World class pedantic dickweedery
-
@beginner_ said:
anyone denying humans caused global warming is just plain stupid.
Obvious troll is being obvious again. And it's "climate change," not "global warming" for reasons stated up-thread.
-
@beginner_ said:
mayas
Kinda, but it's not super-clear what happened.
@beginner_ said:
egpytians
No, that was competition from neighbouring peoples, and "Egypt" as a singular concept never was really destroyed or overthrown outright. It changed, split up, got back together, got new rule, changed again, got another new rule, etc etc. over the course of its entire existence.
@beginner_ said:
romans
No, same thing, sort of. Growing political instability allowed neighbouring peoples to come and fuck shit up.
-
@Cenan said:
This entrenched attitude being portrayed in this thread is really depressing.
I totally agree. What is it with all these new posters demanding we follow some unproven science? Oops - you're one of them - sorry.
-
@beginner_ said:
No wonder you Americans pollute the whole world...seriously fucked up attitude.
WTF? You're just jealous that we have nicer things (yes, including natural environments) than you do. But that doesn't mean you need to make shit like this up.
@beginner_ said:
You do know that every major civilization (mayas, egpytians, romans,...) failed due to environmental problems they caused themselves? Just that those problems were minor compared to global warming. and anyone denying humans caused global warming is just plain stupid.
You've really drunk the kool-aid, huh? I don't think many people deny that our actions haven't affected things, though I think Roger Pielke Sr has a strong case that local land use has affected things a lot more than the gasses we've restored to the atmosphere.
I wonder what the communists and their useful idiots will be raving about in another 50 years?
-
@boomzilla said:
WTF? You're just jealous that we have nicer things (yes, including natural environments) than you do.
But but... all you have that is better than Yuropya is those natural environments.
And a better space program, I think.
And city cabs.
But that's about it.
-
@dhromed said:
But but... all you have that is better than Yuropya is those natural environments.
And a better space program, I think.
And city cabs.
But that's about it.
Better freedom.
Better guns (civilian and military).
Better sovereignty.
Better cultural assimilation of immigrants.
Better gas prices.
Better natural gas prices.
Better wine.
Better cars.
But that's about all I have time to think up.
-
@boomzilla said:
@dhromed said:
But, we have Dhromed's ass. Call it a draw?But but... all you have that is better than Yuropya is those natural environments.
And a better space program, I think.
And city cabs.
But that's about it.
Better freedom.
Better guns (civilian and military).
Better sovereignty.
Better cultural assimilation of immigrants.
Better gas prices.
Better natural gas prices.
Better wine.
Better cars.
But that's about all I have time to think up.
-
@Ben L. said:
The size of the car is inversely proportional to the size of the nearest man's genitals.
Does that mean there's a crossover point where if a man gets excited while driving, he'll break the axel?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@Ben L. said:
The size of the car is inversely proportional to the size of the nearest man's genitals.
Does that mean there's a crossover point where if a man gets excited while driving, he'll break the axel?
No, but he'll die from being crushed by his car.
-
I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I do deny that (wo)man is having any notable effect on it. Climate change has always happened.
I'm with Morbius on much of this
oh and by the way, stating opinion (even the opinion of many) and expecting it to be accepted as irrefutable fact is not science...
-
@skotl said:
I don't deny that climate change is happening, but I do deny that (wo)man is having any notable effect on it. Climate change has always happened.
I'm with Morbius on much of this
oh and by the way, stating opinion (even the opinion of many) and expecting it to be accepted as irrefutable fact is not science...
"man" is short for "human". What the fuck is a huwoman?
-
-
There shall be no drawing of my ass.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
1) There is a well-measured, statistically significant historical correlation between ice cream consumption and mean global surface temperature.
FTFY
2) We know people eat ice cream primarily when it is hot out.
2b) The production of ice cream requires burning fossil fuel thereby putting carbon in the atmosphere
- Therefore, ice cream is causing global warming.
-
@boomzilla said:
Better guns (civilian and military).
What gun is better than the Belgian-made P90 in the same category?
-
@bjolling said:
@boomzilla said:
Better guns (civilian and military).
What gun is better than the Belgian-made P90 in the same category?Never heard of it before, but it appears to be in service in the US, so we have those, too.
-
@bjolling said:
@boomzilla said:
Better guns (civilian and military).
What gun is better than the Belgian-made P90 in the same category?A Jaffa staff weapon.
Seriously, though, he's an American. He thinks he can fix global climate destabilization by shooting it, and denies it's happening even though the most powerful tornado ever recorded just took away half of Oklahoma to Oz.
-
@drurowin said:
A Jaffa staff weapon.
I wouldn't mind having one.
@drurowin said:
He thinks he can fix global climate destabilization by shooting it, and denies it's happening even though the most powerful tornado ever recorded just took away half of Oklahoma to Oz.
TDEMSYR
You're probably embarrassing Nagesh. Or maybe he already thinks all Hyderabadiots are retards. Who can keep up with third world prejudices?
-
-
My take on this is just that we are making measurable and irreversible changes to our environment with very little data as to what the ramifications are. I would think the only prudent course of action would be to proceed with caution and try to minimize our impact on our ecology until there's sufficient hard data saying it's safe.
That is, I feel the burden of proof falls on the other side. Being unnecessarily careful with the environment has lesser consequences than failing to be careful if it turns out it was necessary.
-
@joe.edwards said:
That is, I feel the burden of proof falls on the other side. Being unnecessarily careful with the environment has lesser consequences than failing to be careful if it turns out it was necessary.
It depends on what you mean by "being unnecessarily careful" means. Also, a lot of the ideas for "being careful" end up having opposite consequences.
-
@Severity One said:
What car was that?
The building contractor one.
-
@beginner_ said:
No wonder you Americans pollute the whole world...seriously fucked up attitude.
No, it's actually just an understanding of science and history. Don't worry, you'll get there someday! (Or not. I don't really care.)
@beginner_ said:
You do know that every major civilization (mayas, egpytians, romans,...) failed due to environmental problems they caused themselves?
No, because that's utter bullshit. Jesus Christ, what kind of retards do they have teaching in your schools?
-
@Cenan said:
We can't do anything about climate change, since we don't have much clue what is causing it.
Yes. Would you prefer that we run around like chickens with our heads cut off and probably make things worse?
@Cenan said:
So we should just ignore the problem altogether since alarmists and religious fanatics have taken over the debate?
I didn't say that. Where did I say that? My point is that our understanding of the problem is far, far too nascent at this point. (In fact, I'm not even convinced there is a problem..) In 50 or 100 years, we'll have a better understanding of how the climate works. My guess is humans are having some small impact on it, but most of it is just the same instability which has always marked Earth's history. Then in 100 or 150 years, we might have the engineering wherewithal to stabilize the climate, once-and-for-all.
Right now? There isn't shit we can do except study the problem. Any "solutions" we try now are going to be half-baked, at best, and will likely make things worse. And eviscerating our economies to reduce CO2 output isn't the answer; if the hysterics are right (and I doubt they are) then we're already fucked ourselves pretty good; we're going to need advanced technologies--the kind only a functioning economy can produce--to fix things.
My prediction: people realize Earth's climate is just prone to instability. The last couple hundred years--when people could actually be arsed to measure the climate and have thoughts about it other than "Shit it's cold, better put on another mammoth pelt.."--were unusually stable in the grand scheme of things (and they weren't even that stable). We'll realize that our rapid industrialization locked us into a particular, acceptable climate and we'll devise ways to guarantee the climate stays within acceptable ranges.
-
@dhromed said:
@beginner_ said:
romans
No, same thing, sort of. Growing political instability allowed neighbouring peoples to come and fuck shit up.
Also, the Roman Empire simply evolved into a the Middle Ages feudal states. We have this notion of Rome "falling" and plunging us into dark ages, but recent scholarship has shown this to be inaccurate. Really, things just decentralized, mostly because the centralized Empire was having so many internal conflicts and mismanagement. Christianity had spread throughout Europe before the Imperial age ended, and the Church became a new way for Rome to exert political and economic control over Europe.
Eventually that control weakened, but remember, it took 1000 years for that to happen. During that time, many of the European nations were being ruled by a small number of noble families--the practical successors to the Roman Emperors. And many of those royal families are still with us to this day, as is the Bishop of Rome, albeit with significantly less power and influence.
-
@bjolling said:
@boomzilla said:
Better guns (civilian and military).
What gun is better than the Belgian-made P90 in the same category?I always thought the P90 looked really gay. I mean, I'm sure it's a great gun, but.. gay.
I do like the .357 SIG round, though, although that's Swisso-Deutsche, not Belgian.
Belgian chocolate is pretty good. Also, you have some of the finest, most mind-bogglingly inefficient bureaucracy in the world.
-
@dhromed said:
But but... all you have that is better than Yuropya is those natural environments.
Don't underestimate the value of that one.
We also have:
- Loads of natural resources
- World-class scientific leadership
- Better healthcare (although we're falling to your level on that one..)
- Better food. We have everything your country has, plus the rest of Europe, plus practically every other country on Earth.
- Better music. It's a scientific fact that Africans are the only people with rhythm. We have loads of 'em!
- Hot ethnic chicks. If I only had chinless, pasty-faced European ladies to make love at, I'd be sad.
- Great beer. Honestly, I've never had European beer that's as good. Like you, Dutchman: Heineken? WTF?
- An extremely successful, vibrant multi-cultural, multi-racial society. You guys tried that and got Muslims hacking apart people in the streets and burning up cars and buildings.
Of course, we also have a lot of shitty stuff. What most Europeans seem to not get is that America is a vast, vast heterogeneous country. Your countries are more like our states and our country is more like the EU, except we're significantly more diverse than the EU in many ways. The difference is your borders are national, linguistic, legal, cultural and historical. We don't really have that. You can travel just a few miles practically anywhere in the US and see considerable diversity.
-
@Salamander said:
@dhromed said:
There shall be no drawing of my ass.
How about sketching?
Pics or GTFO
-
@drurowin said:
..the most powerful tornado ever recorded just took away half of Oklahoma to Oz.
Bullshit. By US standards, that wasn't even that big of a tornado. What's more, the last 30 years have been extremely quiet, tornado-wise. We had much more frequent, larger tornadoes from in the first half of the 20th century than in the second.
-
I don't mind people being careful about the environment. What I do mind is when they come up with stupid crap to "save the environment" that accomplishes nothing helpful.
Warning, rant/essay incoming.
Example:
Diesel pickups. I have the latest-model Chevy pickup with a diesel engine you can have before the EPA started requiring all kinds of pollution controls. That year was 2004.
Some interesting facts. My diesel pickup weighs around 7,000 pounds, can seat 5, has four doors, barely fits in any parking lot in town, has NO pollution controls at all (straight pipe with a muffler). It also gets 23 - 25 mpg highway (about 16 mpg in town, which is still better mileage than my old gas V6 pickup got on the highway) and has no visible pollution. No black smoke no matter how hard I push it or how much weight I'm pulling.
Now if you know any of the Dodge/Cummins guys, you know they like to blow black smoke everywhere. They even do this stock because Dodge puts undersized turbos on and the engine doesn't get enough air. And they think this is cool and often mod their engines to produce more black smoke than normal.
This understandably made people mad. I hate when big lifted pickups leave clouds of black smoke everywhere. But what happened was the EPA started cracking down and forced auto makers to add things to reduce black smoke. Such as
- Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR): Some of your exhaust gets blown back into the air intake of your engine. Imagine running a race with a straw connecting your anus to your mouth. This reduces some kind of emission or another, but lowers combustion temperatures and hurts the efficiency of your engine, meaning you need to burn more fuel for the same amount of power as a non-EGR engine.
- Crankcase vent reroute: Engines used to vent the crankcase into the atmosphere. They decided this was bad and now it's directed into your air intake. Now you've got oil and exhaust in your intake, this makes some of the grossest sludge you'll ever see. Kinda like tar mixed with chocolate pudding. And that plugs things up and reduces efficiency. I guess this is like having the straw connecting your anus to your mouth, but now there's anal seepage involved.
- Diesel particulate filter (DPF): A filter in your exhaust to remove soot particles. When the filter's full and plugged up, it dumps raw diesel fuel into the filter and ignites it to burn all the soot out. This happens every 1,000 miles or so (depends on how you drive), and can last for 150 miles. While it's happening your mpg can drop into single digits. Yep, when this happens you'll be getting 9 mpg for the next 150 miles. Really efficient. Now you've got a handkerchief permanently attached to your nose, on the off-chance that you might sneeze. Makes it harder to breathe out.
- Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF): Politically-correct term for urine. Yes, piss. It gets injected directly into your exhaust stream. Not only do you have to buy fuel, you have to buy overpriced urine and keep this tank full too. And you can't ignore it because if you run out your computer will stall the engine until you get more. So if you have bad breath, you've gotta piss into your own throat with each exhale because the urine is more pleasant than your halitosis.
If you get a new diesel pickup, don't count on much more than 15 mpg. Suddenly, diesels are on par with gas trucks as far as efficiency, and one of the major reasons to get a diesel is totally eradicated. And all because highschoolers in their Dodge pickups like black smoke. Oh, by the way, the Dodge folks usually remove all those pollution controls so they can continue to smoke. And that usually causes the EPA to come up with more stupid equipment that bogs trucks down and accomplishes nothing because the Dodge owners take them off anyway.
The EPA is actually in the business of making vehicles less reliable, less efficient, and increasing fuel consumption--and by increasing fuel consumption you're also increasing carbon dioxide emissions.
Unfortunately this is typical of "environmentalism" in North America. There are similar stories with glass recycling (get this, Missouri doesn't have glass recycling and Iowa does, I live 20 miles from Iowa but they won't take our bottles because they're coded for Missouri, meaning we can't even recycleand we're forced to be wasteful and throw them in the landfills instead), compact fluorescent lightbulbs, and batteries.
It's one thing to try to protect the environment. It's another thing to do stupid stuff that is wasteful, expensive, and harmful to the environment in the name of helping the environment.
End rant.
-
@joe.edwards said:
Being unnecessarily careful with the environment has lesser consequences than failing to be careful if it turns out it was necessary.
That doesn't make sense. You're falling into the trap of thinking "If humans do it, it must be worse". For example, we're due for another ice age at some point. What if CO2 is holding that off? A few degrees of warming would be far, far less damaging than what Nature could do to us.
The point is we don't know. It's that old environmentalist fallacy that what Nature does must be better because it's more "pure". But Nature can inflict horrific devastation without our help. There's absolutely no reason to think that trying to minimize our CO2 emissions is preferable to doing nothing when we don't even know what the outcome of either choice will be.
-
@mott555 said:
Engines used to vent the crankcase into the atmosphere. They decided this was bad and now it's directed into your air intake.
I'm not sure about diesel pickups, but crankcase ventilation into the intake manifold has been standard on gas engines for decades. And it's really a good idea, because venting the crankcase to the air creates a lot of particulate pollution.
@mott555 said:
There are similar stories with glass recycling (get this, Missouri doesn't have glass recycling and Iowa does, I live 20 miles from Iowa but they won't take our bottles because they're coded for Missouri, meaning we can't even recycleand we're forced to be wasteful and throw them in the landfills instead)...
I wouldn't even worry about recycling glass: we're not running out of the raw materials anytime soon, and glass takes forever to break down in a landfill, which is a good thing--it's not going to create toxic runoff or anything. Burying it is probably the most ecological thing you can do.
@mott555 said:
It's one thing to try to protect the environment. It's another thing to do stupid stuff that is wasteful, expensive, and harmful to the environment in the name of helping the environment.
Have you bought a gas can in the last few years? The EPA and CARB (California Assholes Ruining.. stuff..) came out with all these regulations that completely fucked-over the simple gas can. For example, they have some safety spout that requires you to depress a lever while pouring out gas. Have you ever tried to heft a 5 gallon gas can, pour it carefully into a mower while keeping the spout from flying loose and flinging gas into your eyes and depress a fucking lever? You end up dumping gas everywhere. Seriously, I have not seen a single person use one of these new cans who doesn't end up dumping gas all over the place. That's gotta be good for the environment, right?
And they not longer have vents. So get ready to hold that 5 gallon can for 3 minutes while half a gallon chugs out. And since there's no vent, you can't leave the screw cap loosened to let the gas expand and contract. So what happens is the plastic cans bulge out in a way that is honestly terrifying, or they suck in so bad you think they're being sucked into a black hole. Either way, it feels way more dangerous than just letting them vent. I started buying metal cans, because at least they will retain their shape. But of course they still build up pressure, so when I go to open them up I have to be very careful or else the cap will blow off like a mortar round.. I had one fly 30 feet the other day. And it's got to be safe, having a sudden expulsion of highly-pressurized gasoline fumes released all around you..
-
@mott555 said:
Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR): Some of your exhaust gets blown back into the air intake of your engine. Imagine running a race with a straw connecting your anus to your mouth. This reduces some kind of emission or another, but lowers combustion temperatures and hurts the efficiency of your engine, meaning you need to burn more fuel for the same amount of power as a non-EGR engine.
Not wholly true. At least on spark ignition engines it provides a performance benefit by reducing pumping losses. With diesels that's obviously not going to happen. You still get various advantages from lower temperatures of combustion, but they're pretty negligible. Still, NOx emissions are bad stuff, and that's nothing to do with the Rollin' Coal fucktards - they're genuinely worth cleaning up at the expense of a small amount of power/efficiency.@mott555 said:
Crankcase vent reroute: Engines used to vent the crankcase into the atmosphere. They decided this was bad and now it's directed into your air intake. Now you've got oil and exhaust in your intake, this makes some of the grossest sludge you'll ever see. Kinda like tar mixed with chocolate pudding. And that plugs things up and reduces efficiency. I guess this is like having the straw connecting your anus to your mouth, but now there's anal seepage involved.
It is bad. Very bad. Small quantities, but small quantities of nasty stuff we don't want to spray into the air. The quantities of non-burnable stuff are pretty minimal, though, and I've never before heard anyone claiming they could cause any noticeable problems.@mott555 said:
One or the other, not both. Either you regenerate by burning diesel - which, incidentally, takes 10-15 minutes and doesn't noticeably impact fuel economy (on most engines, I can't say I've checked every single one) because it uses almost no fuel - or you have a urea system.- Diesel particulate filter (DPF): A filter in your exhaust to remove soot particles. When the filter's full and plugged up, it dumps raw diesel fuel into the filter and ignites it to burn all the soot out. This happens every 1,000 miles or so (depends on how you drive), and can last for 150 miles. While it's happening your mpg can drop into single digits. Yep, when this happens you'll be getting 9 mpg for the next 150 miles. Really efficient. Now you've got a handkerchief permanently attached to your nose, on the off-chance that you might sneeze. Makes it harder to breathe out.
- Diesel exhaust fluid (DEF): Politically-correct term for urine. Yes, piss. It gets injected directly into your exhaust stream. Not only do you have to buy fuel, you have to buy overpriced urine and keep this tank full too. And you can't ignore it because if you run out your computer will stall the engine until you get more. So if you have bad breath, you've gotta piss into your own throat with each exhale because the urine is more pleasant than your halitosis.
@mott555 said:
If you get a new diesel pickup, don't count on much more than 15 mpg.
Thanks to CAFE, not emissions controls. Now that really is a daft set of regs, but then it's really designed to prop up the US truck-manufacturers, not help the environment.@mott555 said:
Unfortunately this is typical of "environmentalism" in North America. ... It's one thing to try to protect the environment. It's another thing to do stupid stuff that is wasteful, expensive, and harmful to the environment in the name of helping the environment.
Agreed. One of the ones which particularly annoys me is the destruction of unique flora and fauna in various parts of the world to plant sisal in order to make more-recyclable paper.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I wouldn't even worry about recycling glass: we're not running out of the raw materials anytime soon, and glass takes forever to break down in a landfill, which is a good thing--it's not going to create toxic runoff or anything. Burying it is probably the most ecological thing you can do.
In the EU, most 'recycled' glass ends up being crushed and used for roadbeds where otherwise we'd use sand. Makes no damn sense at all. It would be a lot easier just to quarry more sand.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I wouldn't even worry about recycling glass: we're not running out of the raw materials anytime soon, and glass takes forever to break down in a landfill, which is a good thing--it's not going to create toxic runoff or anything. Burying it is probably the most ecological thing you can do.
Glass recycling is an interesting thing. When you hear about some recycling goal (20%, 50%, etc) it's usually measured by weight. And of stuff that households recycle, glass is super heavy. Of course, recycling glass is good in that putting it in with the sand to actually reduces the point at which the sand turns into glass. Of course, factory rejects and the like are also used for this, so I'm not sure how much of a benefit the recycling is.
But I have heard about times when the price was so low, it would have been too expensive to ship to wherever the nearest recycling plant was (it was Arizona to L.A., IIRC) that they just dumped it in the landfill anyways. The nice thing about landfills is that we know right where all sorts of stuff is for when it becomes valuable enough in the future to dig it back up.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
Agreed. One of the ones which particularly annoys me is the destruction of unique flora and fauna in various parts of the world to plant sisal in order to make more-recyclable paper.
Yeah, there are a hundred things like that--actual ecological damage being caused to give the impression of caring about the environment. It's sickening.
The funny thing is, I would consider myself an environmentalist. I like nature more than I like humanity, and I tend to find human development an eyesore. I approve of withholding huge tracts of land from development because I want to limit society's encroachment onto natural land. But because I demand that my ecological "solutions" have scientific evidence to back them up, I apparently hate nature, unlike my moral superiors who live in NYC and SF and who have never set foot in anything greener than a city park.
-
@Severity One said:
In the case of the woman I'm married to
The terminology is "wife", I believe.
@Severity One said:
she loves it, particularly that it's red.
Must... resist... childish puerile inuendo-laden comment....
A UK study of vehcles involved in collisions showed that red ones are amongst the lower-incident numbers - presumably because they stand out and other drivers are more aware of them. Conversely, the colour most involved in collisions is the bland silver-grey corporate colour that seems quite predominant today. I know I've had several near-misses with the latter, particularly in foggy/rainy conditions when drivers of said vehicles decline to use headlights and are near-invisible.
ISTR some report that showed more accidents in the one year BT changed their vans to battleship gr[a|e]y then in the 3-5 years when they were previously right yellow - when they were vans at the bottom of telegraph poles that people recognised as a distant hazard. Colour definitely has an affect upon target acquisition.
-
@boomzilla said:
yes, including natural environments
I'm not certain many residents of Oklahoma would agree right now.
-
-
@Cassidy said:
@boomzilla said:
yes, including natural environments
I'm not certain many residents of Oklahoma would agree right now.
Eh, Nature's a harsh mistress. Beautiful, but constantly trying to kill you. (Sort of like all the chicks I've banged..)
That's kind of the point I've been trying to make here. Nature is mad unpredictable. There are too many people who just assume Nature is supposed to be docile and stable, and that any instability they notice must be the fault of global warming or some other human behavior, which is absurd.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Soo.. normal British weather, then.
Hey, it was sunny yesterday![1]
@morbiuswilters said:Eh, Nature's a harsh mistress
Doesn't explain why she's got a reputation for being a bitch in specific geographical locations, mind.
[1] yes, a momentus occasion.
-
@Cassidy said:
Doesn't explain why she's got a reputation for being a bitch in specific geographical locations, mind.
It's a leftist liberal conspiracy funded by a Democrat-backed PAC to discredit her in key post-gerrymandered runnings.
Obviously.
-
@Cassidy said:
"I love summer. It's my favourite day of the year."@morbiuswilters said:
Soo.. normal British weather, then.
Hey, it was sunny yesterday![1]
-
@Cassidy said:
@boomzilla said:
yes, including natural environments
I'm not certain many residents of Oklahoma would agree right now.That's because you don't know what you're talking about. I'm certain that if you went to OK and said the place wasn't beautiful or awesome (even in the wake of a tornado) they'd probably kick the shit out of you.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@TDWTF123 said:
Women love men in tiny cars. Small cars are cool.
Mebee in Yurop..
Let me make this simpler for someone well learnèd as yourself:
The size of the car is inversely proportional to the size of the nearest man's genitals.
Which is why being gang raped by Clowns is so terrifying.
-
@bgodot said:
TIL clown genitals are attached to their feet@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@TDWTF123 said:
Women love men in tiny cars. Small cars are cool.
Mebee in Yurop..
Let me make this simpler for someone well learnèd as yourself:
The size of the car is inversely proportional to the size of the nearest man's genitals.
Which is why being gang raped by Clowns is so terrifying.
-
@Ben L. said:
@bgodot said:
Doesn't matter; had sexWhich is why being gang raped by Clowns is so terrifying.
TIL clown genitals are attached to their feetWait, what site is this again?
-
@Zecc said:
Doesn't matter; had sex
Wait, what site is this again?
>check out these dubs!I actually went on /b/ a few months ago after a several year hiatus, and it's awful (inb4 /b/ was never good). Or rather, it's just as cancerous as it ever was, but I had naively hoped that maybe there was some new material or something, but nope. Just the same old "new fags can't triforce" and cam whores. But they had installed some sort of spam filter (at least, when I tried to post I got blocked as "our system thinks your post is spam") but it didn't fucking work in the slightest.
-
@Zecc said:
@Cassidy said:
In Phoenix, we get an average of seven inches of rain each year.
"I love summer. It's my favourite day of the year."@morbiuswilters said:
Soo.. normal British weather, then.
Hey, it was sunny yesterday![1]
You just don't want to be here on the day it falls.
-
@da Doctah said:
Phoenix
"111 degrees? Phoenix can't really be that hot, can it? ... Oh my God! It's like standing on the sun!"
"This city should not exist. It is a monument to man's arrogance."
