crazy u treat the low 1300 game like it's rlcs quals

-cheater

You would need to prove that claim with empirical non-anecdotal tautological epistemological ontological pontification. Your negation to me saying it’s not contextually saying that is an ethically bankrupt deception of noumenological proportion categorically imperitively inept at substantiating your statements. You would need to prove that the connotation is circumstantial to the context so it would be general in entailment, as well as being capable to necessitate various interpretations that possess coherency in the narrative of the position you have presented. This is contingent upon the proposition of an antithesis’ prominence in negation with agnosticism that is reasoned by skepticism, or an equal interpretation substantiated with inductive reasoning, both inevitable in equalizing or defeating

^_^

like smurf

pro player :)