, the natural strength gap is a lot smaller. The SFF is the main problem.

That said, I really doubt the Trainers could pull off a successful bandwagon against Link/Cloud even if they fuel it by beating Mario. Too much strength for them to handle, even if it's not OOT/FFVII.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

And yet R/B/Y never managed more than 36-37% on OoT at any one time.

Nothing else did or would either, except for FFVII. OOT is that beastly.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Citizens who are under the LAW do not defeat the LAW.

Only someone outside of the LAW could defeat it.

Link's writ runs really thin when it comes to Pokemon. It's the Wild West out there, and we've never seen Link/LoZ exercise SFF power over Pokemon, only LFF.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

This match could be the catalyst of a bandwagon next round. And we are really really starved for upsets right now. If they do manage to pull it off against Mario, I'd expect a sizable bandwagon in the final against the tyrants who have ruled this site forever.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

This performance isn't really inspiring me after Mario's.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Trying to explain how Obama/Krugman's plan is supposed to work:

People want to spend each year a part of their expected lifetime income. If the amount that maximizes utility is higher than their current income + assets, they will need to borrow from their future income to do so. In a perfectly efficient market, everyone can borrow easily.

But in our current economy, people are scared and reluctant to lend, so many people cannot borrow or face prohibitively high interest rates that make it not worth their while to spend now. As a result, even though expected lifetime income stays the same, people cannot distribute their spending in an optimal way, and lifetime utility goes down. Most concerning for the country, current spending goes down.

This is where the US government steps in: the US government has excellent credit. It can command extremely low interest rates. So it borrows on behalf of people who can't borrow. The money must be repaid of course- and the only way to repay it is to have more tax payments in the future. So expected lifetime income still doesn't change- but people are able to spend the optimal amount now and later, instead of spending less than optimal now and more than optimal later. So people benefit. The country benefits by having more spending now, which stimulates the economy.

Some potential flaws: are there really that many people who want to spend more than their current income and cannot borrow the funds to do it? If there aren't, this theory is cooked already, but if there are, they're probably mostly poor, which brings us to the next problem....

The money is actually being distributed to large banks. These are the entities in the country most able to borrow themselves after the US government. They have no need for the extra money now. And they don't even want to spend now, because they can't find any good investments to make in the current economic climate.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I will travel across the land

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Still holding strong.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Hold that doubling, Trainers!

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Indeed, the theory he's relying on is flawed. Or at least the execution is flawed. The theory calls for government borrowing on the behalf of those who are unable to borrow. That would mean the poor. But it's being executed by giving out nothing to the poor and loads to banks who are quite able to borrow themselves. If you want people to go out and buy stuff, try sending poor people checks in the mail. Dunno if that would actually work, but it would have a much better chance than the current policy.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

A non-socialist econ instructor? How did they let that happen?

I'm pretty sure the free market being a good thing is taught in every Econ 101 class. It's, well, basic Econ theory.

You need much more advanced theory to even begin to explain in a theoretically sound way why socialist policies could work. There's a lot of disagreement among economists, but it is possible to make a reasonable argument for some of the policies, and there are smart, reasonable, economists who do so. Part of Obama's problem is that the theory that backs up his policies is far too complex to explain to the public, the vast majority of whom have had no Econ training beyond Econ 101. So he has to use the even more basic arguments that are easily rebutted by basic Econ theory instead.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Except there are people like you who pretend to like him when he is literally guiga with a 5th grade vocabulary instead of 3rd.

Basically, his continuing to post here is proof he doesn't believe in the free market.

If I or anyone else post in his topics, what is it to you? I don't like Apple. So I don't buy their products. It's none of my business if other people buy Apple products or go into Apple stores. It's not like he's flooding the site or forcing you to read his topics.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

The free market wants you to go away, so listen to your own ideas for once.

Plus you know full well these topics are on par with those useless topics Anagram used to make daily.

In a free market, you participate by buying or not buying stuff, not be voting or expressing your opinion. The equivalent to buying on this board is posting in his topics. If you or anyone else wants the topics to go away, the best way is to stop posting in them.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Yeah, Congress blatantly abuses the Commerce Clause. I don't know about this law's specifics: does it ban purely intrastate production and sale of lightbulbs? Because if it does, that is stretching the Commerce Clause to its limits and probably well beyond.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Don't do CD-I pictures for the big Link/Cloud match though. Cloud/Seph can win this legitimately.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Should be unconstitutional. Thinking if someone wants to challenge the law, they might have some success with the modern (post-1995) Supreme Court.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

If Link beats Cloud/Sephiroth on saturday, I'm okay with using that picture for all of Link's matches until he loses.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I sort of want to see CD-I Link (are there any CD-I Link laughing pictures?) against SMB3, SMW, and SM64 Mario in their full splendor. So we can see Link 60/40 him anyway.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

I don't make any pics, Leon.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Even better: have Sephiroth dueling Missingno in the background. As a reminder that Missingno got closer than Mario ever has. Also give Mario Wario-style colors from the Smash games. How unfair would that be?

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

As long as we get full RBY Red/Blue, Charizard/Blastoise, stuff next round when it counts against the Mario juggernaut. Preferably with Missingno thrown in somewhere in the background.

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Pokemon Trainer Red vs. Pokemon Trainer Blue - 67.00%

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

So how high do the Trainers have to go tonight to give them a shot at Mario? Matching Mario's performance today?

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

This contest has been so boring we may as well make it more interesting with a debate on the LUEshi stats topic. Here's my opinion: it was stupid.

*waits for Ulti to rant about how that proves I am a horrible person*

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2

Fainaru Fantaji 7

--
2002 Link, 2003 Cloud, 2004 Link, 2005 Link, 2006 Link, 2008 Link, 2010 Link, 2011 Cloud.
Link 6, Cloud 2