Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#852 Dec 09 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Hey, dumbass, ultimately you HAVE to rely on people who know more about a subject than you. Why? Because they've dedicated years of their lives to BECOMING an authority on a subject. Reading an op-ed and pretending you are well informed isn't impressive.

By all means, investigate the background of the study. Look at what other experts saying in support or against the experiments.

But your own intuitions about the outcome alone mean nothing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#853 Dec 09 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
Oh. And the complete icing on the cake is when I lay out an argument based on pure logic/reason, and someone says "Cite?". Um... There is no cite. I'm doing logic here.


"a.k.a making it up as I go along."
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#854 Dec 09 2011 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
******
43,060 posts
gbaji wrote:
If your argument relies on someone else providing a conclusion for you, then you are not applying critical thinking skills
It's actually quite sad that you believe that's how critical thinking works. I hate to break it to you ... well, not really. I make it a point to correct stupid people, and you're like my Bethlehem of Idiocy. Anyway, "critical thinking," as you're so apt to call what you do, isn't just "Oh, I disagree with what everyone is saying, therefore I'm right and the only one thinking." A lot of people, surprise surprise, take what someone says, thinks about it, and *gasp* might actually agree with it. I know, it's radical. It usually requires one to not be stuck at the hips to a political party and not an obvious parrot, which you fail at. It's okay though. One day you'll actually think for yourself. I will give credit where credit is due, and you're right that some posters can't tell opinion from fact at all. You're just not one of them that can.

And yes, I'm quite aware that you're going to go off on a speel about how that I'm wrong and that, in fact, you are the only true thinker in the universe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#855 Dec 09 2011 at 6:01 PM Rating: Good
Aw come on guys, Gbaji like, thinks real hard and stuff!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#856 Dec 09 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
No. The sheer number of times someone insists "But you said...", and I say "No, I didn't", followed by an exact quote of what I actually said, only to have them repeat "But you said..." again a few posts later is amazing. This is sheer perception. People don't like to argue against my arguments, so they twist my words around, re-interpret it in interesting ways, and then argue against that instead. And when I attempt to correct them and restate my position, they insist I'm changing my stance.

I don't do this. I have *never* done this. And no amount of other posters repeating the claim will make said claim true.


So...every single poster here except you is delusional?

...every single poster on here is brainwashed by the media except you?

...every single poster on here is incapable of critical thinking except you?


You need serious, long-term help, dude.Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#857 Dec 09 2011 at 6:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
So Republicans and Democrats disagree on what things are fact and what things are opinion? Fascinating. Smiley: rolleyes


There should never be a disagreement over what things are fact and what things are opinion. There absolutely can (and should) be a disagreement over the opinions/conclusions, but not the facts. As I stated above, the problem is that many people attempt to label their opinions as facts and then think that the issue is over disagreement about facts.

Example:
That the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last 40 years is a fact. That measured global temperatures have increased by about a degree over the last century is also a fact. That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.

See the difference? We don't argue over the first things. The problem is that far too many people label the final conclusion in that paragraph a "fact". It's not. It's an opinion. If you can't tell the difference without falling back to your own initial biases about something, then you lack even the start of critical thinking abilities.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#858 Dec 09 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.


Actually it is not an opinion that is actually occurring right now the ocean levels in the world are rising, the ecosystems of the arctic regions are undergoing change as we speak.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#859 Dec 09 2011 at 6:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,060 posts
Huh, an argument that relied on someone else to provide the conclusion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#860 Dec 09 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
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

#861 Dec 09 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If your argument relies on someone else providing a conclusion for you, then you are not applying critical thinking skills
It's actually quite sad that you believe that's how critical thinking works.


That was nearly the least significant statement I made which you could have quoted if your purpose was to honestly assess what *I* think critical thinking is.

Quote:
Anyway, "critical thinking," as you're so apt to call what you do, isn't just "Oh, I disagree with what everyone is saying, therefore I'm right and the only one thinking."


You are correct. Good thing I never said that's what it was.

Quote:
A lot of people, surprise surprise, take what someone says, thinks about it, and *gasp* might actually agree with it.


Yes. But that has nothing to do with whether critical thinking skills were used when deciding whether to agree or disagree. Why you agree with what someone else says is what determines that, but your statement doesn't touch on that. What matters is if you assess what that person says and attempt to test it in some way, using logic, reason, objective facts, etc.

What's important here is that someone who has done such an analysis should be able to readily repeat that process when he's asked why he agrees with that other person. If you used critical thinking to decide to agree or disagree, then why not repeat that thought process when challenged? Yet, what I see overwhelmingly is someone just point to what someone else said and say "this person is right, so you are wrong". When asked *why* they think that person is right, they rarely ever give a reason other than to point to other people who also agree with them (or make fun of the person asking the question, or change the subject).


That's not to say it's not possible that there is a good rational argument in support of your position, but if you can't (or wont) provide one, then one has to wonder why *you* hold the position you do. It's absolutely valid for someone else to claim you're just parroting what someone else said in that case, because that's all you're doing. Hell. Even if you start out thinking a position is right and you do some research to learn the reason why, it would be a step in the right direction.


I just have pretty much zero respect for the "I'm right because <someone else> says I am" approach. To me, it's not just a piss poor argument, but it always makes me wonder at the motives of the other person. I get why you might use BS arguments in a debate, but why do *you* think X is correct? And if you can't give a reason, then how do you derive positions on issues? Random flip of a coin? First "expert" you run across? Or do you pick a "side" and then go with that side's experts no matter what? How far do you abrogate your own responsibility for making your own choices in your own life?


What's amazing is that I actually get lots of heat for this. It's like freaking children of the corn on this forum sometimes.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 4:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#862 Dec 09 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.


Actually it is not an opinion that is actually occurring right now the ocean levels in the world are rising, the ecosystems of the arctic regions are undergoing change as we speak.


What will result in 50-100 years and how dependent that is on human actions *is* an opinion though. Please please please tell me you can see this?


My faith in humanity is rapidly failing. Seriously. How do you tie your own shoes?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#863 Dec 09 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,060 posts
gbaji wrote:
What matters is if you assess what that person says and attempt to test it in some way, using logic, reason, objective facts, etc.
You know that sound people make when they see something like a dog or a three year old get slammed by a speeding 18 wheeler? That sound of sucking wind through the teeth in audible grimace? Yeah, just imagine everyone that just read that line of crap you spewed just did that. Again, your failing in this is that at the end of the day sort of speak, you decide (and loudly proclaim) who is using logic, reason, objective facts, etc. And it just so happens that it is only you that does so. Funny how that works. You don't bother to look at both sides of any argument, you just say "I used logic, you didn't." That's all. You use a lot of words, which is adorable. If you can't beat them through real logic and common sense, brow beat them and win a war of attrition. Maybe you're so stupid and you don't realize it, or you're just playing devil's advocate. I can't make that call, though you're logically going to deny both.
gbaji wrote:
What's amazing is that I actually get lots of heat for this.
What's really amazing is you just wrote all that and still don't know what you're "getting heat" for. Only slightly less amazing, because we're all pretty much used to it by now, is that you still think that your "I'm thinking for myself, it's just a coincidence that everything I say just so happens to be what my party says" line is at all believable.

I mean, you just did it without batting an eye. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 7:54pm 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.
#864 Dec 09 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,352 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
So Republicans and Democrats disagree on what things are fact and what things are opinion? Fascinating. Smiley: rolleyes


There should never be a disagreement over what things are fact and what things are opinion. There absolutely can (and should) be a disagreement over the opinions/conclusions, but not the facts. As I stated above, the problem is that many people attempt to label their opinions as facts and then think that the issue is over disagreement about facts.

Example:
That the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last 40 years is a fact. That measured global temperatures have increased by about a degree over the last century is also a fact. That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.

See the difference? We don't argue over the first things. The problem is that far too many people label the final conclusion in that paragraph a "fact". It's not. It's an opinion. If you can't tell the difference without falling back to your own initial biases about something, then you lack even the start of critical thinking abilities.


It's hardly that simple of a distinction. Here's my skewed view of things as a scientist.

Scientific studies are viewed more as an opinion piece in the field when they are released. Your numbers usually aren't disputed, but then there's this nice section in most publications called the "conclusions" or some equivalent thereof. Ahh what fun that section is. You take your dots and try to draw a nice tidy line through them. You use your evidence to explain some observation about the world, you have yourself a little theory, how cute.

Theories take time to be proven. Some people will agree with you right away, others won't. You can correlate how likely someone is to agree with you with how well that theory fits their own ideas about how the system/world/whatever works. Some people believe you after 1 paper, others take a few, some take dozens, some will keep poking holes in the theory years after others accept it as a fact. If I was to publish something tomorrow saying a fetus could feel pain 1 month after conception (don't worry I'm not, my next is something uninteresting about inner ear structures) there are people who would jump right on that, others would be skeptical, some may never believe it.

Theories fall through all the time. We're good as human being at drawing lines places they don't belong. Correlations are easy to prove, causation extremely difficult. So it's good to be skeptical of your facts, you never know what lines you drew actually belong.

Anyway, just my ramblings. I don't believe I really said anything new or exciting there. Just another opinion. Feel free to draw your own lines through the data. Smiley: wink

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#865 Dec 09 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,357 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
What matters is if you assess what that person says and attempt to test it in some way, using logic, reason, objective facts, etc.
You know that sound people make when they see something like a dog or a three year old get slammed by a speeding 18 wheeler? That sound of sucking wind through the teeth in audible grimace? Yeah, just imagine everyone that just read that line of crap you spewed just did that.


It's good to see that you are objectively assessing things there.

Quote:
Again, your failing in this is that at the end of the day sort of speak, you decide (and loudly proclaim) who is using logic, reason, objective facts, etc. And it just so happens that it is only you that does so.


And folks claiming this and repeating it over and over makes it true? Again, good to see logic and reason in action! Really? You're playing a caricature of yourself right now, right?

Quote:
You don't bother to look at both sides of any argument, you just say "I used logic, you didn't." That's all.


I say that after using logic to assess both side of any argument and use that to support my position. I know that for those who don't bother, this may be troubling so they may feel a need to lash out as a sort of defense mechanism, but that not my problem.

Quote:
You use a lot of words, which is adorable.


It takes a lot of words to actually write down the thought process you're using to derive a position. It takes very few words to say "I'm right, because someone else says so". Certainly, the person arguing their position in one line sarcastic posts is *not* using any sort of logic or reason, right?

Quote:
If you can't beat them through real logic and common sense, brow beat them and win a war of attrition. Maybe you're so stupid and you don't realize it, or you're just playing devil's advocate. I can't make that call, though you're logically going to deny both.


Shrug. How logical my arguments appear is kinda dependent on the capabilities of the person reading them, and their own willingness to re-assess their own positions based on logic and reason. If you either don't know how to logically assess something, or don't want to, you're going to just ignore the words because they say things you don't like.

Quote:
What's really amazing is you just wrote all that and still don't know what you're "getting heat" for.


I imagine it's mostly because I do make strong arguments for my positions and that makes those who hold opposite positions for far weaker reasons incredibly uncomfortable. Like I said earlier, most people don't like to have their assumptions challenged.

Quote:
Only slightly less amazing, because we're all pretty much used to it by now, is that you still think that your "I'm thinking for myself, it's just a coincidence that everything I say just so happens to be what my party says" line is at all believable.


I'm not sure what your point is here. People pick parties based on how well the party's ideology and positions matches their own. The same thing can be said of most people, but it's interesting that you ascribe that sort of blindness to me, but not to every other person who votes for and agrees with the party they've chosen to join.





And btw: I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a Dem solution to our current economic problems which does not include raising taxes on the rich. Interesting how the topic keeps moving away from that, isn't it? Can't answer the question, so you attack the person asking it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#866 Dec 09 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
And btw: I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a Dem solution to our current economic problems which does not include raising taxes on the rich. Interesting how the topic keeps moving away from that, isn't it? Can't answer the question, so you attack the person asking it.


As soon as you show a Rep solution to the economic problems that do not include slashing social programs?
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#867 Dec 09 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,060 posts
gbaji wrote:
How logical my arguments appear is kinda dependent on the capabilities of the person reading them, and their own willingness to re-assess their own positions based on logic and reason.
And you claiming this and repeating it over and over makes it true? Again, good to see logic and reason in action! Really? You're playing a caricature of yourself right now, right? Funny how that works. So go ahead and tell us why you're always right and it's everyone else that's always wrong.
gbaji wrote:
It takes a lot of words to actually write down the thought process you're using to derive a position.
Not only is that not true, but it's usually a sign of a disorganized thought processes where someone will go out of their way to try to "explain" something, mostly to try to convince themselves that what they did or think is true. Nine out of ten statements I've taken have shown that to be the case. But what would I know about that? I've only been interrogating and taking statements from people for eight years, which by your "logic" means I don't know anything about it at all.
gbaji wrote:
I imagine it's mostly because I do make strong arguments for my positions and that makes those who hold opposite positions for far weaker reasons incredibly uncomfortable. Like I said earlier, most people don't like to have their assumptions challenged.
You have a very autistic imagination then. And by "autistic" I mean "full fledged retarded." Don't worry, I remember how much you cried crocodile tears of asshurt when I am subtle, so I'll explain it to you when it's necessary. Smiley: smile It really amazes me that you don't hang yourself when you try to tie your shoes.
gbaji wrote:
And btw: I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a Dem solution to our current economic problems which does not include raising taxes on the rich.
And we've been waiting like a month for you to answer Joph's question.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 8:26pm 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.
#868 Dec 09 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Lolgaxe, you are forgetting something...











gbaji is omnipotent.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#869 Dec 09 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You use a lot of words, which is adorable.

It takes a lot of words to actually write down the thought process you're using to derive a position. It takes very few words to say "I'm right, because someone else says so". Certainly, the person arguing their position in one line sarcastic posts is *not* using any sort of logic or reason, right?

Or, because what they say is logical, it doesn't require fifteen paragraphs of bullshit to try and persuade people into believing it.

Jus' sayin'. With logic!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#870 Dec 09 2011 at 10:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
So, everyone on this board that's not gbaji isn't able to think for themselves. He's the only one.

That sounds kind of illogical to me.

Is this where we 'Live long and prosper'?
#871 Dec 09 2011 at 10:23 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You use a lot of words, which is adorable.

It takes a lot of words to actually write down the thought process you're using to derive a position. It takes very few words to say "I'm right, because someone else says so". Certainly, the person arguing their position in one line sarcastic posts is *not* using any sort of logic or reason, right?

Or, because what they say is logical, it doesn't require fifteen paragraphs of bullshit to try and persuade people into believing it.

Jus' sayin'. With logic!

You would think, that if by now he couldn't convince anyone that his argument was sound, that maybe there was another reason?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#872 Dec 09 2011 at 10:55 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Example:
That the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last 40 years is a fact. That measured global temperatures have increased by about a degree over the last century is also a fact. That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.

See the difference? We don't argue over the first things. The problem is that far too many people label the final conclusion in that paragraph a "fact". It's not. It's an opinion. If you can't tell the difference without falling back to your own initial biases about something, then you lack even the start of critical thinking abilities.


So you agree that restoring taxes on the rich hurting the economy even further is merely an opinion. I mean, since it would happen in the future it is not fact and only peoples initial biases bring them his conclusion. Nobody knows for sure what would happen. But what we are doing now isn't going so well, so it doesn't take an idiot to realize that if we change the current status quo, something different is bound to happen (better or worse is not for me to say)
#873 Dec 10 2011 at 12:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
You would think, that if by now he couldn't convince anyone that his argument was sound, that maybe there was another reason?

Duh! It's because we don't want our assumptions challenged!

It's the perfect cocoon of self-delusion. "Everything I say is 100% logical and accurate and anyone who disagrees is only afraid of having their assumptions challenged. Any evidence to the contrary is flawed 'evidence' by 'experts' who are obviously biased."

I'm sure someone who has taken more than a semester of Intro Psych can pinpoint the exact name of that condition.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 12:57am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#874 Dec 10 2011 at 1:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Downs?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#875 Dec 10 2011 at 1:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh Up arrow 4u
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#876 Dec 10 2011 at 6:47 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,261 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.


Actually it is not an opinion that is actually occurring right now the ocean levels in the world are rising, the ecosystems of the arctic regions are undergoing change as we speak.


What will result in 50-100 years and how dependent that is on human actions *is* an opinion though. Please please please tell me you can see this?


My faith in humanity is rapidly failing. Seriously. How do you tie your own shoes?

Extrapolation is not the same thing as opinion.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#877 Dec 10 2011 at 7:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Nadenu wrote:
So, everyone on this board that's not gbaji isn't able to think for themselves. He's the only one.

That sounds kind of illogical to me.

Is this where we 'Live long and prosper'?
Well, if you were gbaji, it would be perfectly logical.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#878 Dec 11 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,855 posts
Gbaji must be a wizard, what with all the magical thinking he does.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#879 Dec 11 2011 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji is the Gandalf of bullshit.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#880 Dec 11 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji is the Gandalf of bullshit.


Which pretty much just makes him Wormtongue.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#881 Dec 11 2011 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji is the Gandalf of bullshit.


and stolen.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#882 Dec 11 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,855 posts
I can picture him leading the fellowship of the right wing, leading varus and thiefx through the perilous mountains of ideology, with their travels impeded by a storm of logical arguments created by that evil sorceror Jophiel.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#883 Dec 11 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I can picture him leading the fellowship of the right wing, leading varus and thiefx through the perilous mountains of ideology, with their travels impeded by a storm of logical arguments created by that evil sorceror Jophiel.


I just pictured Naz'gul with troll faces riding forth from Mordor.

Edited, Dec 11th 2011 3:39pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#884 Dec 14 2011 at 8:26 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,457 posts
Time named The Protester as their Person of the Year. TIME
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#885 Dec 14 2011 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
I guess it's a better selection than 1938, 1939, and 1942. But we'll see.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#886 Dec 14 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
I guess it's a better selection than 1938, 1939, and 1942. But we'll see.
Killjoy.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#887 Dec 14 2011 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,855 posts
The difference in the two Stalin photos is striking.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT