Log in

View Full Version : Existence?


WICKED
Sep 14th, 2005, 10:54 PM
It will come as a surprise to anyone whose read my things that I will try to be less of a douche in this one.

As you may or may not know about me, I am either atheist or agnostic, depending on what kind of mood I'm in. The biggest reason that I am such is because the existence of God doesn't make logical sense to me. If everything that exists exists because God made it so, then how did God's existence come to be? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Bible answers this anywhere. The funny thing is, if you trace the universe back in time from a scientific standpoint, the question of existence is still not answered.

And thus, I pose the question to all of you:

Why existence?

Preechr
Sep 14th, 2005, 11:02 PM
The short answer is that that's up to you.

WICKED
Sep 14th, 2005, 11:38 PM
The thing is that I really want to know what people of all of all schools of thought have to say on this subject. Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought. This egocentric species of ours seems to like to trace events UP TO and including the "creation" of our universe and leave it at that. Why existence exists [a double positive?] is usually left unanswered.

King Hadas
Sep 15th, 2005, 12:03 AM
Your question might sound extremely wise and deep but in context with reality it's actually pretty stupid.

Sethomas
Sep 15th, 2005, 12:12 AM
Actually, Leibniz beat himself up for not being able to answer the question Why does something exist rather than nothing? Philosophers have essentially given up on it, as even the atheist Owen Flanagan asserts.

The conceptualized god is necessary as being any cause that lacks causation for itself. If you want, you could put the Plank-sized nugget in the place of god before the Big Bang, but I've argued elsewhere against the cogency of doing such.

ziggytrix
Sep 15th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought.

Mighty arrogant of you to assume this, but then you're like 17 and full of yourself, aren't you?

Most questions about the nature of reality that start with the word "why" are unanswerable. Might as well ask an ant what a lawnmower is.

kahljorn
Sep 15th, 2005, 02:39 PM
To an ant a lawnmower is a VRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEREREEEREREEEEERER
CHOPCHOPCHOPCHopCPCHOCP

The answer to the question of existence can be found in sacred geometry, in which there is an answer. Just like there is an answer in any form of mythology, whether babylonian or Greek. For example, most mythologies have something called the "Great void" or an, "OCean of chaos" or a "Great dragon of the ocean of chaos and void". Usually, these 'dragons'(because they are almost always dragons, like tiamat) are usually slain by some God or King( tiamat was slain by marduk) and out of their innards are made the universe. In sacred geometry the Circle is considered female and void and supposedly the universe came out of it.
Other than that, it's easy to assume that the natural state of existence would be nothingness, but maybe that's not the natural state, at least in how you understand nothing . Or maybe the natural state is nothingness, like the Nirvana of Hindu and you just can't understand nothingness in the right sense because you don't understand the nature of the universe. Good ol' hindu's, inventor of the Zero.

kellychaos
Sep 15th, 2005, 04:03 PM
If I were vain, I would assume that I created all that my sense experience perceives. How can you prove you to me? >: But then, vanity would then lead me to exclude all the ugly that I perceive. Why would I do that? So then, I'm back to zero. Damn Hindus! :/

P.S. I am so full of shit. :lol :lol :lol :lol

kahljorn
Sep 15th, 2005, 04:07 PM
According to hindus a piece of zero lies within you. Loser.

kellychaos
Sep 15th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Zero is part of my subset as well as the negative and irrational numbers. >:

WICKED
Sep 15th, 2005, 05:24 PM
It doesn'y make any sense that philosophers have given up on it, though. If they are the "lovers of knowledge" that their title says they are, why wouldn't they be in constant pursuit of the answer to the most basic of questions?

Anyway, is it even really a philosopher's problem? I'd like to say it's a job for science, but that could be almost as ludicrous.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Emu
Sep 15th, 2005, 05:54 PM
Scientists don't answer the "why" questions, they answer the "how" questions.

And philosophers have all but given up on the "why existence" question because it's nigh impossible to answer. Although I'm sure you've got it all figured out, right?

CaptainBubba
Sep 15th, 2005, 06:25 PM
If one believes in infinite time isn't the origin of existence kind of a moot point? Kinda like trying to find the beginning of a line, or the end of a ray?

I know alot of religious people think otherwise so discounting them.

Also I know alot of scientific people think the universe will conmtinue exapnding until all matter is so far spread from eachother and so "cold" that time will even end, so discounting this theory too I guess, since it suggests time can be realistically finite(read: not just in mathematical and scientific theory, but truthfully, permanently frozen time) in some respect.

kahljorn
Sep 15th, 2005, 08:02 PM
That's because you're a big faker, kelly.

The universe could never spread out enough to be "Cold". Gravity still holds true even if the expansion theory is correct. Galaxies will stay within galaxies. Even a very small amount of gravity without any larger gravity around will compel things to gravitate towards it.
Time freezing... That's quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I guess time speeds up when things get hot, it certainly explains why the Delorium always appeared with fire on it's wheels. Explains why microwaves cook so fast. No, but really-- what the fuck? I can understand molecules becoming more exited when it gets hot. I guess those same scientists would say time is a molecule floating around in the air, and if they could only catch it they could become a young stud again and get a slut wife.

The idea that everything must have come from nothing is a huge fallacy. Obviously it didn't, because if it did there would still be nothing here. Or maybe we're just living in a state of nothingness right now, and this conversation and everything you do or say in the world is entirely pointless and really does nothing to effect existence or nothingness or anything, just like nothing and everything else in the complete existence is just as silent.

CaptainBubba
Sep 15th, 2005, 08:10 PM
The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

Pub Lover
Sep 15th, 2005, 08:11 PM
E=MC^2 MOTHERFUCKER! :eek

Aneurysm
Sep 15th, 2005, 08:41 PM
The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

That would be absolute zero, the temperature that a substance posseses no thermal energy, also -273 degrees C. I have never heard anything about time actually being frozen but it's supposedly the coldest anything could get ever, and has never been achieved.

Pub Lover
Sep 15th, 2005, 09:00 PM
Zero Kelvin is -273.15 degrees Celsius.

Aneurysm
Sep 15th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Please forgive me. :(

ArrowX
Sep 15th, 2005, 10:32 PM
The thing is that I really want to know what people of all of all schools of thought have to say on this subject. Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought. This egocentric species of ours seems to like to trace events UP TO and including the "creation" of our universe and leave it at that. Why existence exists [a double positive?] is usually left unanswered.

Thats an impossible question to answer. Its like trying to concieve what you would see if you had eyes in the back of your head. Would they feel liek theyre on top of your curent eyes ie splitsctreen or would you get a panoramic thing.

CaptainBubba
Sep 15th, 2005, 11:06 PM
The thing is that I really want to know what people of all of all schools of thought have to say on this subject. Let's face it, your average beleiver (or, for that matter, nonbeleiver) walking down the street has likely never once given existence itself a thought. This egocentric species of ours seems to like to trace events UP TO and including the "creation" of our universe and leave it at that. Why existence exists [a double positive?] is usually left unanswered.

Thats an impossible question to answer. Its like trying to concieve what you would see if you had eyes in the back of your head. Would they feel liek theyre on top of your curent eyes ie splitsctreen or would you get a panoramic thing.

Whta if lkie.,, we al saw colrs DIFERENTLY!! OMG DEEEEEPEEEP

Big Papa Goat
Sep 16th, 2005, 12:07 AM
my friend always brings up that exact thing whenever he wants to talk about philosophy :(

ScruU2wice
Sep 16th, 2005, 12:32 AM
The theory is that at 0 Kelvin time is frozen if I remember correctly. I recall noone can succesfully create a condition where this temperature exists though. Am I just recalling things totally wrong or is it the actual theory that you have a big grumpy fuck with?

They've come damn close to reaching absolute zero, and I don't believe that it has had any effect on the measurement of time. therefore if time does freeze at absolute zero it would have a pretty steep deceleration curve because it's not giving any indication that it slows down at all.

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 01:07 AM
I brought up this subject to piss off a scientist friend of mine. His solution was that there are more possibilities for existence and only one for non-existence, so probability dictates that something should exist. I then explained how he's full of shit.

ziggytrix
Sep 16th, 2005, 10:14 AM
The first thing any statistician can tell you is that probabilty dictates nothing in an event that's already occured.

If I flipped a coin, and it came up heads, there is zero probabilty that it might be tails if I look again (quantum physicists, fuck off).

Personally, I think existence it not quite all it appears to be, but I've never experienced anything, nor do I expect to in my lifetime, to suggest what else there is to it. My favorite theory is that we are 3-diminsional organisms in a >3 -dimensional universe, and we simply aren't capable of percieving, let alone understanding all that there is to existence.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 03:55 PM
That's what 99.9999 percent of the 'mystics' would say, ziggy. The only difference is that they give you hope by saying shit like, "But there's something greater than the human within you that can understand, because it(and 'you') came from this other plane".

I always thought this was kind of funny..
The expression, "I think therefore I am". Which, in and of itself is a pretty stupid statement unless you wish to assume that various molecules have a thinking process, but anyhow. So, "I think therefore I am", and then you have buddhists and hindus and brahmans telling you to Not think to reach Nothingness or nirvana. No thing No think.
But then, the idea that existance was formed through thought hasn't exactly been a huge mystery. Big blobs of energy are always thinking about forbidden apples.

kellychaos
Sep 16th, 2005, 04:25 PM
I brought up this subject to piss off a scientist friend of mine. His solution was that there are more possibilities for existence and only one for non-existence, so probability dictates that something should exist. I then explained how he's full of shit.

And you did this how?

Define "possibilities". I believe the term is being misused here.

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Well, when I was eight and entered into a nation-wide contest, I looked at it two ways: either my odds are 1 in 50,000, or it's half and half: I either win or I don't win. The probability of existence falls into the same logical fallacy--there's an infinite possibility of nothingness since all non-existence outcomes are identical, and a finite possibility of existence*. It's impossible to determine what the precise odds of a Theos (not a god per se, but any self-causing first cause) existing are, and it's an asanine to even try because it's self-evident that it does exist. It's impossible to step outside of existence and view probability arbitrarily.

*The probability of existence is finite due to ratio ad absurdam. Infinite possibilities deigns that any conceivable reality is a viable option. Thus simply by thinking of any logically impossible scenario limits the realm of possibilities of existence. I can think "There can be a universe that exists with standing laws of gravity in which a ten-pound object has more mass than a two-pound object." This is a logical self-contradiction by the laws of physics, and is thus impossible. Therefore, existence's probability is finite.

ziggytrix
Sep 16th, 2005, 05:09 PM
But I can conceive of a universe where our concept of logic is not rational by that universe's standards. Matter could be comprised of fundamentally different particles. Or the law of gravity could be inverted (perhaps because God willed it so?) Perhaps this universe is not compatible with life. Or perhaps just not with life as we know it. Possibilities for existence are possibly infinite. It's pretty foolish, in my opinion, to argue strongly for or against that premise though, as the ONLY existence and the only system of logic we know is our own.

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Yeah, I was going to add another footnote saying that the laws of physics we presently observe are an a posteriori to the elementary particle ratios of the big bang. But my point was that we can conceive of a universe like our own that defies logic, hence the possibilities are finite.

Just food for thought, one of my favorite cosmology factoids is that for the universe to expand in the way that it does, the initial matter-antimatter ratio was essentially 5X10^8 to (5X10^8)+1. Someone seems to be looking out after us.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 05:59 PM
I would think it'd be rather impossible to conceive a universe that defies our logic. In fact, you can't really conceive of anything different than this, and to try is entering the 'realms of the unreal'. The fact is, for all you know, "Logic" dictates that the universe, no matter how it's formed or what history it would have, would be governed by exactly the same rules and would look and feel exactly the same.
The idea that it would've formed in any other way is preposterous, and the idea that nothingness has "infinite possibilities" is equally preposterous. If it had "Infinite possibilities" it would be called something other than nothingness. The inherent function of nothingness is the fact that it can never become more than nothing, ever. "Existance" shares the same function. It can never become anything bigger or more important than what it is.

To "Conceive" of any universe would mean that you were god and somehow understood every single function of this and other possible universe's, otherwise you're just pretending to try to answer some inner calling. We call that dreaming or fantasizing.www

In this universe there is reverse gravity, it's called critical mass.

sadie
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:11 PM
does the sun's setting in a spectrum of purples and reds and oranges saturday night mean it'll stretch across the eastern skyline early sunday?

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:13 PM
No, we can use mathematical models to prove that under certain conditions during the first femtoseconds after the bang, symetry between the three non-gravitational forces (and throw in gravity too if you're into string theory) would not necessarily have arisen and so you could have worlds where matter is formed by particles other than quarks and have ghastly different properties. And like I said, the chances of the universe expanding to be bigger than a softball were a billion to one in the first place. It was just as probable from a physicist's point of view that the universe were to be made of antimatter, and I'd love to see the implications that would have on our belovèd four physical forces.

If you're going to be retarded, stick with sacred numerology or gnosticism or whatever the hell you're reading this week.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:20 PM
So you're saying different substances have different laws that apply to them? Wow, that's not a function of this universe at all. That's why I can run through brick walls and stand on water. Jackass.

*edit* and by the by, good luck running that mathematical experiment to "Prove it", you know, with all them experiments you'll be doing(Of creating universes, because you know, that's a very common occurance in the life in sethomas). And people have never in this world assumed they could solve something with math and been wrong. Never. That has never happened.
Put down the science weekly, not everything in that magazine is true, most of it's theoretical, like how existance could change if sethomas would've splurged.

I guess i should add this in, too:
"certain conditions"
"would not necessarily"
"so you could have worlds"
Those are definites.

"It was just as probable "
"If I flipped a coin, and it came up heads, there is zero probabilty that it might be tails if I look again"
You can't beat hello kitten cthulu

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:29 PM
If you were literate, you'd know that's not what I'm saying.

Saying "substances" is void of meaning in this context. There's no a priori that substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way. Models can prove that both cases are legit.

I know that "real" science scares the shit out of you, but maybe you should look into it.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:34 PM
"real science". that kind where you assume things could happen if only they had happened differently?
I remember doing that when I was a kid. You know, I'd cuss at a teacher or hit some kid in the face and all I could think all night is that I wish i could change it so I wouldn't be grounded. And look at me today. I've never had a problem and I'm a perfect person because I used mathematics to change my past. Thanks Euclid, you're the man!

P.S. Did you know Euclid never died? He lives in a universe full of antimatter. But guess what, that universe/existence isn't this universe/existence. Isn't that funny? He went somewhere we'll never go or understand... through the power of mathematics! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to prepare a pizza. P+O+15minutes(425)=5. That was sure good. leaves a nice taste in my mouth.


"substance as we know it has to exist, nor that it can't exist in any other way"
Who honestly cares about models? If you had a brain you'd realize that models of our solar system are no actual representation of our solar system. That's why when you accidently cut the strings to the planet earth we don't suddenly plummet out of the sky. You can't prove anything involving this. You can't experiment with it. You can't do anything. Now we can pretend that it's possible, sure. What asshole hasn't thought that there could be worlds out there that aren't like this one. OH WOW MAN THIS UNIVERSE IS FIVE DIMENSIONS. WOo, great. That's how people impress their friends with how deep they are in eighth grade. "Do you think it's possible that god's a frog?"
None of that matters, though, because our universe formed the way it did, just like it is. You can't change that with a model, not even if you were wearing a goggle. You can sit there and say, "hey, there could be another existance that had another big bang that could be completely different" or you could even say, "Hey, there could be another place that never had a big bang" or even, "Hey, there's this place that sort of resembles a rubberband and it's the entire universe and little particles exist there that don't exist anywhere else" and you know what, it's true in some sense because it exists within your mind. Is there any scientific data that shows how this rubberband stays afloat in midnonair with little particles that don't exist anywhere else and how they function or perform or don't spontaneously catch on fire when they smile? No. That's real science(of course, you can speculate on particles that science "might" understand but that's just a funny joke in itself).
Our universe is the way it is, and nothing's going to change that. There wasn't some change in the symetery. There was just what happened. Therefore, I win. With simple logic that you can't even grasp, jackass. Just remember, whatever happened already happened. So the proof in what I'm saying is already here. WHere's your 'proof'?

Besides that, this other universe would follow the exact same path of nothingness. It can never become anything. A super god could be there who's capable of destroying existences, but that doesn't matter, because it won't change anything, because it's nothing, and there's nothing to change. If there were a universe of antimatter it wouldn't even matter. First off, because it would essentially be a reflection of our universe, with a few different principals, secondly because it has nothing to aspire to. Aspirations are for blind fucks who think this place has something fantastic it can become.

ziggytrix
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:35 PM
But HOW MANY cthulu kitties can dance on the head of a elder god?

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:42 PM
I wonder why I have a feeling that the quasi-guy who thinks he's a master of mathematical concepts because he can spell Euclid has never done a line integral or multivariable integration.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:52 PM
How do you know I've never done any of that. And anyhow, the only reason you have is because you go to college. But go ahead and try prove your point that because I can't do a line integral I can't understand that if there had been some change that didn't happen(and never will) in the symetery of the antichrist then something different would've happened.
You know, the funny thing is that you're missing a huge point. Things unfolded the way they did, for a reason, most likely following some basic law. How often when you throw a ball does it suddenly change direction for absolutely no reason? I mean, theoretically, if a ball suddenly decided to do a spiral and make a 45 degree angle to the left it could enter some kind of hyperspace. And, it could also simply reverse direction and hit the thrower in the head and kill them. But does that ever happen for no reason? Nope.
Now if that ball had reversed direction and hit the thrower in the head, the entire world could change, i mean, what if hitler played baseball? But guess what, that never happened.

and by the by, i edited my previous post.

sadie
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:54 PM
i'm glad i scrolled through the blah-blah-blah 'cause ziggy made me lol.

ziggytrix
Sep 16th, 2005, 06:56 PM
diff e is one of the reasons i quit the engineering program :(

that shit is fucking hard, and that's coming from someone who thought calculus was a cakewalk.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 07:09 PM
I'm still laughing at how changing the subtance of a cardboard box to metal can make it hold more weight defies our logic... or how changing the basic substance of a world to give it different laws and principals would defy our logic. Now it might logically be different-- that's logic-- but it wouldn't defy our logic, because logic can't really be defied. If the basic rules and functions of a universe were changed, logic would simply adapt to that because it is built off of the rules and functions of the universe. Not off of some pretend shit that you are throwing around to try to act deep...
Of course it'd be different, it's a different substance. That's not illogical, that's logical. A isn't B. An apple isn't an orange. This is stuff you learn when you're a little kid. Mommy isn't daddy. Daddy isn't mommy.
Also, you can give me any equation and I can show you that it has the exact same answer as any other equation.

Sethomas
Sep 16th, 2005, 07:10 PM
Kahl, I agree that things happened the way they did for a reason. But that's a theological connundrum, and ever since Spinoza declared that nature has no intrinsic telos science has generally accepted this. Pure Darwinism is based on the fact that nature has no direction. So, sure. We both seem to agree that the universe has four forces because God wants it to. But that doesn't change the fact that if there were no God, there's nothing in the past that infallibly dictated that there must be four forces of nature plus matter made of quarks. You're sidestepping the issue, and not eliciting a fair chuckle in the process.

kahljorn
Sep 16th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Who says there was ever a "God" in the first place..? There's nothing to say that it had to happened, but there's something saying that it did happen. Nature may have no direction, but it has channels and rivers. So while water may not be inclined to flow in any particular pattern in and of itself, gravity and the deep gouge in the moutain decide that much. The same could be said, i suppose, do you know what forces were at work within the bigbang? And what forces were at work before the big bang?
There was obviously something that made it do the things it did, if you want to call that God, that's fine. But attempting to remove him from the "Equation" does nothing, because he was obviously there, you might as well remove the big ball of energy the big bang came from from the equation. And trying to say that things might not have gone the way they had had something else happened is entirely obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that something *did* happen and this was the result. The result could've been different(if something that didn't happen had happened), but who cares, it wasn't. It would be the same circumstance, we could be having this conversation surrounded by antimatter and it really wouldn't matter. Chuckle at that.
Did you know if we were too much closer to the sun we wouldn't be here right now? Yea.

CaptainBubba
Sep 16th, 2005, 08:04 PM
Speaking as a math major who has done both line and multivariable integration I can state with the greatest of confidence that nothing I have learned in my math courses has ever given me a clear idea of anything related to this conversation.

Just wanted to throw that out.

WICKED
Sep 16th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Wow. I am wholeheartedy amazed that I'm not the most arrogant one here. You two play nice, now. I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread. There's certainly more than enough here.

ItalianStereotype
Sep 17th, 2005, 01:39 AM
you're so deep, WICKED. I'll bet you're soooo dark and like poetry too. what color of mascara do you like? LINKS TO YOUR LIVEJOURNAL PLEASE. (http://emosong.ytmnd.com/)

kahljorn
Sep 17th, 2005, 02:36 AM
"I'm gonna go spew testosterone all over someone else's meaningful thread."

It's not testosterone, it's chocolate.

Sethomas
Sep 17th, 2005, 02:37 AM
CB, my point wasn't that knowing college math gives an insight into the mysteries of existence. It was that actually doing math rather than studying the philosophy thereof gives an appreciation that it represents the concrete reality of the universe. Like imaginary numbers--sure, they were conceived of in the middle ages as a purely masturbatory exercise, but flourescent lighting and computers couldn't work without them. If mathematical models say that the universe could have resulted just as likely in an instantaneous re-implosion than an accelerating celestial corpus replete with life and black holes, then it's possible.

And wicked, you're retarded. It's a given that any thread I post in will be drenched in testosterone, because I'M ALL MAN, BABY. I mean, that's what it means to have an opinion, right?

CaptainBubba
Sep 17th, 2005, 03:31 PM
You should at least bring up the obligatory Topology refrence if we're going to be math fags.

Topology :o :o :o.

davinxtk
Sep 17th, 2005, 07:57 PM
It will come as a surprise to anyone whose read my things that I will try to be less of a douche in this one.


That really really didn't help us this time around.

I fucking hate you.

kellychaos
Sep 19th, 2005, 04:43 PM
Pure Darwinism is based on the fact that nature has no direction.

I will acquiese to a certain amount of free will (for lack of a better term) although I would insist that existence must take place within a static set of parameters regardless of whether you know the rules or not. To insist that you do would be high vanity.

kahljorn
Sep 19th, 2005, 05:27 PM
I prefer considering it like liquid, or water in fact that water has no innate 'direction', it just merely satisfies it's ennui by compliance with outside forces. Makes sense, no?
Wouldn't assuming that it has parameters in the first place be rather vain?
And being able to use or understand what we were talking about could easily be attained through psychology, sociology or nearly any invasive science, Seth, you could even understand it through anatomy if you were so inclined.

Pub Lover
Sep 19th, 2005, 10:39 PM
Will to power? :confused

kahljorn
Sep 20th, 2005, 02:20 PM
93 to Power. Did you know 'they' say will and love are the same thing? The same word? ISN'T THAT JUST STRANGE?

davinxtk
Sep 20th, 2005, 02:25 PM
...atomic batteries to power


turbines to speed...

kellychaos
Sep 20th, 2005, 04:05 PM
42

Sethomas
Sep 20th, 2005, 05:10 PM
FUCK YOU. I wouldn't necessarily care if a major hollywood movie hadn't been made, but one has been, so FUCK YOU.

kellychaos
Sep 21st, 2005, 03:56 PM
I read the books when I was about 14, fucker.

P.S. Granted, I didn't get all the jokes at the time ... but still.