Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Ritzy Private school kids street racingFollow

#52 Sep 09 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
I've taken a few professional driver courses, and they let us drive Impalas, Crown Vics, and Chargers. God **** that **** is fun.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#53 Sep 09 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
How do you accidentally hit 100mph? What kind of car were you driving? The only time I've ever done that, I was well aware of the fact that I was near that speed, and the car was sure to let me know by the fact that it was rattling (piece of crap) or floating (family sedans aren't meant to go that fast apparently.

Actually, come to think of it, I did hit near that first time I drove the 300 I used to have and was shocked to find out I was going anywhere near that.


It was sometime in the first month after buying my G8. I made a quick lane change to get around a slow moving car and sped up because there was a faster moving car coming up in that lane behind me. In just the couple seconds it took to make the lane change and then glance down at the speedometer, I was doing 100mph and still accelerating.

It actually took me a while to learn *not* to step on the gas as much while driving that car.


I guess what I'm getting at is that the excessiveness of the speed in question really does depend on the car you're driving in. My car isn't close to the performance of the cars in the OP, but 120 is pretty easy to hit and while I wouldn't want to have to make any fast lane changes while at that speed, unless I hit a moose or something, I'm not going to lose control on a straight road. Frankly for the cars in the OP, as long as there aren't other slower moving cars on the road, that's a safe cruising speed on a relatively straight road.

I'm not condoning what they were doing at all, but I also don't happen to think driving 120mph should result in losing your car, unless there were other mitigating circumstances which made what you were doing exceptionally dangerous (intoxicated, road with intersections, road with pedestrians along side it, etc). Even then, it should be about consistent fines and penalties for the same crime. Confiscating a car punishes the guy with the more expensive car for no really good reason at all. Was his action more dangerous? Then why punish him more?


I just think it violates the principle of equal protection under the law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Sep 09 2011 at 8:48 PM Rating: Good
**
585 posts
Whats worse for some little rich kid or family seeing a high end car crushed or seeing their rich little brat serve 180 days in county or how what ever Canada calls county lock up.

I wish they stated if the 5 up for getting their cars crushed had 2 strikes already. If so then they would have gotten 2 warnings already. Would explain why only five are up for crushing. Either way they are buying their freedom.
____________________________
.
#55 Sep 10 2011 at 2:41 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
So they should have their license revoked until thet are 21. Agreed.

Yes



Douchebag rich kids should be summariy punished.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#56 Sep 10 2011 at 11:24 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:

Frankly for the cars in the OP, as long as there aren't other slower moving cars on the road, that's a safe cruising speed on a relatively straight road.
Are you retarded? It says right in the article that they had two people going slow to hold up traffic.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#57 Sep 11 2011 at 5:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,324 posts
Also, it doesn't matter what your opinion of a safe driving speed is, gbaji - they were going more than double the legal speed limit.
____________________________
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.

clicky
#58 Sep 11 2011 at 6:08 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Hooligans like Gbaji have no respect for the law. They should be locked up for the good of society.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#59 Sep 12 2011 at 7:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Death penalty should be on the table for any offense. See how quickly people shape up when we execute a jay walker.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 Sep 12 2011 at 7:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,044 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Death penalty should be on the table for any offense. See how quickly people shape up when we execute a jay walker.

It would be much more efficient to simply allow the cars run them over.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#61 Sep 12 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
10 points!
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#62 Sep 12 2011 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Death penalty should be on the table for any offense. See how quickly people shape up when we execute a jay walker.
It works for Texas.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#63 Sep 12 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Frankly for the cars in the OP, as long as there aren't other slower moving cars on the road, that's a safe cruising speed on a relatively straight road.
Are you retarded? It says right in the article that they had two people going slow to hold up traffic.


It does say that, doesn't it? Imagine that!


I'm not condoning what they did. However, I do think that the punishment in this case far far far outweighs the crime, and represents a case of punishing people for being wealthy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#64 Sep 12 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
As several people have pointed out, that's 124mph. That's fast, but not ridiculously so.

It's considered "reckless" in every state to have a reckless driving designation. Depending on the state by 25-45 mph over the the line.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Sep 12 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As several people have pointed out, that's 124mph. That's fast, but not ridiculously so.

It's considered "reckless" in every state to have a reckless driving designation. Depending on the state by 25-45 mph over the the line.


Again though, that's really not the point. The question is whether permanently confiscating the vehicles involved is a normal thing, or is an abnormal thing being done in this case because the people involved are wealthy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Sep 12 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As several people have pointed out, that's 124mph. That's fast, but not ridiculously so.

It's considered "reckless" in every state to have a reckless driving designation. Depending on the state by 25-45 mph over the the line.


Again though, that's really not the point. The question is whether permanently confiscating the vehicles involved is a normal thing, or is an abnormal thing being done in this case because the people involved are wealthy.


Which brings up a good question. Do we know if this is an abnormal punishment for BC or not?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#67 Sep 12 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Again though, that's really not the point.

It's a valid point in regards to "not ridiculously fast".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Sep 12 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
******
43,873 posts
These canuckleheads seem to have gotten off a little light.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Sep 12 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Yeah, it didn't seem to me like they got some crazy harsh penalty.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#70 Sep 12 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts


Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, it didn't seem to me like they got some crazy harsh penalty.


Huh?

Quote:
Police issue about 10,000 tickets, annually, for excessive speeding. As of Sept. 20, a charge of excessive speeding will trigger a mandatory seven-day impoundment for a first offence, a 30-day impoundment for a second, and 60 days for subsequent excessive speeding offences within two years.

...

Street racers are also affected by the new rules. While street racing differs from excessive speeding, because it involves two or more vehicles trying to out-distance each other, under the new impoundment provisions, both are subject to a minimum impoundment of 7 days.


I'm missing the part where it says that your car will be confiscated permanently. I'm still waiting for *anyone* to show that this is a normal punishment for doing what they were doing. All the evidence I see is that they are being treated far more harshly than is normal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 12 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm missing the part where it says that your car will be confiscated permanently.
You probably also missed that part in the original story. Since it doesn't actually appear anywhere in it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#72 Sep 12 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, it didn't seem to me like they got some crazy harsh penalty.
Apparently they were fined half what normal people are typically fined. I guess to some people any punishment of the spawn of rich people is a harsh one!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#73 Sep 12 2011 at 4:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm missing the part where it says that your car will be confiscated permanently.
You probably also missed that part in the original story. Since it doesn't actually appear anywhere in it.
Yea, I must have missed that part as well because I don't remember anyone's car getting impounded permanently. It does note that they'd like to impound them longer than 7 days, but doesn't specify permanently.


Edited, Sep 12th 2011 7:45pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#74 Sep 12 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Excellent
the OP wrote:
They all lost access to their vehicles for a week
I'm not sure what Gbaji is reading. Maybe he just assumed they all got their cars taken away permanently? I guess it's only one word different. Reading the article might have taken away from his policy of not getting his news from anywhere.

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 6:30pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#75 Sep 12 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
the OP wrote:
They all lost access to their vehicles for a week
I'm not sure what Gbaji is reading. Maybe he just assumed they all got their cars taken away permanently? I guess it's only one word different. Reading the article might have taken away from his policy of not getting his news from anywhere.


Huh? Are you guys just deliberately misreading things now? The whole point of the story is that the government is trying to take them permanently:

Quote:
The 13 cars were supposed to be released Thursday after being in an impound lot for seven days. Instead the case has been referred to the B.C. Civil Forfeiture Office after the RCMP's Lower Mainland District Traffic Services provided information to the Federal Integrated Proceeds of Crime Section, which evaluated the Sept. 1 incident.

...

They all lost access to their vehicles for a week but now may lose much more.


Reading comprehension fail?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Sep 12 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
You know what I find amazing? For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently. Now, suddenly you're all pretending that this isn't the case?

That's freaking bizarre. It really is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Sep 12 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
Just for fun, citation of mine, please. I am part of "every single person," right?

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:18pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Sep 12 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.


I'm responding to the story linked in the OP, which quite clearly is about the city attempting to seize permanently (that's what "forfeiture" means btw) the vehicles instead of releasing them from impound after 7 days as is the norm. This thread is about people discussing whether or not they should take their cars away (permanently). I'm not sure what other events have occurred since then with the case itself. My only interest is the question as to whether or not it's right to take people's cars away (permanently) in a case like this.

And also to point out that I don't think people would be cheering the proposed forfeiture of cars if the people involved weren't wealthy. Which I happen to think is incredibly petty.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
Just for fun, citation of mine, please. I am part of "every single person," right?


Did you (or anyone) make it obvious that the question we were debating was about anything other than permanent forfeiture of their cars? By all means show me were you leaped into the debate and insisted that these kids were getting off easy because they were going to get their cars back in a few days anyway. This is just bizarre. The whole conversation has been about them not getting their cars back (ever). Yet, it's only after nearly two whole pages of postings that someone suddenly jumps in and insists that this was never the case?


Um... Where the **** were all you guys back on page one? Where were you the first 5 times I made the point that permanent loss of a car was an unusual punishment? Strange that you waited until you'd run out of any reasonable response before suddenly pretending the entire topic never really existed in the first place.


Why do you think this topic exists?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Sep 12 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:

Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.



Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Sep 12 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Apparently some people wanting harsher penalties and recommending a further investigation, but this not happening is the same as taking the cars away permanently, rather then the minimum penalty of 7 days.

You'd have a hard time finding historical cases though, seeing as these are newly established rules.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#81 Sep 12 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:

Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.



Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?

So you're taking Ari, an Aussie, as an authority on Canadian Laws? Interesting. And don't give me that **** about not knowing where Ari's from, she's been here a long long time and has always been clear about it. Unless of course, you just ignore the facts put in front of you.


You're an "there's Americans and then everyone else in the world" type person, aren't you?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#83 Sep 12 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
I'm responding to the story linked in the OP, which quite clearly is about the city attempting to seize permanently (that's what "forfeiture" means btw) the vehicles instead of releasing them from impound after 7 days as is the norm.
So you're responding to something that didn't happen. That's great. Very varus of you.
gbaji wrote:
This thread is about people discussing whether or not they should take their cars away (permanently)
Sure, why not. I'll play along. This thread is about a hypothetical.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not sure what other events have occurred since then with the case itself. My only interest is the question as to whether or not it's right to take people's cars away (permanently) in a case like this.
Kids "less than 18" to 21 going twice the speed limit, and impeding traffic flow, driving by all definitions recklessly (Edit: Add that a few of the kids didn't even have full licenses. Essentially Permits.). Yeah, they should have the vehicles taken permanently. Has nothing to do with the rich to anyone but you, but hey. Go for it.
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
For this entire thread, it's been pretty darn obvious that every single person understood that this was about these kids losing their cars permanently.
Just for fun, citation of mine, please. I am part of "every single person," right?
Did you (or anyone) make it obvious that the question we were debating was about anything other than permanent forfeiture of their cars?
Is this going to be another one of your "gbaji makes a huge opinion statement and claimed it as fact, and when pressed about it is going to try to wiggle out of it" tactics? Because those are boring.
gbaji wrote:
By all means show me were you leaped into the debate and insisted that these kids were getting off easy because they were going to get their cars back in a few days anyway.
Can do!

☑ Impounded for 7 Days
☑ Six Points on License
☐ Fined minimum $398

So yeah, compared to normal people they got off comparatively easy.

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 8:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Sep 12 2011 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
The question is whether permanently confiscating the vehicles involved is a normal thing, or is an abnormal thing being done in this case because the people involved are wealthy.


Yeah... Please link a post where you decried the discrepancy between powder cocaine/crack cocaine possession punishments and we'll chat about "fair treatment based on income".
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#85 Sep 12 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Just because there's a particular streak of memory loss going on. Here's post number 4 in the thread:

Aripyanfar wrote:
Losing the cars permanently is going to BURN as badly as jail, ESPECIALLY if they are their parent's cars. OMG they are going to be in a world of trouble. Paying their parents back for the cars is REALLY going to hurt. Which if their parents have a lick of sense, they are going to make them do, no matter how much cash the parents have in the trust fund.



Strange that the whole "But no one said they're losing them permanently" didn't show up until like 60 posts later. Creative re-interpretation of the topic, I guess?

So you're taking Ari, an Aussie, as an authority on Canadian Laws?


Huh? Did IQs on this board take a dive or something?

I'm saying that she understood the story linked in the OP to mean that the city was attempting to permanently seize the cars. An understanding which I believed every single poster in this thread was acting on right up until suddenly out of the blue a couple posters started claiming that this had never been the case.


It's what the story in the OP is about, right? It's why we're even having a discussion, right? Some people were cheering the possibility that these rich kids will lose their cars. Others were saying that this is an unfair penalty for the crime. What thread have you been reading?




Edited, Sep 12th 2011 5:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#86 Sep 12 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,731 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
The vehicles were impounded on the night (sorry), afternoon of August 31st. They were driven out of impound on September 8th. Which ... was a Thursday. But you know, those are just facts of the case. Don't let them get in the way of your rhetoric.
I'm responding to the story linked in the OP, which quite clearly is about the city attempting to seize permanently (that's what "forfeiture" means btw) the vehicles instead of releasing them from impound after 7 days as is the norm.
So you're responding to something that didn't happen. That's great. Very varus of you.


Huh? I'm responding to what the story in the OP said. I'm respoding to multiple posters who seemed to think it was a great idea for those kids to lose their cars (permanently) because they were just bratty rich kids and it served them right.

If the city changed it's mind and let them have their cars back (did it? I haven't seen anything about it), then that's great. But it doesn't change the debate over whether it should have, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Sep 12 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's what the story in the OP is about, right? It's why we're even having a discussion, right? Some people were cheering the possibility that these rich kids will lose their cars. Others were saying that this is an unfair penalty for the crime. What thread have you been reading?
The one where you're crying about rich kids not being treated fairly, when they are, by the law.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#88 Sep 12 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,873 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh? I'm responding to what the story in the OP said.
The story in the OP is about thirteen underaged-to-just of age drivers, driving recklessly, were fined $198, had their cars impounded for a week, had six points put on their licenses, and the officials wanting to do more because what they were doing was hella dangerous. If you want to interpret that as "because they're rich," you're welcome to, but that isn't really indicated in the original story. But really, the OP is showing, if anything, the rich being treated better than us normal folks.
gbaji wrote:
I'm respoding to multiple posters who seemed to think it was a great idea for those kids to lose their cars (permanently) because they were just bratty rich kids and it served them right.
So now it went from "every single person" to "multiple posters."

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 9:24pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#89 Sep 12 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.
#90 Sep 12 2011 at 8:09 PM Rating: Excellent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Nadenu wrote:
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.
Interesting...
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#91 Sep 12 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Excellent
It is easy to confuse a bunch of reckless kids getting the minimum sentence with the authorities being mean to rich people.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#92 Sep 12 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,428 posts
I'm under the impression suddenly that gbaji was on the page where cars were impounded permanently, and the majority of us were not.

Now it makes sense.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#93 Sep 12 2011 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,856 posts
gbaji wrote:
What thread have you been reading?


This one.

TBH I didn't really read this thread until earlier today, when I saw the debate going on and got all confused. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#94 Sep 13 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Nadenu wrote:
If gbaji starts another post with "Huh?" I'm going to reach through this monitor and strangle him.


Remember. When he didn't talk like this?

It was a golden age...
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#95 Sep 14 2011 at 4:06 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
who won the race?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#96 Sep 14 2011 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
who won the race?
Not one of the rich kids, those cars can't survive on Canadian roads.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#97 Sep 14 2011 at 8:08 AM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
who won the race?
Not one of the rich kids, those cars can't survive on Canadian roads.
Snowmobiles aren't as fashionable.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 30 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (30)