Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

JESUS CHRIST!! what a wall o'text!!Follow

#102 May 12 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#103 May 12 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.


paulsol?

EDIT: Well, I suppose he's not verbose enough. So Kelvy is liberal gbaji? He sounds more like Shador to me.

Edited, May 12th 2011 11:36am by Eske
#104 May 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
This thread is just one continuous Smiley: rolleyes
Par for the course when liberal gbaji gets involved in a conversation.
Extraordinary amount of content combined with extraordinary lack of substance?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#105 May 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
No, not Kelvy. The actual moron in the discussion.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#106 May 12 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Reasoning God is cute.
It's vain. It only thinks it's cute. At least that's what I gathered from skimming the thread.



I'm quite aware that there is a stark limit to how far anyone can present such a concept and that no one can ever be "talked into" or persuaded to believe.

One of the prime points, however, to all of this is that once people reach the edge of that limit do they just shrug and turn around or do they choose to look over the edge (that is when the "abyss" looks back and it is not the abyss at all but your salvation unto eternity).
They build a plexiglass platform out over the abyss knowing full well they'll not see everything, but that maybe they'll see a bit more.



more like; they build a rickety decrepit half rotting bridge to try to get across and can never ever make it..
OR if they ask That which put them there for wings they just fly across.
Salvation without sentience is useless or doesn't even really exist I guess.

Welcome back Kelvy. Besides God, what's new?


Thanks!

Why would you think saved means lack of sentience?
I guess cuz we can't stop death and the only death we know right now leaves us as unawares.

Quote:
Besides God.. I'm engaged.. got a great chill job that pays well.. recently got my car totaled 2 weeks ago but am getting my new one tomorrow! WOOOO
No kids yet.. a few more guns.. playing LOTRO..got the woman to play it too (ELENDILMIR)

Blessed!
Congrats on the engagement. I've been playing lotro too, but not very often. My daughter, my son and I have a threesome of hobbits we play occasionally (Meneldor). We've been at it for about a month now though and have only hit level 11.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#107 May 12 2011 at 9:59 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Elinda wrote:
I guess cuz we can't stop death and the only death we know right now leaves us as unawares.


Death and "unknown" could probably be almost synonymous in the right light. It has always seemed apparent though that whatever is in us that is sentient is on a different elementary basis than the parts of us that are not sentient; so to think that the sentient part of us goes on doesn't really seem so unbelievable; though it cannot seem to be proven scientifically.

Quote:
Congrats on the engagement. I've been playing lotro too, but not very often. My daughter, my son and I have a threesome of hobbits we play occasionally (Meneldor). We've been at it for about a month now though and have only hit level 11.

Thanks again!
LotRO has always been one of those games I can just walk around and chill out in the world rather than stressing out over level grinding. I feel they did a great job creating it.
I think most of my time in it has been standing around playing music. My highest toon is 58MIN.. running around Moria now.


____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#108 May 12 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:


You know if you are so stuck on Greek philosophy why are you ignoring the concept of Logos; the notion that things LOGICALLY exist that cannot ever be understood through Logic?


P.D. Ouspensky (Tertium Organum) wrote:
The logical relations in the world of many dimensions just as absurd to us. There is no reason whatever for hoping that in the world of causes relations can be logical from our point of view. On the contrary, we may say that EVERYTHING LOGICAL is only phenomenal. On the other side there can be nothing logical from our point of view. Everything that exists there is bound to appear to us a logical absurdity, nonsense. And we must remember that we cannot orient ourselves there with our logic...

Science cannot deny the fact that mathematics grows widens and passes beyond the boundaries of the visible and measurable world. Whole sections of mathematics examine qualitative relations which do not exist and never existed in the real world of positivism, i.e. relations to which there are no corresponding realities in the visible i.e. three-dimensional world.

But there cannot be any mathematical relations for which there would be no corresponding realities at all. Consequently mathematics transcends the boundaries of this world and peeps into the world of the unknown. It is a telescope by means of which we begin to investigate the space of many dimensions with its worlds. Mathematics goes in the vanguard of our thought, in the vanguard of our powers of imagination and representation. It already calculates relationships which we are totally incapable of imagining or even thinking about.


I think that dualism is a product of our limited minds, rather than being a fundamental reality of the universe.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#109 May 12 2011 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:


I think that dualism is a product of our limited minds, rather than being a fundamental reality of the universe.


I quite agree and it seems that what people love to do is to take the most basic levels of Platonic, etc philosophies and once they gain some rudimentary understanding to make them feel safe with themselves and their place in the universe they just stop there and automatically reject anything outside of that box.. the whole time thinking that what they are believing is so profound and out-of-the-box when in fact it is the most en vogue thing ever to reject God.

If you still with the Dualist view of a logical reality then you are stuck in jumping from black to white, good and evil, God and the devil.. and it is simply irreconcilable to a truly intelligent person with a keen analytical mind. The pieces will never add up. People like that are unable to accept that there may actually be a meaning to everything and to their lives besides what is just decaying atomic structures..

People rail on about evil and say that God created it and blame God for the evils of the world; Evil is not a particular action or deed; evil is the lack of God.. like a shadow out of the light.. We want to only blame the Light for not being where the shadows are but don't stop to think that it is we that have our backs to the light casting the shadows which are empty of God's positive force.

____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#110 May 12 2011 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
****
9,526 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:

People rail on about evil and say that God created it and blame God for the evils of the world; Evil is not a particular action or deed; evil is the lack of God.. like a shadow out of the light.. We want to only blame the Light for not being where the shadows are but don't stop to think that it is we that have our backs to the light casting the shadows which are empty of God's positive force.


Avva Dorotheus - seventh century, Philokalia wrote:
Imagine a circle in the middle, its centre, and radii, or rays, going out of this centre. The further these radii travel from the centre, the more divergent and distant they become from one another; and the other way around, the closer they are to the centre, the nearer they approach one another. Imagine now that this circle is the world, the very middle of it, God, and the straight likes (radii) going out from the centre towards the circumference, or going from the circumference to the centre are the paths of men's lives.


The perception of evil arises from the darkness in the space between us when we stand on the circumference of the circle.

This circle can just as easily be understood as a metaphor for love. As our neighbourly love grows we move closer to the centre of the circle, closer to each other, and our perception of reality as an experience of separation fades to become an experience of unification.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.


#111 May 12 2011 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
This circle can just as easily be understood as a metaphor for love. As our neighbourly love grows we move closer to the centre of the circle, closer to each other, and our perception of reality as an experience of separation fades to become an experience of unification.


This speaks of the straight path to the Source; I do think that that path was once straight but at a certain point it had become a bent and twisted path, dark but with sunlight streaming in narrow beams in some areas. We have dug these paths amid the thorns and we are now unable to truly make it to the True Center without accepting the Hand of the True Center that has been lifted up as a light for all to turn towards and be illuminated by.



Edited, May 12th 2011 1:05pm by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#112 May 12 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
bsphil wrote:
Imaginary friends are for children.


Or predicting the stock market without any of that insider trading.

Edited, May 12th 2011 1:52pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#113 May 12 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Imaginary friends are for children.


Or predicting the stock market without any of that insider trading.

He was a lot funnier before he started making movies to take his kids to.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#114 May 12 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality.


The ontological argument for god doesn't fail because of different types of possibility, it fails because it is invalid. The claim is that god is, by definition, necessary. So, if it is possible that god exists, that would mean he had to exist (which is valid).

The problem is misunderstanding the term "possibility." God, by his nature, may either exist or not exist in all possible worlds. There's no in between. When someone says "it's possible god exists," they are misusing the word "possible." The proper logical phrasing of that sentence would be "I do not know that God does not exist."

It's an epistemological comment, not a metaphysical one. When you consider the argument's logical form, it fails. Completely.

Possibility is purely logical--there is no other form.

If god can exist, then he does exist. That's true. And no philosophers I know of claim otherwise.

The problem is that you have no reason to claim god possibly exists in a metaphysical way. It's only epistemological. Your lack of understanding of the world isn't grounds for possibility--that's why logical possibility is, well, possibility properly-so-called.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#115 May 12 2011 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Equal Opportunity Hater
*****
19,369 posts
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
#116 May 12 2011 at 2:05 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
MentalFrog wrote:
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
If he were blabbering from beyond it would certainly change the texture of this thread.

Hey speaking of being dead and all; My Nook keeps trying to get me to read The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven. It's become quite a hit. I haven't even opened the free sample that appeared.

Anyone read it?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#117 May 12 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Elinda wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
DSD wrote:
Sup Kelvy. Glad to see you're still around and not dead =)



I don't know, I would be more interested in reading his blabbering if he were dead.
If he were blabbering from beyond it would certainly change the texture of this thread.

Hey speaking of being dead and all; My Nook keeps trying to get me to read The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven. It's become quite a hit. I haven't even opened the free sample that appeared.

Anyone read it?
mfw I read the cover.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#118 May 12 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Interesting take on the multiverse hypothesis. It's one that is certainly gaining more weight, too. I'm sure someone will step in and present infinite regression to you, though.


I'm familiar with infinite regression, but I disagree that it is necessarily fallacious. In fact, circularity as innate fallacy hasn't been adequately substantiated either. There are certainly examples where it is, but there are also simple examples where it isn't. If 2+2=4, then 4-2=2. This, arguably, is circular reasoning. At the very least, as Kelvy clumsily pointed out, the Big Bang (in addition to creationism), is a fallacy of causality.

Granted in terms of the natural world, we have little grounds to speak on what is fallacious, but if I have to choose between infinite regression and a violation of causality, I will pick the former every time. We have plenty of examples of the latter failing, but no grounds to speak against the former other than a combination of ego and an infinitesimal perspective.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#119 May 12 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
******
49,745 posts
My God's son carries a hammer and your God's son got nailed to a cross.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#120 May 12 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I would have never pegged Thor as a Jew.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#121 May 12 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Infinite regression isn't really a problem for many physicians though (meta or regular). Time began with the Big Bang. That isn't to say that the energy released in the Big Bang was created in the first instant of time.

It's just that "time" is a property of the universe as it stands now. It did not always need to be that way. When we talk about "before" the Big Bang, we are speaking about the logical ordering of events.

So saying time is infinite is wrong by the definition of time. That doesn't mean it can't be true that the Big Bang "created" nothing. It's just that we can't speak about what happened before then in terms of time, but only in terms of logical systems.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#122 May 12 2011 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
idiggory wrote:
Infinite regression isn't really a problem for many physicians though (meta or regular). Time began with the Big Bang. That isn't to say that the energy released in the Big Bang was created in the first instant of time.

It's just that "time" is a property of the universe as it stands now. It did not always need to be that way. When we talk about "before" the Big Bang, we are speaking about the logical ordering of events.

So saying time is infinite is wrong by the definition of time. That doesn't mean it can't be true that the Big Bang "created" nothing. It's just that we can't speak about what happened before then in terms of time, but only in terms of logical systems.


Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#123 May 12 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.


The concept of spacetime is a very HIGHLY supported physical theory, and I'm not just talking about within philosophy. We've had massive scientific breakthroughs using models that account for time as being another dimension of the universe.

What I find really... odd... is that you claim the idea of a beginning is purely a human construct, yet fail to make the same objection about the human perception of time.

That's the real problem. Humans experience time as being a universally standard system--it always flows at the same speed everywhere. The problem is that physics doesn't support this theory.

Without matter, time CANNOT exist. And matter didn't begin to exist until the 3rd or 4th era after the Big Bang (if I'm remembering my astronomy correctly).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#124 May 12 2011 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
Well, yes, but that presumes that you buy that the Big Bang created time. And it's certainly plausible; I just don't see it as any more plausible than infinity. I prefer the explanation without a beginning, even if that is a single universe theory (like rubber band theory, or as I understand it at least). But then, I think the idea of a beginning is merely a product of the human ego.


The concept of spacetime is a very HIGHLY supported physical theory, and I'm not just talking about within philosophy. We've had massive scientific breakthroughs using models that account for time as being another dimension of the universe.

What I find really... odd... is that you claim the idea of a beginning is purely a human construct, yet fail to make the same objection about the human perception of time.

That's the real problem. Humans experience time as being a universally standard system--it always flows at the same speed everywhere. The problem is that physics doesn't support this theory.

Without matter, time CANNOT exist. And matter didn't begin to exist until the 3rd or 4th era after the Big Bang (if I'm remembering my astronomy correctly).


I understand that; however, that really only makes any case for the existence of the universe as we know it, and not for the state of everything before the known universe or other than the known universe, which is pretty important to the discussion of creation/infinity.

i.e., just because the Big Bang created this space time, doesn't mean that spacetime didn't simultaneously exist elsewhere. In such a case, time is a little more "absolute" than the relativity we associate with it today (but only a little).

I may not be making much sense. Colbert is on. I'll check back later.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#125 May 12 2011 at 9:35 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,057 posts
Quote:
I prefer the explanation without a beginning


When dealing with the difference between the infinite and the finite there is nothing that we (being in the finite) can do on our own that can truly measure the infinite. We can see that it is there and prattle about it (apparently)

Being that there are finite things in existence, which indeed implies space/time, and as such implies a beginning; so within the framework of the concept of where the finite universe came from is one thing entirely separate from trying to debate about the nature of the infinite.

Of COURSE that which is Infinite HAS NO BEGINNING; so the WHY do people love to ask Who created God?
People go at SUCH sad lengths to try to disprove the remote possibility of a sentient creator. If you believe that we in flesh are sentient in electro-chemical impulses then even that cannot discount the notion of a possible sentience existent within the nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#126 May 12 2011 at 10:13 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
I understand that; however, that really only makes any case for the existence of the universe as we know it, and not for the state of everything before the known universe or other than the known universe, which is pretty important to the discussion of creation/infinity.

i.e., just because the Big Bang created this space time, doesn't mean that spacetime didn't simultaneously exist elsewhere. In such a case, time is a little more "absolute" than the relativity we associate with it today (but only a little).


You're looking at it the wrong way, imo.

Firstly, you are changing the very nature of spacetime here. Spacetime is a relationship between objects in OUR universe. Even should other universes exist, the spacetime of those would be fundamentally separate from our own. Why? Because spacetime is the fabric of our universe--it makes no sense to hold that there are two universes that share spacetime, because those would just be the same universe. If spacetime is shared between them, then we have just arbitrarily drawn a line between the two and called one our universe and the other "Universe 2." That's nothing special, and it isn't multiverse theory.

Furthermore, the very way you are talking about these things is worrisome. You speak about spacetime "simultaneously" existing in two places. That's a temporal relation. For that to be the case, there would need to be ANOTHER layer of spacetime that encompasses those two universes. And we run into the same problem as before--it makes no sense for two universes to be connected by time.

Multiverse theory is fine (and there are plenty of physicists that believe it, though none have any real reason for doing so, afaik). But to hold that two universes exist in temporal relation to themselves makes no sense--it's an empty sentence without meaning. But, the thing is, beyond philosophical questions, multiverse theory is useless. By definition of what a universe is, it HAS TO BE completely separate from other universes. Even should multiple universes exist, if they were connected in any way they wouldn't be universes--they'd just be parts of one big universe. And that's not multiverse theory. It's just... weird.

What it sounds like to me is that you want to hold that there are multiple universes, and time progresses equally across all of them? That's just not compatible with current physical theories, where time is an intrinsic quality of this universe, at all. They could be wrong I suppose... but you really have no reason whatsoever for believing that to be the case (rather, you have every reason to believe they ARE correct).

Quote:
When dealing with the difference between the infinite and the finite there is nothing that we (being in the finite) can do on our own that can truly measure the infinite. We can see that it is there and prattle about it (apparently)

Being that there are finite things in existence, which indeed implies space/time, and as such implies a beginning; so within the framework of the concept of where the finite universe came from is one thing entirely separate from trying to debate about the nature of the infinite.

Of COURSE that which is Infinite HAS NO BEGINNING; so the WHY do people love to ask Who created God?
People go at SUCH sad lengths to try to disprove the remote possibility of a sentient creator. If you believe that we in flesh are sentient in electro-chemical impulses then even that cannot discount the notion of a possible sentience existent within the nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite.


I find it odd that you are claiming humans to be finite creatures, considering you're religious. I definitely think we are finite, and I don't believe in souls at all. But a person who believes he is a soul, rather than a body, should believe he's infinite, no?

And no, there's nothing about spacetime that implies a "beginning." Not in the way you want it, at least. Spacetime regards the relationship of entities within the cosmos. Before (atemporally) spacetime existed, the energy that would later form matter still did. And the laws of physics as we know them demand that it HAD to exist. They don't know what form it existed, no. And they theorize that the universe doesn't have enough mass to be constantly cycling through Big Bangs and Big Crunches. But it's a basic fact about the universe that energy is always conserved.

Furthermore, people only go to great lengths to disprove the existence of God because pricks like you keep trying to shove your misguided, illogical beliefs down our throats. We ENJOY showing you how stupid you are, because you ANNOY us when you try to convert us.

Plus, if we are soulless creatures (that is to say, creatures such that we are only flesh and blood) then it doesn't really matter if there is a god or not is there. You're going to cease to exist when you die, just like the rest of us. ****, in that case, I'd be HAPPIER believing there wasn't a God (compared to believing there was and cursing him for being such a ****).

Finally, "nooks and crannies that exist between the finite and the infinite" doesn't mean anything.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (54)