clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

CGB Invitational - Syd On Offense (5) v. Twist Is Whipped (12)

Ok, here is the 5 v. 12 matchup. Syd On Offense v. Twist Is Whipped. Read the info behind the fold and then vote in the poll.

Here is another matchup that works well together. A complete and total fabrication with another complete and total fabrication.

Syd On Offense (5) via Ragnarok

The 'Syd playing on offense' meme actually began from an interesting tidbit in this article by Rusty Simmons:

/Two interesting options are cornerback Syd'Quan Thompson, who has shown his play-making ability on punt and interception returns, and Vereen, who could get on the field at the same time as Best, according to Tedford.

"First of all, I have to do my job on defense, but I talk to the coaches about playing offense all of the time, and hope they take me seriously one of these days," Thompson said./

Oooo, juicy! And of course, a rumor that enticing just HAD to be addressed in one of Jonathan Okanes' weekly chats:

1:16 [Comment From Al E Gator]
Any truth to the rumour that Tedford wants to move Syd’quan Thompson to offense?
1:16 Jonathan Okanes:
Gator, that was just a wicked rumor. Syd isn’t going anywhere.

Short, succinct, unambiguous. That should have been the end of that. But did the CGB community let it rest? Of course not! Annoying beat writers with inane questions is sort of a thing around here, and so the same question would be asked again the next week. And the next. And he kept taking those questions and answering them!

[Comment From Leslie Gardener]
Any chance Syd’Quan Thompson could be moved to offense next year?

JO: Leslie…don’t be a person that rhymes with hunt.

Why does he keep answering this question? Doesn't he know that, at this point, none of us are serious? Is he just playing to the crowd? I don't know, but I imagine we'll all be still asking about the 'Syd to play offense' rumors long after Thompson has exhausted his college eligibility.

Twist Is Whipped (12)

For millennia, spiritual leaders have defined love in a clear and simple way: "Self-sacrifice in the name of another." To give of oneself for your wife or children or whomever was the most pure love.

However, in the modern patriarchy, love is seemingly defined by a begrudging release of power. The sacrifice is not a vaunted one like so many have said before, but instead a required step towards never having sex and not buying you own clothes anymore.

In the modern patriarchy, to do something that your wife might enjoy even slightly more than you is to have lost some sort of "battle." Going to see a movie that'll make her happy? If it doesn't make you happy, too, well goddamn it, you might as well be a woman. Going to see some friends of hers? If you don't know any of them ahead of time, well, you might as well turn your testicles in at the door.

It is unclear why the modern patriarchy is so dead set against husbands making their wives happy in ways that might not be 100% completely and totally selfish for the husband. But it is.

So, sure, maybe Twist watches a few too many movies and TV shows that aren't filled with bombs and explosions (Twilight, 13 Going On 30, 17 Again, Twilight again, Shopaholic, He's Just Not That Into You, Twilight again, just to name a few). And, sure, maybe Twist might miss a Cal b-ball game time and again to enjoy time with his wife.

But what's more important? The continuing enjoyment of ones life solely for selfish reasons or an opportunity to make somebody you love happy? As a wise man once said "Real happiness lies in making others happy."

Yknow what, CBKWit, don't answer that one.