Features

MrAdventure · #1

whoa speaking and writing are completely different skills who knew i bet abraham lincoln was all "DUUHH UMMM UH DUHH" in person but get a piece of paper in front of him (this was the internet back then) and he's all "four score and seven years ago" huh

man gargamel baggie i will offer you the chance of a lifetime - i will write the introduction to your book

"my name is garfield galore, and i'm in my fifth year at hogwatrts."

"grannie gaspedal" cried ron, as he and the other weaselrys met me off the train "how ar e you doin"

"i'll be okay once i get my wine" i said coquettishly through fluttering eyelashes at harry who was also there

"it's good to see you" said harry

"thanks harry im glad you made it back what with your uncle being such an assh*le"

"how about you gannymede how is it that you made it back" said harry

"didnt you hear my parents were found mysteriously dead"

we all went to the carraiges to get to hogwarts and i shared a laugh at the first years in the boats

"try not to get wet" i shouted under my breath

"cmoe on garafolo sit with me" said ron, but harry winked at me and i felt pulled by him to the carraige he was going to...

kahljorn · #2

nobody would accept as academic or even relevant a "Book" about shit that isn't even relevant to itself. YOU WON CYCLICAL ARGUMENT NIGHT. Now you can be in my book about spaghetti fights and peer pressure! Look for it in borders next to, "How to eat fried worms."
Plus who the fuck would want a book by someone with a BA in SEX STUDIES on whatever the hell it is you're pretending our argument played into. Why don't you just admit you got burned, bitch, because you have shallow knowledge.

YOu noticed a pattern of argument? What the fuck. The only pattern of our argument was you being a stupid twat and not knowing the history of the indian culture, in which I, on the other hand, did. The "Pattern" was you not understanding and me explaining to you that you didn't understand and having to keep doing it because you didn't understand.
So if you're writing a book about how stupid people who don't know what they are talking about get corrected when they smear their shit all over a message board, then I guess it might be a few smarties short on delicious.

THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN GABBY GAGA OF CACA AND GRAVY MIX SPEXIAL BOAT INCORPORATED HAS JUST DISCOVERED THE MOST IMPORTANT FIND OF OUR CENTURY:
WHEN SOMEBODY DOESNT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING A PERSON MIGHT KEEP EXPLAINING UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND
WUURRRRERRRRRRRRR (the sound of the world coming to a halt)

kahljorn · #3

Day of media observances:
gabby cacaface how did you do it?

well i was talking to my severely mongoloid retarded best friend rite and i was like hey how u doin mongo want anything?

and he was all, "grbldegak gak yittle"

and i was all whoa mongo calm down i was just asking if you wanted me to get you anyuthing!

YURTLE PLAT COF

oh you just want some coffee!

and then it struck me sometimes people have misunderstandings and they repeat themselves to get the point across!
This was really a breakthrough for me because I always thought when people repeated themselves they were giving me coded directions to the holy grail.
Hopefully i can share this with everyone and then we'll all realize the Holy Grail is within us waiting to be filled with the salty liquid of answered questions and true understanding!

Gabby GaGa · #4

I have a friend who's already putting together a messageboard book.
but im sure they could always use some (profitable) help.

Kahl -

religion was one of many subjects i picked

these are 3 of 20 catagories and sub-catagories I chose

Religon
- history belief, practices
American history -
kenndy isn't dead
Quail is president
biology -
metabolism, growth, life cycle.

These are all argument presented to subjects for them to "disprove"

this is also a helful study because it provides an outline for illogical rationalization, and methods that subjects use to cope.

My favorite was a study I did for the pop culture reference crowd,

In which the argument was that Elvis wasn't dead, and some current idols are robots.

Of course, any common ninny can figure out this isn't true.
However, when a linguist debates the argument with the test subject,
(which i either myself or a selection of Drs.)
we try to use one of two methods, which will extract an the desiered or unknown patterns.
The "elvis and kennedy aren't dead" scenerios are the easiest to debate, because of the copious amounts of contradictions available for refference.
That study is the one in which an illogical argument will unvariably "win"
so the person gives their efforted but failing answer.

The second study is the one in which the subject should always win the argument, because of the sheer stupidy of the it. This path is intersting too, because the even though the argument presented is nonsensical and easily argued, subjects often percieve a threat to their own personality, and their conscience automatically uses one of four teqniques to cope.

and what was your latest project, Kahl?