1988th One to Post Wins: The Killing Joke! (998th person to post in second thread)

It's depressing to see how inactive it has been recently. I mean, everybody is pretty much primarily posting in the never ending thread now and there's not enough people here to make this place really booming. We need to find some way to bring more people here before this place just fades into nothingness...

I know for a fact that a lot of boards out there are thriving because of how many people are there. We just need to get back into the game and pull people here. However, where we obtain these people might matter, because we don't to end up pulling in douches like those at Selkath.

I understand that people are busy these days, but it doesn't seem like they're rarely at their computer anymore. I know most of you are still dicking around with your computer. I don't know how we …

[ Full reading ]

Happy New Year OT! We may be dying... BUT WE'RE STILL HERE! We had an... interesting year last year. Vice Admin Burkman is taking a long earned vacation and Uly is stepping into his position. Well... I'd have more to say but I've got other things to do atm... and oh yeah... to quote Callin... "GET A MIC YA BUM!"

~Scott

BananaGod Posts : 6603 Join date : 2011-02-12 Age : 32

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Whats a Barkley Bike?

And what happened?

Barkley's Bank, in association with the Mayor of London organization (set up by Boris, long story, not related) has set up paid bike stands (paid via a credit card linked to Barkley's), supposedly all over London, copying Paris. Brits call 'em BarkleyBikes (one word).

Coming home from school, I had the reasonable, at the time, idea to try one of those out, in stead of bumping elbows with strangers on the evening tube (that's subway for you Americans).
My university's right on Oxford Circus so I got a bike from there. My flat is in Bermondsey.
It didn't really take me that long to reach home, about an hour. Considering how I don't exactly have a GPS map implant in my noggin, that's OK.
And I really liked it cause I like cycling and London's a real nice place to explore...

HOWEVER... And this is where things get nasty (and rather funny when you look at it)...

There was no BarkleyBike station around my place of residence.

And you can't just toss the thing wherever you so wish cause then they find you (considering how they know where you live by your billing address, they pretty much got you by the balls) and fine you. And the fine is in the thousands (though it's only like a pound to rent the bike for 24 hours).

So yeah...

I ended up spending the next hour or so searching for a station where I could leave the bloody thing...

So yeah... I pretty much had to cycle back about half of my original route... And that would have been OK as well (cause I don't mind cycling)... Had I known it in advance. I found that out while I was pretty much circling the area, going as far as Canada Water, where there's a big shopping center with a Barkely's Bank, a huge bus stop, TWO tube stations...

All in all, here's the complete route I ended up taking, all 'stops' included. Though mind you, some places were cycled around more than once...

Cycling is a bitch.

I fucking hate Barkley's. you

Soooooo the moral of the story is you would have been better off taking the subway?

Guess so... Though I did like cycling through London. Even if it was rather snippy (that's cold for you independent colonists) and somewhat dark (with how it was 19:00 and all)...

The real moral of the story would be to not take a BarkleyBike again. EVER.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Bobabounty wrote:: Who said anything about forcing churches to provide health care? I'd have them create the ability to provide for the poor who need it. So what if the church then doesn't provide contraceptives? If your poor you shouldn't be sleeping around anyways. And that DOES NOT violate the first amendment.... freedom of speech? You sir need to go read it. Seriously.

Ummm. Dude. Just because you require contraceptives doesn't mean that you are "sleeping around", what you are doing is being safe, remember our conversation about abortion? Well contraceptives, prevent pregnancy, thus preventing abortions.... For example: If you are poor, you are still afforded the right to fall in love, get married, etc. And in a marriage, you have sex, it's part of life, BUT because you are poor, you want to avoid getting pregnant, sooooooo you would want contraceptives....It is not the churches responsability to provide healthcare... but the governments, who will take our hard earned money, they should provide for those who can't afford healthcare. If you want my money then I want something in return. I would gladly pay higher taxes for healthcare for all people.

This whole remark really offended me. I respect your free speech and whatnot, but in my opinion that was a really screwed up thing to say.

Bobabounty is this you?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rush-limbaugh-calls-law-student-a-slut-wanting-contraception-covered-health-insurance-religious-institutions-article-1.1031283
You're really Rush right?
Auh

Yes I'm Rush Limbaugh... you caught me!

And in all honesty, these people need to make do with what they can get... if their insurance provider doesn't want to provide something, then they will have to deal with it. We all have to make sacrifices.

If they choose to go with a city/state program, then more power to them if they want contraceptives. It's all a matter of what they want.

And I'm sorry my remark offended you. But if you're going to go with a church program, know what it entails of. I guess I didn't mean "you shouldn't be sleeping around"... that was a little extreme. I guess I meant that if you are tied to a church and go with their program, you have, in reality, no say in how that plan operates. If they don't want to provide condoms or IUDs to you, well, frankly, you chose that plan.

The Joker wrote:

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

The Joker wrote:: I am NEVER getting on a BarkleyBike again...

(This is where you ask 'What happened?')

Whats a Barkley Bike?

And what happened?

Barkley's Bank, in association with the Mayor of London organization (set up by Boris, long story, not related) has set up paid bike stands (paid via a credit card linked to Barkley's), supposedly all over London, copying Paris. Brits call 'em BarkleyBikes (one word).

Coming home from school, I had the reasonable, at the time, idea to try one of those out, in stead of bumping elbows with strangers on the evening tube (that's subway for you Americans).
My university's right on Oxford Circus so I got a bike from there. My flat is in Bermondsey.
It didn't really take me that long to reach home, about an hour. Considering how I don't exactly have a GPS map implant in my noggin, that's OK.
And I really liked it cause I like cycling and London's a real nice place to explore...

HOWEVER... And this is where things get nasty (and rather funny when you look at it)...

There was no BarkleyBike station around my place of residence.

And you can't just toss the thing wherever you so wish cause then they find you (considering how they know where you live by your billing address, they pretty much got you by the balls) and fine you. And the fine is in the thousands (though it's only like a pound to rent the bike for 24 hours).

So yeah...

I ended up spending the next hour or so searching for a station where I could leave the bloody thing...

So yeah... I pretty much had to cycle back about half of my original route... And that would have been OK as well (cause I don't mind cycling)... Had I known it in advance. I found that out while I was pretty much circling the area, going as far as Canada Water, where there's a big shopping center with a Barkely's Bank, a huge bus stop, TWO tube stations...

All in all, here's the complete route I ended up taking, all 'stops' included. Though mind you, some places were cycled around more than once...

Cycling is a bitch.

I fucking hate Barkley's. you

What Morrigan said... >.>

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Bobabounty is this you?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rush-limbaugh-calls-law-student-a-slut-wanting-contraception-covered-health-insurance-religious-institutions-article-1.1031283
You're really Rush right?

I got a good chuckle out of this...

I wish we had a mod on here to turn to and ask, "We can't argue politics politely? Say whaaa?

" Anyways, I will address a few issues from the above that I feel are erroneous. Sorry Morrigan, I know that these are really just your statements and I didn't mean to single you out. I'm rather against the party system in the U.S. in general, but these statements I feel are wrong from a non-political standpoint.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: I agree there are people that give up looking for work etc... which honestly I find to be BS. I was out of work myself for over six months, and frankly I took any job that I could get, if you look hard enough, frankly you will eventually find a job, it might be saying do you want fries with that, or cleaning toilets, or something that many americans think is "beneath them" but I say what's better, minimum wage or no wage? I would take some money as opposed to no money.

This isn't so much wrong as it isn't well defined and draws from limited experience. I have never been in the workplace and frankly although I haven't been as active about it lately due to a shift in focus to helping my family I've probably filled out a lot more applications than you did in those months. That's partially because I live in a massive population center. The rush over flipping burgers is huge. Honestly, I might as well give up because despite having asked practically every store with a sign and many more without I still haven't been hired for even the most unglamorous of sweety outdoors jobs I have applied to. My situation is not unique in this area. Many of my friends face similar problems. Others have gone for over three years without being able to land another job despite constant attempts.

I agree that if you look hard enough you will eventually get a job, but the word "eventually" is a huge problem. That eventually can be a very, very long time. Hence, the unemployment statistics.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Unfortunately religion brings about more deaths than any other disease, addiction, etc....

Two Words: Mao Zedong.

I think that alone proves just how very factually deprived that statement is. Seriously, this one "fact" really gets my goat because of how incredibly wrong and undeniably egocentric it is. A little research on the situations of the world like Southern Africa, or a look at the real cause of the crusades I.E. they had good food and cool loot go a long ways to disproving that statement. They were not fanatics, every history teacher I talked to (And I took history in a VERY secular school) has pointed to the material benefits and greed as the cause of the crusade which just happened to be then blessed by the church.

I'm not going to blame you for this fact, lots of people say it without doing the research so I understand that it can be confused for fact. However, every time it comes up I do try and point to the actual facts. The crusades were not the blood fests we imagine. Since that time many, many more lives have been lost in single battles than the entire crusades. The terrorism in officially atheistic countries has killed several times more people than every religious war in the world.

Despite which, I would never say that atheists are blood mongers. No, that's wrong. The causes of war are independent of believes in who made the world. It's just good old fashioned greed same as two kids fighting over a toy.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel alienated... I just feel that men shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies, when they are the ones you are ultimately affected. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in the process.

I feel that I was wise to identify myself non-sexually on the internet every time I hear something like this.

To be fair, neither the woman getting the abortion nor any man alive can say what it is like be BE aborted. And even if they can't get one men have a wonderful thing known as empathy. Besides which there are many, many woman on the pro-life train and I see nothing wrong with choosing to back them. If there were no woman on the pro-life train than ya, I would see a possible argument. Yet, as is I feel this is just being purposefully discriminatory and bias.

I am probably the most pro sexual equality member of the old OT. I have lampooned and attacked many unfair depictions of girls. However, I have always done so with the intent of teaching. Understanding the differences between the sexes and empathizing even if you don't have those feelings yourself can be done.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Bobabounty is this you?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rush-limbaugh-calls-law-student-a-slut-wanting-contraception-covered-health-insurance-religious-institutions-article-1.1031283
You're really Rush right?

Rush is an arse.

But at least he has good taste in music.

Detective Posts : 3622 Join date : 2011-02-06 Age : 30

Bobabounty wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:

Bobabounty wrote:: 1. Yes. The "utopian" system Obama is hailing it as.

2. I'm saying we can provide health care for the poor without using a government run program... the states, cities, towns, churches can provide it for them.

3. Why are you calling the Constitution a coup? Are you saying it's bad? I'm not following you there.

Providing health care for the poor using states, cities, and towns is still using government run programs but at the same time you are bankrupt the much poorer institutions of the states, cities and towns. Also if you force churches to provide health care you violate the first amendment to the constitution.

And the constitution was a coup it over threw the democratically elected government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

Who said anything about forcing churches to provide health care? I'd have them create the ability to provide for the poor who need it. So what if the church then doesn't provide contraceptives? If your poor you shouldn't be sleeping around anyways. And that DOES NOT violate the first amendment.... freedom of speech? You sir need to go read it. Seriously.

Meat... you really know nothing about the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. You need to either read them or not talk about the subject until you're educated.

Definition of a coup: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment.

The creation of the Constitution was made with the consent of all. Sure, there were a few loyalists. But the British lost. We gained control of the country per revolution. It was not unexpected. The Articles were very unstable and loose, and a strong law needed to be created.

Until you get well-versed on the matter, don't try to respond.

Okay Boba when I said that you seem against people getting Health Care who couldn't afford it you said no "the states, cities, towns, churches can provide it for them." You are the only person forcing people to provide Health Care.

On the U.S. Constitution:
I will not debate you on this topic because your willful ignorance is stopping you from making an informed decision but I will try to clear it up.

Shortly after defeating the British, in 1781 to be exact, the states elected to have a very weak central government under what is the Articles of Confederation. For the reasons listed below this did not work.

1. The British still had bases in North America.

2. The Central government could not tax.

3. Therefore no standing army or any real benefits.

So the federal government called a second continental congress to help asses all of the problems. On the second day of the convention they decided to overthrow the government under the articles of confederation and replace it with a new Constitution. So yes a coup.

Also here is the words of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OT Crime Lord Posts : 1585 Join date : 2011-08-15 Age : 45

TheMortonator. wrote:

I wish we had a mod on here to turn to and ask, "We can't argue politics politely? Say whaaa?

" Anyways, I will address a few issues from the above that I feel are erroneous. Sorry Morrigan, I know that these are really just your statements and I didn't mean to single you out. I'm rather against the party system in the U.S. in general, but these statements I feel are wrong from a non-political standpoint.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: I agree there are people that give up looking for work etc... which honestly I find to be BS. I was out of work myself for over six months, and frankly I took any job that I could get, if you look hard enough, frankly you will eventually find a job, it might be saying do you want fries with that, or cleaning toilets, or something that many americans think is "beneath them" but I say what's better, minimum wage or no wage? I would take some money as opposed to no money.

This isn't so much wrong as it isn't well defined and draws from limited experience. I have never been in the workplace and frankly although I haven't been as active about it lately due to a shift in focus to helping my family I've probably filled out a lot more applications than you did in those months. That's partially because I live in a massive population center. The rush over flipping burgers is huge. Honestly, I might as well give up because despite having asked practically every store with a sign and many more without I still haven't been hired for even the most unglamorous of sweety outdoors jobs I have applied to. My situation is not unique in this area. Many of my friends face similar problems. Others have gone for over three years without being able to land another job despite constant attempts.

I agree that if you look hard enough you will eventually get a job, but the word "eventually" is a huge problem. That eventually can be a very, very long time. Hence, the unemployment statistics.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Unfortunately religion brings about more deaths than any other disease, addiction, etc....

Two Words: Mao Zedong.

I think that alone proves just how very factually deprived that statement is. Seriously, this one "fact" really gets my goat because of how incredibly wrong and undeniably egocentric it is. A little research on the situations of the world like Southern Africa, or a look at the real cause of the crusades I.E. they had good food and cool loot go a long ways to disproving that statement. They were not fanatics, every history teacher I talked to (And I took history in a VERY secular school) has pointed to the material benefits and greed as the cause of the crusade which just happened to be then blessed by the church.

I'm not going to blame you for this fact, lots of people say it without doing the research so I understand that it can be confused for fact. However, every time it comes up I do try and point to the actual facts. The crusades were not the blood fests we imagine. Since that time many, many more lives have been lost in single battles than the entire crusades. The terrorism in officially atheistic countries has killed several times more people than every religious war in the world.

Despite which, I would never say that atheists are blood mongers. No, that's wrong. The causes of war are independent of believes in who made the world. It's just good old fashioned greed same as two kids fighting over a toy.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Sorry, I didn't mean to make you feel alienated... I just feel that men shouldn't tell women what to do with their bodies, when they are the ones you are ultimately affected. I apologize if I hurt your feelings in the process.

I feel that I was wise to identify myself non-sexually on the internet every time I hear something like this.

To be fair, neither the woman getting the abortion nor any man alive can say what it is like be BE aborted. And even if they can't get one men have a wonderful thing known as empathy. Besides which there are many, many woman on the pro-life train and I see nothing wrong with choosing to back them. If there were no woman on the pro-life train than ya, I would see a possible argument. Yet, as is I feel this is just being purposefully discriminatory and bias.

I am probably the most pro sexual equality member of the old OT. I have lampooned and attacked many unfair depictions of girls. However, I have always done so with the intent of teaching. Understanding the differences between the sexes and empathizing even if you don't have those feelings yourself can be done.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: Bobabounty is this you?
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/rush-limbaugh-calls-law-student-a-slut-wanting-contraception-covered-health-insurance-religious-institutions-article-1.1031283
You're really Rush right?

Rush is an arse.

But at least he has good taste in music.

I don't feel singled out... well ok I sorta do, but not terribly so....in regards to the job statement, I too meant EVENTUALLY, you just have to look hard, and sometimes wide, which I don't feel a lot of people do. But that is a personal opinion not a fact. However, you have no clue how many resumes and applications I put out there... when you are supporting a family, it makes the pressure that much more. So let's just say... we filled out an equal number. :)

The religious statement about wars, I should have clarified a bit more.... let me rephrase.... people fight more in the name of god... but that doesn't mean that they don't have ulterior motives.

You are absolutely right I have no idea what it feels like to be aborted. And while I am pro-choice, I do believe there has to be limits to abortion. Such as no second trimester abortions etc. After a certain period of time, I think it is absolutely an inhumane thing to do, and that just because a fetus may not be viable does not mean that it can not feel etc...I agree that men can empathize, but empathizing isn't knowing how someone feels... and sadly most of the government is run by men, and I feel like a man shouldn't tell me what I can and can not do in regards to procreating. Granted, my opinion has been colored by my own experiences, of which I will not spill to all of you (I don't think that 1.any of you would really be interested in the whole story and 2. it's a bit too personal)..... so maybe I should say what my Dad told me growing up "Men have the option of walking away" and this doesn't just mean physically but emotionally as well. Whatever decision we make, yes you men are affected, and yes there are some very decent men out there that would step up and raise their children, or stand by their significant other should she choose to not have a baby, or many other areas in between.... but the level of feeling is different because you can't experience pregnancy, miscarriage, birth, or abortion the same way we can. And therefore, we should be allowed to make those decisions for ourselves.

OT Crime Lord Posts : 1585 Join date : 2011-08-15 Age : 45

Meatlocker wrote:

Bobabounty wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:: Providing health care for the poor using states, cities, and towns is still using government run programs but at the same time you are bankrupt the much poorer institutions of the states, cities and towns. Also if you force churches to provide health care you violate the first amendment to the constitution.

And the constitution was a coup it over threw the democratically elected government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation.

Who said anything about forcing churches to provide health care? I'd have them create the ability to provide for the poor who need it. So what if the church then doesn't provide contraceptives? If your poor you shouldn't be sleeping around anyways. And that DOES NOT violate the first amendment.... freedom of speech? You sir need to go read it. Seriously.

Meat... you really know nothing about the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. You need to either read them or not talk about the subject until you're educated.

Definition of a coup: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment.

The creation of the Constitution was made with the consent of all. Sure, there were a few loyalists. But the British lost. We gained control of the country per revolution. It was not unexpected. The Articles were very unstable and loose, and a strong law needed to be created.

Until you get well-versed on the matter, don't try to respond.

Okay Boba when I said that you seem against people getting Health Care who couldn't afford it you said no "the states, cities, towns, churches can provide it for them." You are the only person forcing people to provide Health Care.

On the U.S. Constitution:
I will not debate you on this topic because your willful ignorance is stopping you from making an informed decision but I will try to clear it up.

Shortly after defeating the British, in 1781 to be exact, the states elected to have a very weak central government under what is the Articles of Confederation. For the reasons listed below this did not work.

1. The British still had bases in North America.

2. The Central government could not tax.

3. Therefore no standing army or any real benefits.

So the federal government called a second continental congress to help asses all of the problems. On the second day of the convention they decided to overthrow the government under the articles of confederation and replace it with a new Constitution. So yes a coup.

Also here is the words of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am pretty sure it was less overthrowing of the government than an agreement amongst the men writing the constitution, of which I am pretty sure the men who wrote the articles of confederation were a part of both and a part of said government.... therefore, that's not overthrowing, that's more of ammending.. isn't it?

BananaGod Posts : 6603 Join date : 2011-02-12 Age : 32

Behold! The era of the long quotes...
1988th One to Post Wins: The Killing Joke! (998th person to post in second thread) - Page 30 2238782717

Detective Posts : 3622 Join date : 2011-02-06 Age : 30

Mistress Morrigan wrote:

Meatlocker wrote:

Bobabounty wrote:: Who said anything about forcing churches to provide health care? I'd have them create the ability to provide for the poor who need it. So what if the church then doesn't provide contraceptives? If your poor you shouldn't be sleeping around anyways. And that DOES NOT violate the first amendment.... freedom of speech? You sir need to go read it. Seriously.

Meat... you really know nothing about the Constitution or the Articles of Confederation. You need to either read them or not talk about the subject until you're educated.

Definition of a coup: a highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment.

The creation of the Constitution was made with the consent of all. Sure, there were a few loyalists. But the British lost. We gained control of the country per revolution. It was not unexpected. The Articles were very unstable and loose, and a strong law needed to be created.

Until you get well-versed on the matter, don't try to respond.

Okay Boba when I said that you seem against people getting Health Care who couldn't afford it you said no "the states, cities, towns, churches can provide it for them." You are the only person forcing people to provide Health Care.

On the U.S. Constitution:
I will not debate you on this topic because your willful ignorance is stopping you from making an informed decision but I will try to clear it up.

Shortly after defeating the British, in 1781 to be exact, the states elected to have a very weak central government under what is the Articles of Confederation. For the reasons listed below this did not work.

1. The British still had bases in North America.

2. The Central government could not tax.

3. Therefore no standing army or any real benefits.

So the federal government called a second continental congress to help asses all of the problems. On the second day of the convention they decided to overthrow the government under the articles of confederation and replace it with a new Constitution. So yes a coup.

Also here is the words of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am pretty sure it was less overthrowing of the government than an agreement amongst the men writing the constitution, of which I am pretty sure the men who wrote the articles of confederation were a part of both and a part of said government.... therefore, that's not overthrowing, that's more of ammending.. isn't it?

No, the Anti-Federalists wrote the Articles of Confederation, giving more power to states than the federal government, and were only a minor presence at the Continental Congress, which is why the Federal Government is much stronger than individual state governments. After the ratification of the U.S. Constitution you had a complete overthrow of the government. Cyrus Griffin was thrown from office and elections were held for a new President of the United States. While bloodless all historians still look at it as a coup.

The Joker wrote:: Behold! The era of the long quotes...

Well hey... we're gonna meet our post quota this month at this rate.

Hey guys... gimme a country that could go through a revolution in the next 1 to 10 years for a new story I'm planning...

Don't you dare say the USA.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: I don't feel singled out... well ok I sorta do, but not terribly so....in regards to the job statement, I too meant EVENTUALLY, you just have to look hard, and sometimes wide, which I don't feel a lot of people do. But that is a personal opinion not a fact. However, you have no clue how many resumes and applications I put out there... when you are supporting a family, it makes the pressure that much more. So let's just say... we filled out an equal number. :)

I should have clarified, I said that I probably filled out more, because I spent over two years where that was effectively my job. I don't doubt that you could have filled out more in a month than me, but I had a lot longer go.

Mistress Morrigan wrote:: You are absolutely right [I like to cut down on quote size.], birth, or abortion the same way we can. And therefore, we should be allowed to make those decisions for ourselves.

Yes, a guy doesn't experience the emotions. But that in no way precludes having an educated opinion. I have never heard an argument were they argue against women. Only arguing for the baby.

I understand that you have had experiences that color the way you feel, but it is important to understand that others have also had experiences and came out with much different views. I always educate myself and I have heard anti-abortion arguments from those with first hand experience.

Still, the core argument is when does life begin? Having done an abortion doesn't teach you that. Only science or morals can establish such a truth.

If it was only an argument were we knew that life had not started, but whether or not a guy gets a say in it happening or not then you would have a perfect argument. I would disagree with such guys enforcing power over a girl like that. However, this is not the argument most people are fighting. Maybe some are, but no one here is.

Scott wrote:

The Joker wrote:: Behold! The era of the long quotes...

Well hey... we're gonna meet our post quota this month at this rate.

True, and we're doing it on touchy subjects without an out and out flame war starting, yet. I think that says just how awesome the people on OT are. ^_^

After 5 pages of mlloking for my last comment and its respone (if any), I got sick of looking for it (thru all these goddam paragraphs and just found the most entertaining post

Daroska wrote:: ALL HAIL THE ALMIGHTY BURKIE TOADIE ADMIN!

ALL GLORY TO THE BURKIEMAN!

*hypnosis*

So... Branch didn't win?

Detective Posts : 3622 Join date : 2011-02-06 Age : 30

Bobabounty wrote:: Hey guys... gimme a country that could go through a revolution in the next 1 to 10 years for a new story I'm planning...

Don't you dare say the USA.

China.

Bobabounty wrote:: Hey guys... gimme a country that could go through a revolution in the next 1 to 10 years for a new story I'm planning...

Don't you dare say the USA.

N Korea
Somalia
Nepal
Antarctica
Dantooine
Dobrovolski
Jartar
Mah Pants

MrEvilDude wrote:: Dantooine
Mah Pants

I hear the situations there have been...

Blowing up.

TheMortonator. wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:: Dantooine
Mah Pants

I hear the situations there have been...

Daww..

$I\\'m awesome$

Blowing up.

FIXED.

BananaGod Posts : 6603 Join date : 2011-02-12 Age : 32

Bobabounty wrote:: Hey guys... gimme a country that could go through a revolution in the next 1 to 10 years for a new story I'm planning...

Don't you dare say the USA.

Though you can really use one...
you

I'll probably go with Korea...

MrEvilDude wrote:

TheMortonator. wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:: Dantooine
Mah Pants

I hear the situations there have been...

Daww..

$I\\'m awesome$

Blowing up.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAH!

FIXED.

fixt teh fixed... >.>

Scott wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:

TheMortonator. wrote:: I hear the situations there have been...

$I\\'m awesome$

Blowing up.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAH!

FIXED.

fixed the fixed... >.>

Fixed the Fixed WITHIN a fixed...

FIX-CEPTION

MrEvilDude wrote:

Scott wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:

TheMortonator. wrote:: I hear the situations there have been...

$I\\'m awesome$

Blowing up.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAH!

FIXED.

fixed the fixed... >.>

Fixed the Fixed WITHIN a fixed...

FIX-CEPTION

... what did you fix?

Scott wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:

Scott wrote:: fixed the fixed... >.>

Fixed the Fixed WITHIN a fixed...

FIX-CEPTION

... what did you fix?

ORIGINAL: "fixt teh fixed"

NOW: fixed the fixed...

this is the part where you go... no...just no

MrEvilDude wrote:

Scott wrote:

MrEvilDude wrote:

Scott wrote:: fixed the fixed... >.>

Fixed the Fixed WITHIN a fixed...

FIX-CEPTION

... what did you fix?

ORIGINAL: "fixt teh fixed"

NOW: fixed the fixed...

this is the part where you go... no...just no

bawls.... liek dem or dunt

Next up... gay marriage.

aaaaaaaaannndd... GO!

» 1988th One to Post Wins: The Killing Joke! (998th person to post in second thread)
» 353rd One to Post Wins: Post Harder
» Last One to Post Wins
» First One to post on page 10 wins :)
» Post like the person above you.