Do you have an obscene spray?
Moderator: Riftoff
-
spleenter
- •cC• Member
- Posts: 860
- Joined: 15 Apr 2010, 07:24
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:26021287
- Location: Port Charlotte, FL
Do you have an obscene spray?
If you have an obscene spray you need to tell us why you think it should be allowed on the server. In 500 words explain to us why your spray should be allowed.
Think of me what you will, I don't give a crap what you think about me. Nor will i change to please you.
-
Kriegsmarine
- Posts: 655
- Joined: 10 May 2009, 04:21
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:22107167
- Location: that's a good question...
- Contact:
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
actually, a very valid reason in my opinion.
Doke doke doke ushiro metai yatsu wa doke
-
Denzo
- Posts: 614
- Joined: 24 Dec 2010, 02:42
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:29304396
- Location: Holy shit, how did I get here
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
Essay #2
SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
In maintaining this principle, the greatest difficulty to be encountered does not lie in the appreciation of means towards an acknowledged end, but in the indifference of persons in general to the end itself. If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being; that it is not only a co-ordinate element with all that is designated by the terms civilization, instruction, education, culture, but is itself a necessary part and condition of all those things; there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued, and the adjustment of the boundaries between it and social control would present no extraordinary difficulty. But the evil is, that individual spontaneity is hardly recognised by the common modes of thinking, as having any intrinsic worth, or deserving any regard on its own account. The majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are (for it is they who make them what they are), cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody; and what is more, spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the majority of moral and social reformers, but is rather looked on with jealousy, as a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction to the general acceptance of what these reformers, in their own judgment, think would be best for mankind. Few persons, out of Germany, even comprehend the meaning of the doctrine which Wilhelm Von Humboldt, so eminent both as a savant and as a politician, made the text of a treatise—that "the end of man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal or immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole;" that, therefore, the object "towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts, and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow-men must ever keep their eyes, is the individuality of power and development;" that for this there are two requisites, "freedom, and a variety of situations;" and that from the union of these arise "individual vigour and manifold diversity," which combine themselves in "originality."
Little, however, as people are accustomed to a doctrine like that of Von Humboldt, and surprising as it may be to them to find so high a value attached to individuality, the question, one must nevertheless think, can only be one of degree. No one's idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character. On the other hand, it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth, as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character. The traditions and customs of other people are, to a certain extent, evidence of what their experience has taught them; presumptive evidence, and as such, have a claim to his deference: but, in the first place, their experience may be too narrow; or they may not have interpreted it rightly. Secondly, their interpretation of experience may be correct, but unsuitable to him. Customs are made for customary circumstances, and customary characters; and his circumstances or his character may be uncustomary. Thirdly, though the customs be both good as customs, and suitable to him, yet to conform to custom, merely as custom, does not educate or develope in him any of the qualities which are the distinctive endowment of a human being. The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or in desiring what is best. The mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only by being used. The faculties are called into no exercise by doing a thing merely because others do it, no more than by believing a thing only because others believe it. If the grounds of an opinion are not conclusive to the person's own reason, his reason cannot be strengthened, but is likely to be weakened, by his adopting it: and if the inducements to an act are not such as are consentaneous to his own feelings and character (where affection, or the rights of others, are not concerned) it is so much done towards rendering his feelings and character inert and torpid, instead of active and energetic.
SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
In maintaining this principle, the greatest difficulty to be encountered does not lie in the appreciation of means towards an acknowledged end, but in the indifference of persons in general to the end itself. If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being; that it is not only a co-ordinate element with all that is designated by the terms civilization, instruction, education, culture, but is itself a necessary part and condition of all those things; there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued, and the adjustment of the boundaries between it and social control would present no extraordinary difficulty. But the evil is, that individual spontaneity is hardly recognised by the common modes of thinking, as having any intrinsic worth, or deserving any regard on its own account. The majority, being satisfied with the ways of mankind as they now are (for it is they who make them what they are), cannot comprehend why those ways should not be good enough for everybody; and what is more, spontaneity forms no part of the ideal of the majority of moral and social reformers, but is rather looked on with jealousy, as a troublesome and perhaps rebellious obstruction to the general acceptance of what these reformers, in their own judgment, think would be best for mankind. Few persons, out of Germany, even comprehend the meaning of the doctrine which Wilhelm Von Humboldt, so eminent both as a savant and as a politician, made the text of a treatise—that "the end of man, or that which is prescribed by the eternal or immutable dictates of reason, and not suggested by vague and transient desires, is the highest and most harmonious development of his powers to a complete and consistent whole;" that, therefore, the object "towards which every human being must ceaselessly direct his efforts, and on which especially those who design to influence their fellow-men must ever keep their eyes, is the individuality of power and development;" that for this there are two requisites, "freedom, and a variety of situations;" and that from the union of these arise "individual vigour and manifold diversity," which combine themselves in "originality."
Little, however, as people are accustomed to a doctrine like that of Von Humboldt, and surprising as it may be to them to find so high a value attached to individuality, the question, one must nevertheless think, can only be one of degree. No one's idea of excellence in conduct is that people should do absolutely nothing but copy one another. No one would assert that people ought not to put into their mode of life, and into the conduct of their concerns, any impress whatever of their own judgment, or of their own individual character. On the other hand, it would be absurd to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another. Nobody denies that people should be so taught and trained in youth, as to know and benefit by the ascertained results of human experience. But it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way. It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character. The traditions and customs of other people are, to a certain extent, evidence of what their experience has taught them; presumptive evidence, and as such, have a claim to his deference: but, in the first place, their experience may be too narrow; or they may not have interpreted it rightly. Secondly, their interpretation of experience may be correct, but unsuitable to him. Customs are made for customary circumstances, and customary characters; and his circumstances or his character may be uncustomary. Thirdly, though the customs be both good as customs, and suitable to him, yet to conform to custom, merely as custom, does not educate or develope in him any of the qualities which are the distinctive endowment of a human being. The human faculties of perception, judgment, discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even moral preference, are exercised only in making a choice. He who does anything because it is the custom, makes no choice. He gains no practice either in discerning or in desiring what is best. The mental and moral, like the muscular powers, are improved only by being used. The faculties are called into no exercise by doing a thing merely because others do it, no more than by believing a thing only because others believe it. If the grounds of an opinion are not conclusive to the person's own reason, his reason cannot be strengthened, but is likely to be weakened, by his adopting it: and if the inducements to an act are not such as are consentaneous to his own feelings and character (where affection, or the rights of others, are not concerned) it is so much done towards rendering his feelings and character inert and torpid, instead of active and energetic.
-
Egonny
- •cC• Member
- Posts: 286
- Joined: 10 Jul 2010, 02:26
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:18190371
- Location: Belgium
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/jo ... pter3.htmlTheDenzo wrote:Essay #2
whatalongquoteishouldreplacethis
Last edited by Egonny on 26 Jun 2011, 02:19, edited 1 time in total.
-
Foley
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 08 Jul 2010, 05:20
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:16720255
- Xbox Gamer Tag: A Foley
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
Boob-
Goddamnit Denzo, thief of reasons.
Oh well. I'll elaborate by linking to this little article:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-212-boobs/
Goddamnit Denzo, thief of reasons.
Oh well. I'll elaborate by linking to this little article:
http://www.cracked.com/funny-212-boobs/
-
krubby
- Posts: 790
- Joined: 22 Jun 2011, 09:28
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:24566857
- Location: Orinda CA, land of the snobs
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
I believe that my spray should be allowed on the calculated Chaos servers for these reasons: one, I am a registered citizen of the United States of America and have the freedom to show anything considered legal by state law guaranteed by the first amendment of the United States constitution. Not allowing me to use my own image is denying me of my rights and is there for unconstitutional. Two, the image that I believe I should have the right to use as a spray is not a picture that was made to be viewed as pornography. Although it includes reproductive organs and feces inside of it, it cannot be found erotic by any human with a healthy mind. I understand that there are other ways of classifying an image as “obscene”, but this point argues out any possibility of this not being allowed because it is considered pornography. Three, the picture can easily be found humorous because of its vulgarity, unlikeliness, humorously large genitals, and the idea of how socially unacceptable it would be inside a human's circumstances. The fact that feces, generally considered by most as unclean and “gross”, is stuck on the owner’s testicles, something else that is considered private and sensitive, makes a combination that is many times funnier than either object would be alone. When humorous, most things are generally considered less, or not at all, "obscene". Four, the subject of the picture is a pig, an absurd and humorous animal. The subject being a pig makes the whole image more over-the-top weird, in turn making the entire image much less "inappropriate". Five, animal sexual organs are considered to be appropriate for viewing by all people because it is a completely natural biological part that is researched and written about. This picture could easily be used to learn more about the cleanliness of swine and the Suidae family in general, and how they react in an unsanitary scene. If this image were to not be made allowed, there is a significant chance that a mammalogist, ethologist (also known as an animal behavior specialist), scatologist (a scientist who specializes in the study of feces), or any other biological scientist who could be researching this would otherwise not see. By not deeming this image allowed, you risk delaying and preventing the progression of animal science. Finally, six, I wrote an entire five hundred word essay as I was instructed too, without copying it from anywhere, and it being entirely my creation. If another person is allowed to have their obscene spray allowed, then so should I because "TheDenzo" did not write an essay on his own and instead plagiarized, and he only used the first point I used in this essay, while I spent time and effort making this, and made many arguments. There for, if just one reason is enough, then surely six reasons should easily allow me to use my image. I believe that my arguments are all valid and are well backed up each, and I have made a formal well written approach. Thank you.
"[melee fort]'s just like checkers; the first few times you play it it's fun and interesting, but after a while you just wan't vomit your guts out and die in the bile." -pcJDAWG
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
krubby wrote:I am a registered citizen of the United States of America and have the freedom to show anything considered legal by state law guaranteed by the first amendment of the United States constitution. Not allowing me to use my own image is denying me of my rights and is there for unconstitutional.
krubby wrote: the freedom to show anything considered legal by state law guaranteed by the first amendment of the United States constitution. Not allowing me to use my own image is denying me of my rights and is there for unconstitutional.
krubby wrote:Not allowing me to use my own image is denying me of my rights and is there for unconstitutional.
krubby wrote: denying me of my rights and is there for unconstitutional.
krubby wrote: unconstitutional.
Internet =/= U.S.
Also this is old.
-
krubby
- Posts: 790
- Joined: 22 Jun 2011, 09:28
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:24566857
- Location: Orinda CA, land of the snobs
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
@LaN Well can you think of 121 words about the legality of pictures of pigs crapping on balls to replace it?
"[melee fort]'s just like checkers; the first few times you play it it's fun and interesting, but after a while you just wan't vomit your guts out and die in the bile." -pcJDAWG
-
spleenter
- •cC• Member
- Posts: 860
- Joined: 15 Apr 2010, 07:24
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:26021287
- Location: Port Charlotte, FL
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
FYI this is only for fartlandia. you spray that crap on the funserver ill ban you for an hour.krubby wrote:@LaN Well can you think of 121 words about the legality of pictures of pigs crapping on balls to replace it?
This is your warning.
Think of me what you will, I don't give a crap what you think about me. Nor will i change to please you.
-
Beetle
- •cC• Member
- Posts: 2243
- Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 01:33
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:2945765
- Location: North Carolina
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
spleenter wrote:FYI this is only for fartlandia. you spray that crap on the funserver ill ban you for an hour.krubby wrote:@LaN Well can you think of 121 words about the legality of pictures of pigs crapping on balls to replace it?
This is your warning.
GETIT?
Click Here to go to my Mapping Blog.
-
krubby
- Posts: 790
- Joined: 22 Jun 2011, 09:28
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:0:24566857
- Location: Orinda CA, land of the snobs
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
Yeah, I know. I hate it and wouldn't use it but I had nothing to do and thought it would be fun to write an obscure essay. I just wanted to see if I could.
"[melee fort]'s just like checkers; the first few times you play it it's fun and interesting, but after a while you just wan't vomit your guts out and die in the bile." -pcJDAWG
-
Beetle
- •cC• Member
- Posts: 2243
- Joined: 28 Dec 2008, 01:33
- Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:2945765
- Location: North Carolina
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
looks more like a crap on two giant tumors
Click Here to go to my Mapping Blog.
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
And the picture is just as bad.Beetle wrote:looks more like a crap on two giant tumors
Re: Do you have an obscene spray?
Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies. Boobies.
500 words.
500 words.
so one day, i was on the server and i was trying to build a senty with tgame. i counted down "3,2,1,"then BAM. SERVER CRASH. then some pacman.
"where did we go so wrong?" Eythur as Heavy. March 30th 2010.
"where did we go so wrong?" Eythur as Heavy. March 30th 2010.