Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Allenhan on March 29, 2006, 05:31:03 AM
-
I'm going to hijack this thread ~SE
-
1) Your fame will be lasting
2) Girls will love you
3) If you dont' want girls to love you, then guys will love you
4) Studies show that submitting articles to TWG have resulted in no deaths by cancer. A biopsy on the 29 rats who have died of cancer showed no solid connection to the articles they submitted.
5) Who else is going to publish you?
6) All the cool kids are doing it.
7) It makes you sound smrt. I mean, smart.
-
Oooh, ooh, I wanna be smrt! Maybe I'll finally get around to revising that Tor paper I wrote... Or I could just write a poll that doesn't put people to sleep. ;)
-
Was it a bot that started this thread? Or just something very nasty?
-
4) Studies show that submitting articles to TWG have resulted in no deaths by cancer. A biopsy on the 29 rats who have died of cancer showed no solid connection to the articles they submitted.
In rat yes, but the puppies all got cancer within a week of submitting their articles.
-
True, but since most of their articles were titled "My visit to the nuclear dump site," we chose to throw those results out.
-
Boobies are awesome. *nod/
-
Was it a bot that started this thread? Or just something very nasty?
It was just a bot. The original post was just a long string of links
-
True, but since most of their articles were titled "My visit to the nuclear dump site," we chose to throw those results out.
Hey, now that just ain't fair, those puppies gave thier lives for those articles, you should at least give them some credit!
As for those that nearly recovered and then died suddenly I only have this to say; Those animals would of died anyway! You have no proof it was me!
-
I don't need to post articles for girls to love me. I totally havn't submitted anything in ages and for the first time in, well, ever, one is going out with me soon.
-
notice the PLURAL form of the noun I used.
-
Those animals would of died anyway! You have no proof it was me!
As an editor, I feel compelled to point this out because it's a funny mistake. It's would've (i.e. would have) not would of. They sound similar, but have totally differen't meanings. Funny! :D
-
How did you know that. Are you like an inspector inspectin everyones letters :-/
-
No, she's like an editor editing everything she sees because she has the editing bug.
Also, necromancy=bad