Illuminati-R-Us

by **nicozine** » Mon May 08, 2006 2:55 pm

N C More wrote:
"Resistance is futile...just hand over the shoes!"- The IRU Borg- :wink:

the Borg wear shoes??????

by **teri tait** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:16 pm

Cyndi wrote:
Lance wrote:But is Bill Thompson also Candy?

So is it here where I tell you all that Bill use to have a little dog named Candy??

teri tait wrote:All it proves is people from Illinois are weird (St Louis is just across the river!!) and to be feared. Except for you Lance, I'm sure you're normal

*backs quietly out of the thread*

Except for Lance??
EXCEPT FOR LANCE ???

[clears throat] uh... aren't you forgetting someone Teri??

Whoopsie! Sorry Bossette! But it's so obvious that you are the one who keeps Lance sane, I thought it went without saying.
Where would our dear Lance be without out your guiding competent hands?

by **Lance** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:19 pm

See, Cyndi?

She's really good. I told you she was good.

by **teri tait** » Mon May 08, 2006 3:29 pm

Lance wrote:See, Cyndi?

She's really good. I told you she was good.

Well, that bonus I get every month for inconsequential sucking up is pretty good incentive.

by **SciFi Chick** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:33 pm

I've read this whole thread, and what I want to know is: does this mean the Loch Ness Monster is real? :shock:

by **Lance** » Mon May 08, 2006 4:41 pm

It must.

by **MM_Dandy** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:02 pm

That depends. According to my dead jackalope friend (the wolfalope ate him), the Loch Ness Monster does exist, but it doesn't live in Loch Ness. But, you always have to take a dead Jackalope's words with a grain of salt.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:08 pm

MM_Dandy wrote:That depends. According to my dead jackalope friend (the wolfalope ate him), the Loch Ness Monster does exist, but it doesn't live in Loch Ness.

He's in my living room. I call her "Bessie".

But, you always have to take a dead Jackalope's words with a grain of salt.

And a dead Jackalope doesn't taste bad with it, too!

by **MM_Dandy** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:19 pm

Lonewulf wrote:He's in my living room. I call her "Bessie".

Fascinating. My dead jackalope hasn't mentioned that "Bessie" is intersexed.

Oh, and my dead jackalope friend tells me that you may want to have your colon checked. :P

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:21 pm

Who ever said that the Loch Ness Monster was male?

I never knew it was explicitely stated before...

by **Мастер** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:27 pm

SciFi Chick wrote:I've read this whole thread, and what I want to know is: does this mean the Loch Ness Monster is real?

As real as the non-zero number equal to the difference between 1 and 0.999~

by **Lance** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:36 pm

Oh, you must mean 0.000~1 then.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:40 pm

If .99~ = 1, then does .99~ X 2 = 2?

And does 1.99~ = 2?

by **Dragon Star** » Mon May 08, 2006 8:58 pm

Lonewulf wrote:If .99~ = 1, then does .99~ X 2 = 2?

And does 1.99~ = 2?

Be quiet before you hurt someone...

I would say that Candy is fake but ToSeek has been with her a few times, making her quite real...

by **N C More** » Mon May 08, 2006 9:20 pm

Ok, all kidding aside for a moment, alright?

Now, just about anything (even the Loch Ness monster, I guess) can be rationalized in order to fit into one's personal notion of reality. One can choose to apply reason and rational thought to the development of one's personal gestalt, or one can take the path we commonly see taken by various conspiracy theorists and *make* objective reality fit into one's personal notion of reality. One of these choices is healthy, the other is not.

When taken to the silly extremes of our humorous interlude here, it's all really pretty funny. However, when the subjects in the OT go through their own rather "unique gyrations" in order to support their peculiar narcissistic world views, it ceases to be very amusing. The idea that this forum is chock-full of various sockpuppets, or that everyone posting to the BAUT board is an intellectual half-wit, is not even remotely reasonable.

Ok, I just felt the need to address that in a serious manner. I now intend to go and drink a large glass of merlot wine...I found the shoes!

by **MM_Dandy** » Mon May 08, 2006 10:31 pm

N C More wrote:When taken to the silly extremes of our humorous interlude here, it's all really pretty funny. However, when the subjects in the OT go through their own rather "unique gyrations" in order to support their peculiar narcissistic world views, it ceases to be very amusing. The idea that this forum is chock-full of various sockpuppets, or that everyone posting to the BAUT board is an intellectual half-wit, is not even remotely reasonable.

Duly noted, N C More. However, with perhaps only a few exceptions here (and I say that mostly because cannot speak for every person who might read this), you're preaching to the choir.

And now, with all seriousness aside...

Do you suppose that, all things being equal, a dead jackalope reading this thread might interperet this as a serious discussion?

by **Doe, John** » Mon May 08, 2006 11:48 pm

Or at least seriously consider buying a pair of sling back navy blue pumps?

by **nicozine** » Tue May 09, 2006 12:51 am

MM_Dandy wrote:[Fascinating. My dead jackalope hasn't mentioned that "Bessie" is intersexed.

:P

bolding is mine. im not sure what that word means but it suounds interesting. 8-[

by **I Am He** » Tue May 09, 2006 1:22 am

N C More wrote:
I am you, you are me, we are us....the IRU version of the Borg?

No, No, NC More, it's I Am He not I Am You, and I am not you. So don't even think that we are us. I hope this will straighten things out.

Writing.com Account · by **Lonewulf** » Tue May 09, 2006 1:25 am

nicozine wrote:
MM_Dandy wrote:[Fascinating. My dead jackalope hasn't mentioned that "Bessie" is intersexed.

:P

bolding is mine. im not sure what that word means but it suounds interesting.

I now realize I used both "he" and "she" to refer to the same individual. And now, I realize the comedy behind MM_Dandy's statement.

by **Ikyoto** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:03 am

So who's on first?

by **Swamp Pixie** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:05 am

Ikyoto wrote:So who's on first?

What's on second and I Don't Know is pitching... Nice jacket BTW... different look for you isn't it?

by **Ikyoto** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:08 am

It's fer when i gotta take those side jobs as a piano player in crappy dives.

by **Swamp Pixie** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:10 am

Ikyoto wrote:It's fer when i gotta take those side jobs as a piano player in crappy dives.

So how come we had to hire that lounge lizard for the Sand Bar?

by **Ikyoto** » Tue May 09, 2006 2:16 am

and the next image is for...

Illuminati-R-Us

Bill Thompson and Candy

Who is online