COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Dems take back the House? Be careful what you wish for...

Que said:
Yeah, no.

I have zero interest in meth, or discussing it. I've seen what it's done to people people that I know and yet Luk just uses it as a weird random ad hominem and has been doing so for years. He's the one that dabbles in it, not me.

When he brings it up of course I'm going to point out how obvious it is that he's a poly addicted asshole that is projecting his shit on other people. This isn't necessarily just meth- specific he's got a lot of other issues. I mean he's obviously a rageaholic as well.
Click to expand...

I've only ever seen Luk post like 2 or 3 line posts. I don't know anything about him.

My point is, if he is on meth, why bring it up? Like what does that accomplish? If he says he's not he's probably not. A LOT of people use stuff like "methed out" or "methhead" or whatever. It's super popular right now. Like... that's actual slang with the under-40 crowd.

It's just super off-putting to me to use someone's addiction as an insult or to insinuate that it somehow makes them stupid and not worth listening to. For obvious reasons.
 
CandiCame said:
Native folks are more prone to lipid hording in a honeycomb structure, which is better for storage and harder to break down. Asian folks are too. So we have this different BMI chart because you can be less fat and have higher lipid levels, which is what causes heart disease and shit. Like there's a genetic thing where just some people store more and some people store less, but you don't necessarily look fatter. Like you can look fine and be obese, because of how you store your fat. So you can have a lower weight as a native or Asian person than a white or black person, for example, but be medically obese.

My family in particular FLIES through sugar (like, metabolism-wise)- you have to remember that native diets have ALWAYS been super high on fructose. We lived on corn and other high-sugar starches like root veggies. Sugar cane is a little different, but not enough to be medically significant, that's mostly a pr campaign. Sugar causes spikes in anybody's blood, but diabetes is hereditary. My dad actually has it. Hell, I might have it, I just never test for it because I'm scared of needles. I pass out when they take blood. I always said that if I had diabetes I'd just die. I'd literally rather just have a chronic disease and never check for it than use the blood sugar monitor. I'm that scared of it. I'll pass out. I know I will. It's not the blood, it's the needle. But nobody on my mom's side has it, and my dad BARELY has it, like he has to monitor it and take pills but he's not on the shots and he's never lost a foot or anything. I'm sure I'm fine. Your body either produces too much or too little insulin and can't regulate your blood sugar so if you eat too much of it it just builds up and builds up and builds up is how that works. I had to learn that with dad. You have to watch fruit and shit too, it's not just candy. It's literally anything with sugar. You can kill yourself with fruit if you're diabetic.

There's two different kinds and I can't remember which one he has, but it's the hereditary one where you can't eat too much sugar.

Dude, you ain't gonna find evidence that ANYBODY was morbidly obese until recently unless they were rich as fuck. Your normal white dude didn't look like Henry the 8th. That's not a race thing or even necessarily a diet thing, that's an ability to sit on your ass thing.

Our lifestyles got more and more sedentary as more and more shit work became the kind where you sat on your ass crunching numbers or doing data entry or whatever, and less manual labor. I'm eating almost exactly the same diet as my ancestors- I've said REAL frequently that my favorite food is soup beans and corn bread. This region, in particular, hasn't really changed our dietary preferences in like a century. Our food is shit and has always been shit, but it's really delicious. Folks here can eat 5000kcal a day and not notice, because you eat like, fried eggs & bacon for breakfast, fried chicken for lunch, and soup beans for dinner. All shit that will straight up kill you.

We've actually started eating HEALTHIER because people became more aware of trans fats. Like when I was little, I legit kept my GI Joes in a lard bucket. Because my granny bought lard in buckets the size of a 4-year-old child. That makes me fucking sick. Refried the soup beans in it, fried the taters for breakfast in it, fried everything in it.

I've never met anybody my age who cooks with lard, because in the late 90s early 2000s, there was a HUGE PR campaign about how that shit was killing us. There were episodes of cartoons about it and shit (I remember King of the Hill and American Dad both did episodes). If you look at the studies we eat BETTER than our ancestors.

But they worked hard labor and for the most part we don't. We have to actively make a point of exercising, or we just won't. Other regions are different, if you live in a city you tend to exercise more, because they've got fucking Amazon warehouses running people to death and shit, but around here people just tend not to do that. There's been a change in lifestyle that is more sedentary.

Also, the people who have the most health problems, and therefore the highest healthcare costs are the elderly who spent their whole lives frying their food in pig grease and are now, predictably, having their hearts give out on them. Like... obvious problems are obvious you dumb motherfuckers, you spent your whole life eating LARD. YOU CAN MAKE A CANDLE OUT OF THAT SHIT. DON'T EAT CANDLES!

I was KIND OF raised in poverty. I have a huge family and lived with a bunch of different people. Not all of them were poor, some of them were just stupid or cheap. But I am of pretty average intelligence, you just think that a lot of people are stupid for some reason. You say shit like that a lot. Most people aren't poor because they're stupid, they're poor because it's so hard to get out of poverty because of the way that capitalism works.

I'm pretty on par with other people who live in my region in terms of general intelligence. I mean, I have to be, I went to the same schools and shit. We all got the same education. People just aggravate me because they don't fucking pay attention and just believe stupid shit like that somehow Trump is going to get them jobs and I'm like, "WE HAD THE SAME ECONOMICS CLASS YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHIT YOU FUCKING KNOW BETTER! YOU TOOK CALCULUS IN HIGH SCHOOL!"

A lot of people I went to school with seem dumber than they are because they're so fucking depressed all the time, which is fair. Like it wears you down and makes it hard to think. I've been there. But it's hard not to be depressed when you're broke and hate crimes are going up and the only escape you have from the constant pressures of poverty are a couple oxis to space you out for a few hours, or a drink, or the occasional pothead. Sometimes it's better to disconnect than it is to have to face the crippling bullshit that you have to do sober.

Like, I get it. I can't fault anybody. I'll call some people out on it when they're being extra just... evil ignorant like homophobic or racist or whatever, but for general dumbassery that ain't hurting nobody I tend to leave them alone.
Click to expand...

It is a mathematical certitude that one half of the population is below the median for intelligence.. I know in your generation you've been taught to believe that IQ is meaningless but it really isn't.
 
Que said:
It is a mathematical certitude that one half of the population is below the median for intelligence.. I know in your generation you've been taught to believe that IQ is meaningless but it really isn't.
Click to expand...

That explains a lot about you, my dude.

Look, you are NEVER gonna be the smartest person in the room. It doesn't matter. You put a LOT of emphasis on a lot of stuff that just genuinely doesn't matter. I really think it's a generational thing because the harpy guy does it too. Like being smart or having a good memory or being right about something is super important to you.

It's just not. That shit doesn't really matter. Doing what's best for the group is what matters, regardless of whether it makes you look smart or whatever.

What happens when you make looking smart and giving a shit about that the end goal, is that you'll look like a dumbass, and then it'll matter to you. Like you'll care. You can't just go, "Oh, ok, my bad" and move on.

That is so fucking aggravating to my generation, because we're just not used to being wrong = personal attack. You can just look shit up. It's not a skill. You're NEVER going to be smarter than google. Yhall just need to chill the fuck out and learn how to admit when you were wrong or when you straight-up don't know something.

That's something else you did in your last post. You were like, "I'm not a doctor, I don't know how this works". I was so happy for you. But then you turn around and try to defend the IQ bullshit as if your a neurodevelopmental researcher and know what you're talking about. You're super not.

My generation is taught better intelligence testing because science moved on, our understanding of child developmental neuroscience moved on, got better, and now we use a better test that tests for different KINDS of intelligence, not just a culturally skewed bullshit puzzle test. All of our IQs would be super high, we grew up on video games. IQs only test for percentages- according to them, the older you get the dumber you get, which is why it's super weird to me that old people like them. Because it skews young, so it would make you look worse than if you took something like a 7-tiered intelligence test, you'll get something that can actually be used to tier a child's education AND will give you a multifaceted look at their intellectual capabilities in a variety of ways so that you can tailor your instruction.

My IQ LOOKS high, I always score super high on those- literally because I play video games. An IQ test is a video game. It doesn't test how smart I am, it tests how often I can sit on my ass and play video games. It's not shocking that rich kids can do that more than poor kids.

Like that's not me making that up, gamers will always score in the top 10-15% of IQ tests. All an IQ test measures is your ability to play video games. If you can save Hyrule, you can be considered a fucking genius by the elderly who still think IQ is a thing.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/why-video-games-are-the-new-iq-tests-117112000444_1.html

Edit: ducking autocorrect
 
CandiCame said:
That explains a lot about you, my dude.

Look, you are NEVER gonna be the smartest person in the room. It doesn't matter. You put a LOT of emphasis on a lot of stuff that just genuinely doesn't matter. I really think it's a generational thing because the harpy guy does it too. Like being smart or having a good memory or being right about something is super important to you.

It's just not. That shit doesn't really matter. Doing what's best for the group is what matters, regardless of whether it makes you look smart or whatever.

What happens when you make looking smart and giving a shit about that the end goal, is that you'll look like a dumbass, and then it'll matter to you. Like you'll care. You can't just go, "Oh, ok, my bad" and move on.

That is so fucking aggravating to my generation, because we're just not used to being wrong = personal attack. You can just look shit up. It's not a skill. You're NEVER going to be smarter than google. Yhall just need to chill the fuck out and learn how to admit when you were wrong or when you straight-up don't know something.

That's something else you did in your last post. You were like, "I'm not a doctor, I don't know how this works". I was so happy for you. But then you turn around and try to defend the IQ bullshit as if your a neurodevelopmental researcher and know what you're talking about. You're super not.

My generation is taught better intelligence testing because science moved on, our understanding of child developmental neuroscience moved on, got better, and now we use a better test that tests for different KINDS of intelligence, not just a culturally skewed bullshit puzzle test. All of our IQs would be super high, we grew up on video games. IQs only test for percentages- according to them, the older you get the dumber you get, which is why it's super weird to me that old people like them. Because it skews young, so it would make you look worse than if you took something like a 7-tiered intelligence test, you'll get something that can actually be used to tier a child's education AND will give you a multifaceted look at their intellectual capabilities in a variety of ways so that you can tailor your instruction.

My IQ LOOKS high, I always score super high on those- literally because I play video games. An IQ test is a video game. It doesn't test how smart I am, it tests how often I can sit on my ass and play video games. It's not shocking that rich kids can do that more than poor kids.

Like that's not me making that up, gamers will always score in the top 10-15% of IQ tests. All an IQ test measures is your ability to play video games. If you can save Hyrule, you can be considered a fucking genius by the elderly who still think IQ is a thing.

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/why-video-games-are-the-new-iq-tests-117112000444_1.html

Edit: ducking autocorrect
Click to expand...

As I said.

It's not surprising that's the way the academic industrial complex indoctrination centers teach you. Why wouldn't you believe it?

You're not even making the most obvious and appropriate correlation between gamers and IQ.

You know who else has a high IQ correlation? Engineers.

Is it just because they're out there doing engineering stuff that suddenly they magically have an IQ bump?

IQ is the most accurate and replicatable psyche test. By far.

It's decent, but not great at predicting all sorts of things from academic achievement to financial success but the variance from what you would expect is because there are so many other variables to human capability.

IQ is an actual thing. Even if you don't want it to be it's an actual thing. People with high IQs are better at solving problems and understanding math. Period.

Looking up information on Google is not a substitute for Iactual intellectual capacity. Information is not understanding. Google is great a masking a lower IQ, but does not mitigate it. A person with a calculator in hand can score just as well on a test involving arithmetic as someone with an innate grasp of it, that doesn't mean that they even understand arithmetic or are any good at it.
 
Que said:
As I said.

It's not surprising that's the way the academic industrial complex indoctrination centers teach you. Why wouldn't you believe it?

You're not even making the most obvious and appropriate correlation between gamers and IQ.

You know who else has a high IQ correlation? Engineers.

Is it just because they're out there doing engineering stuff that suddenly they magically have an IQ bump?

IQ is the most accurate and replicatable psyche test. By far.

It's decent, but not great at predicting all sorts of things from academic achievement to financial success but the variance from what you would expect is because there are so many other variables to human capability.

IQ is an actual thing. Even if you don't want it to be it's an actual thing. People with high IQs are better at solving problems and understanding math. Period.

Looking up information on Google is not a substitute for Iactual intellectual capacity. Information is not understanding. Google is great a masking a lower IQ, but does not mitigate it. A person with a calculator in hand can score just as well on a test involving arithmetic as someone with an innate grasp of it, that doesn't mean that they even understand arithmetic or are any good at it.
Click to expand...

IQ doesn't predict how good you are at math or engineering. That's just not true. I'm not an engineer and I've never scored below the top 10% in any standardized IQ test. I had a million of those certificates that I immediately lost because I knew they didn't mean shit. Like, you realize that by advocating that IQ means something you're calling ME smart, right? Me, the guy who thought a turnip was a carrot.

Learning strategies do allow us to make accurate predictions on leet math skillz, so that's generally what we use to test for those skills. Because it's predictable and accurate.

But I mean... you can more accurately predict how good a kid is at math using the Vygotskian motivational test, which is literally one question, "Do you like X?" than you can with IQ. You can go up to a kid and ask, "Hey do you like math?" And get a better, more easily replicable answer with more accuracy to use in prediction than you can with an IQ test.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/learning-strategies-outperform-iq-in-predicting-achievement/

https://qz.com/853128/grades-not-iq-or-standardized-test-score-is-what-predicts-future-success/

https://som.yale.edu/news/2009/11/why-high-iq-doesnt-mean-youre-smart
 
That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course people who have an aptitude for mathematics are going to find that they like it far better than those who have no such aptitude.

IQ was tremendously important to the academic Intelligentsia until they realized what it says about various groups of people. Then all the sudden it not only became not important they consistently work to undermine confidence in it.

As I said it is by far and away the most replicatable test in all of psychology. You could take any human being send them to 30 different psychologists have them administer as many widely varied IQ test as they can possibly devise and they will all get roughly the same approximation for that individual. It is not a flute. Even though you needed to be.
 
Your beloved Google is not returning any results for study of IQ of Engineers although plenty of those of actually been done I found these numbers in a Cora discussion they sound about right from what I remember reading an actual studies but of course your beloved Google is suppressing that because we can't have anybody know that IQ is important.

Civl Engineering - 122

Industrial Engineering - 122

Mechanical Engineer - 125.5

Electrical Engineer - 126

Chemical Engineer - 127.5

Those are the averages meaning that quite a few Engineers are going to be above those numbers and of course some who work very hard are going to be able to get by with a lower IQ. I seriously doubt you're going to find an actual working engineer with an IQ of 100.

It is true that since we have ready access to the ability to Crunch large data that actual intellectual horsepower which is a measurable thing even though you want to pretend that it's not is less important than it was when people were for example using slide rules. I seriously doubt you could teach anybody with an IQ below 110 how to use a slideruke.
 
Que said:
That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course people who have an aptitude for mathematics are going to find that they like it far better than those who have no such aptitude.

IQ was tremendously important to the academic Intelligentsia until they realized what it says about various groups of people. Then all the sudden it not only became not important they consistently work to undermine confidence in it.

As I said it is by far and away the most replicatable test in all of psychology. You could take any human being send them to 30 different psychologists have them administer as many widely varied IQ test as they can possibly devise and they will all get roughly the same approximation for that individual. It is not a flute. Even though you needed to be.
Click to expand...

It's one of the LEAST replicable tests in developmental psychology. The same researcher (which is who would be doing this, not a psychologist) can give the same kid the same test a few minutes apart and they'd get wildly different scores.

Again, this is just you being wrong about a thing. As far as I know, IQ was never widely used for individuals, because it was never MEANT to study individuals at all. It's a population test, kinda like BMI, but it wasn't replicable, which was quickly discovered so it was abandoned after the first longitudinal study.

I just looked it up and the last time I can see someone who's actually involved in research pretending that the IQ test had any kind of reliability over time was in 1988. Literally no one has believed this since I've been in the world. And I'm not reading a debunked book that's old enough to be a cougar to see why someone on the internet believes bullshit.

Do you, legitimately think that once you hit 18 you just get dumber and dumber every second? You think that's how human people work? That every single 5-year-old is by default more intelligent than every adult? Because the IQ of the kindergartner is ALWAYS going to be higher than the grown-ass adult. It is reliable on that, that when comparing demographics the younger you are the smarter you are, despite that flying in the face of developmental psychology. According to IQ tests, no one over 30 should EVER be allowed to be anything important, like an engineer or president. They're fucking stupid.
 
Que said:
Your beloved Google is not returning any results for study of IQ of Engineers although plenty of those of actually been done I found these numbers in a Cora discussion they sound about right from what I remember reading an actual studies but of course your beloved Google is suppressing that because we can't have anybody know that IQ is important.

Civl Engineering - 122

Industrial Engineering - 122

Mechanical Engineer - 125.5

Electrical Engineer - 126

Chemical Engineer - 127.5

Those are the averages meaning that quite a few Engineers are going to be above those numbers and of course some who work very hard are going to be able to get by with a lower IQ. I seriously doubt you're going to find an actual working engineer with an IQ of 100.

It is true that since we have ready access to the ability to Crunch large data that actual intellectual horsepower which is a measurable thing even though you want to pretend that it's not is less important than it was when people were for example using slide rules. I seriously doubt you could teach anybody with an IQ below 110 how to use a slideruke.
Click to expand...

We've not done IQ tests of adults since 1988, as I mentioned, you absolute cupcake. Those results aren't a thing because they're not a thing.

However, people take IQ tests all the time for fun, and people have compiled lists everywhere on google. They're not peer reviewed or anything, because that's a waste of time and money, and not standardized in their presentation, but they can be fun to look at if you treat it like a video game, which is what people with sense treat it like.

Also, I guess you also just don't know how IQs work because these numbers are useless without knowing what population they're pulled from. When you take an IQ test, you take your "mental age" your "actual age" and the scores of your "peer population" into account. You can't just be like, "This group got 120!" That means nothing. That's a number the researcher would use to determine the IQs of the people in the group, probably the mean for the population.

Also that's not like, super high if the peer population score is 100 like it normally is. Like none of those numbers are even gonna hit top 25%. The gamers are doing a hell of a lot better, most gamers are hitting the 140s AT LEAST, as you can see from the study I linked.

So like... sitting on your ass playing video games literally makes you smarter than STUDYING ENGINEERING by your logic.

Or it could be that the test is flawed and means nothing, is horrible skewed towards youth and a bunch of other factors, like a person who had the ability to think would think.
 
That time frame sounds about right. It was about then that the exhaustive collection of IQ Data was yielding actual noticeable trends. It culminated in a complete backlash by 1994 against Charles Murray's book which was nothing more than a stark look at all of that collected data.

Shrug.

The left hates actual science.
 
Que said:
That time frame sounds about right. It was about then that the exhaustive collection of IQ Data was yielding actual noticeable trends. It culminated in a complete backlash by 1994 against Charles Murray's book which was nothing more than a stark look at all of that collected data.

Shrug.

The left hates actual science.
Click to expand...

It was useless, so they stopped using it.

It says, by your own logic that little kids playing first person shooters are more intelligent than experienced engineers. It says my dumb ass, who is a fucking idiot, I remind you, is smarter than an engineer. It says that pretty much every dumbass redneck I know who got into the gifted & talented program was smarter than a grown ass engineer. Half those fuckers are unemployeed stoners. Back in the day you had to get at least a 140 to get into gifted & talented. We took them for fun, that's why I knew they were video game tests and nobody in my class scored under 140 that I can remember. I only remember because they told us that, that you used to have to take it to get into gifted & talented. Like 120s are not high.

You don't even know how an IQ tests works or what a "good" score is. But you're willing to live & die by the damn thing.
 
The left is excellent at papering over with their nonsense to the point that the indoctrination is as you are displaying here.

Here's an article from 15 years ago. 15 years ago we weren't even discussing whether or not the IQ test was accurate we had some concerns about whether there was or was not cultural bias. chttps://www.apa.org/monitor/feb03/intelligent.aspxultural bias. There never was but there have been sophs offered to that lobby but the argument was whether or not it should be used not whether or not it was accurate. Now you're spouting nonsense that it's inaccurate. It isn't. It's accurate Atmore measuring exactly what it purports to measure and nothing else.

That links got dropped into the middle of my paragraph and I cannot fix it on the phone.

The bottom line is here it is 15 years later and you've been taught that the IQ test was never accurate. It's been accurate for well over a hundred years.

There are valid arguments about when it shouldn't shouldn't be used but there is no legitimate scientific and statistical argument that it is not accurate for what it actually measures. You're spouting absolute nonsense.
 
I guess he's just gonna keep doubling down on it, so let's all remember to add, "Fourth graders are objectively more intelligent than adult engineers and there was a liberal conspiracy to cover it up for reasons that he never adequately explained but have something to do with liberals somehow" to the list of things that Que I guess just wholeheartedly believes.
 
The best way to understand an IQ test is it tends to be good at predicting your ability to solve problems and your ability to recognize patterns. What it's really measuring is the building blocks of intelligence.

Throw personality into the mix as well as motivation and socialization and then you have all of the other things that people are struggling to measure to try to find some way to avoid using actual IQ which is the only test that's truly objective (but not very fleshed out) with a test to measure subjective traits that vary by personality.

Some interesting studies have been done to show that your IQ can be bumped slightly if they incentivize you to work harder on the test.. the problem with those that want to use that information to discount IQ is that that motivational bump happens across the board which actually ends up validating IQ tests.

The left really hates Jordan Peterson because he's probably the last person left on the planet who's actually talking about IQ.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jSo5v5t4OQM

There are no tests that are more accurate than IQ at predicting your problem-solving ability. Since that is what it actually measures and it does so objectively.

You can certainly argue that that is unimportant but it's just silly to argue that it doesn't accurately measure that because it does.

Some fourth graders actually are smarter than some engineers. Because we no longer use IQ those children are not being sorted out and sent to a STEM track which is why we import Engineers from other countries that do.

We have an educational system now that is predicated on the flawed idea that you can train anybody to be anything and that simply is not true.
 
Last edited:
Que said:
I think you've been pretty emphatic that you "don't abuse" it; that you feel you have it well in hand. You haven't gone full tweaker.

Yet.
Click to expand...

Luk said:
You got a link to that, little lying bitch? Thought so.
Click to expand...

I have a super high IQ because I can count on Q-####, the lying little bitch, to never find this link.

And Candi is 💯% correct in his bitch-ass using "teh mean liberals" as an excuse for his pathetic existence.
 
Que said:
The left really hates Jordan Peterson because he's probably the last person left on the planet who's actually talking about IQ.
Click to expand...

I have never seen "hate" expressed towards Jordan Peterson. He is, however, a disingenuous twit.
 
von_Bismarck said:
I have never seen "hate" expressed towards Jordan Peterson. He is, however, a disingenuous twit.
Click to expand...

I have a Conservative friend who always links to his stuff. After several attempts at getting me to watch him, I did. I now think less of my friend.
 
von_Bismarck said:
I have never seen "hate" expressed towards Jordan Peterson. He is, however, a disingenuous twit.
Click to expand...

I would say that trying to get him fired was fairly hateful.

How is he "disingenuous?"

Or were you just looking to throw a big word in there?
 
I remember when a rwcj dipshit tried to get me fired. Said idiot is no longer with us.
 
DeluxAuto said:
I have a Conservative friend who always links to his stuff. After several attempts at getting me to watch him, I did. I now think less of my friend.
Click to expand...

Your esteem of him is inversely proportional to mine. I'm not surprised at all that you would be resistant to being offered a different viewpoint and immediately dismissive of said viewpoint when you finally deigned to lower yourself to view something you don't agree with.
 
Luk said:
I remember when a rwcj dipshit tried to get me fired. Said idiot is no longer with us.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't expect your mom is likely to fire you from the family business.
 
Que said:
Your esteem of him is inversely proportional to mine. I'm not surprised at all that you would be resistant to being offered a different viewpoint and immediately dismissive of said viewpoint when you finally deigned to lower yourself to view something you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Not knowing me or my tendencies in the least, you would be completely wrong with your pop-psych assessment. I have a strong feeling that you're told that you're wrong quite often.
 
Luk said:
Right?! It's not like when you got fired from being a husband and father.
Click to expand...

. . .says the guy who will never be "hired" to do either, and doesn't understand the basic concept that fatherhood endures after a divorce.
 
Que said:
. . .says the guy who will never be "hired" to do either, and doesn't understand the basic concept that fatherhood endures after a divorce.
Click to expand...

Damn, you somehow managed to be even more wrong than you were earlier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Really Bad But Deserving News For Democrats
2 3
Replies
69
Views
789
dkovic77
D
John_Vandermeer
For fun: If a Lit author was a MC in one of your stories, what would be their (mis)adventure?
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
2K
AchtungNight
A
B
College: The Profitable Business of Enslaving Students
Replies
10
Views
868
BrightShinyGirl
BrightShinyGirl
Biker_Faerie
What friends are for (Closed)
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
2K
SexyVita
SexyVita
Comshaw
White House proposes caps on student loan borrowing
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
jaF0
jaF0
Back
Top