This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Recycle Bin 2.0.1 (Randomness Revived)
Return to board index
Post by
Lombax
Owned.
Owning other human beings is bad.
According to completly random made up facts that does not exist, you are wrong.
Post by
Adamsm
Yes, I @#$%ed up saying that America had pulled out all it's forces from Afghanistan, but you can't honestly say that the country is stable...at all, considering the amount of crap that is still going on there.
Other then that, dropping it, and won't post in the thread anymore, to keep it 'on topic'.
Post by
Haxzor
its Tuesday.
WHERE IS MY RB?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Owning other human beings is good. You need to prove your superiority.
If you need to prove your superiority you are inferior to the person who is not bound by such a need, and therefore you are not superior and thus cannot prove as much.
Post by
Lombax
WHERE'S MY CHUTNEY!1!
Captcha:wasstint thinking
Post by
Monday
its Tuesday.
WHERE IS MY RB?
This liar lies.
Post by
Anmity
Owning other human beings is good. You need to prove your superiority.
If you need to prove your superiority you are inferior to the person who is not bound by such a need, and therefore you are not superior and thus cannot prove as much.
Oh, but that person is also bound by such a need. He/she is simply inferior and uncapable of owning anyone.
Post by
Patty
Owning other human beings is good. You need to prove your superiority.
If you need to prove your superiority you are inferior to the person who is not bound by such a need, and therefore you are not superior and thus cannot prove as much.
We put owning into your ownage so you can own people while they own you. Inception: amidoinitrite?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Oh, but that person is also bound by such a need. He/she is inferior and uncapable of owning anyone.
If they are not superior they they cannot prove their superiority and thus are not bound by the need to prove their superiority and thus are superior. Thus the superiority of the inferior is never inferior to the inferiority of the superior, but neither can the superiority of the inferior be superior to the inferiority of the superior.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
We.
Must.
Go.
DEEPER.
Post by
Anmity
Oh, but that person is also bound by such a need. He/she is inferior and uncapable of owning anyone.
If they are not superior they they cannot prove their superiority and thus are not bound by the need to prove their superiority and thus are superior.
If they are not superior they cannot prove their superiority but since they still wish to prove their superiority they are inferior.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We.
Must.
Go.
DERPER.
Fix't.
Post by
Treskol
I have a sudden urge to go deeper. I follow Funden.
Post by
Patty
I have a sudden urge to go deeper. I follow Funden.
Want your bad bromance. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS.
Post by
Anmity
I have a sudden urge to go DERPER. I follow Hyperspacerebel.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Y u ded tho?
You ate it.
Post by
Monday
Adams, change your avatar. I always think it's Elura posting =P
Post by
Anmity
Adams, change your avatar. I always think it's Elura posting =P
They're not really
that
similar.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.
