Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Would anyone like to see pictures of my bumhole?

... and failing.
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Would anyone like to see pictures of my bumhole?
ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I think you should just assume that the answer is "yes" and randomly send pictures of it to guys you've just met on the internet.
Blackadder wrote:Liars for Jesus keep coming assurance chien back for punishment from proper scientists and keep having their arses handed to them on a platter. Sad fucks.
kalys004 wrote:Blackadder wrote:Liars for Jesus keep coming assurance chien back for punishment from proper scientists and keep having their arses handed to them on a platter. Sad fucks.
Hello,
I do not really understand what you mean!
I hope this is not so sad because it concerns Jesus!
Pst. It's called click-baiting. A form of viral marketing. Your quoted post was edited so that people, acting on good faith to help a newbie out, would be tricked into clicking it to find out what (seemingly) you were talking about -- since they'd be less suspicious of links in a post by an established forum user. A nasty bit of connivance.Blackadder wrote:I do not really understand why you:
1. Chose to edit my post that you quoted.
2. Added some random URL link that has no bearing on the topic.
When you explain that, I might be able to respond to your question.
Greyman wrote:Pst. It's called click-baiting. A form of viral marketing. Your quoted post was edited so that people, acting on good faith to help a newbie out, would be tricked into clicking it to find out what (seemingly) you were talking about -- since they'd be less suspicious of links in a post by an established forum user. A nasty bit of connivance.Blackadder wrote:I do not really understand why you:
1. Chose to edit my post that you quoted.
2. Added some random URL link that has no bearing on the topic.
When you explain that, I might be able to respond to your question.
Fenrir wrote:Spearthrower wrote:I'm not sure I can be entirely exhaustive without spending some considerable effort on it, but looking at this picture JJ cited:
I can confidently say that I can see dozens of anatomical features that are shared between the Chacma baboon and the A. afarensis skeleton that are not shared by the dog... in fact, in comparative terms, the similarities between the two primates are only comparable in number to the anatomical differences between the primates and the canine.
So we're clearly in need of a detailed conversation about anatomy if JJ - with his special magical sight - 'sees' more similarity between the baboon and the dog than between the baboon and A. afarensis. Perhaps we can settle once and for all whether naive eye-balling of pictures really does indicate that scientific specialism is defunct as JJ has previously argued.
Anyone want to bet whether JJ's going to rely on the supposedly 'self-evident' quality of a picture to supersede any substantive discussion? I guess the only way we might be able to tell is if JJ is conspicuously coy about getting into specific details here.
Yebbut both the dog and the baboon are quadrupedal.
So they look more similar from a distance.
The greater the distance the betterer the similarity.
From the moon they look fucking identical.
And that's what bauplan means amirite or amirite.
Checkmate athiests!!1!
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest