If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   School shooting massacre averted. List found targeting six elementary school students including one girl because she was annoying. Suspects are two ten-year-olds who brought a gun and knife to school   (articles.latimes.com) divider line 207
    More: Scary, elementary schools, school shootings, ammunition clips, massacres, knife, attempted murder  
•       •       •

7805 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2013 at 2:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-18 03:24:53 AM  

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


Power consumption is horrible and all the drivers are bad.
 
2013-02-18 03:26:05 AM  

Oznog: But that's actually NOT as concrete as it sounds.  Kids like to fantasize about lots of stuff, including violence.  Certainly actually having a gun is a bad sign, but it's not conclusive that they were really going to do it.


certainly there should be the death penalty for the owner of the gun. period.
sorry but if you late-term abortion brings your gun to school, you die. period.
it would at least make guns owners a tiny bit more serious about gun safety and maybe keeping guns out of the hands of 10 year olds ...

/of course, this will lead to children setting up their parents in order to get their parents killed
 
2013-02-18 03:26:18 AM  
Maybe she shouldn't have been so annoying.
 
2013-02-18 03:26:40 AM  

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


oh
that is awesome
 
2013-02-18 03:27:28 AM  
The only thing that can stop a bad kid with a gun is a good kid with a gun

/I'm not too late, am I?
 
2013-02-18 03:27:57 AM  

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


Didn't russia try that in the 70s?
 
2013-02-18 03:28:35 AM  

super_grass: Children and family of gun owners and NRA supporters deserve be executed on pay-per-view with all the profits going to the relatives of the people being senselessly killed by guns in this country.

I'd watch the hell out of it and laugh myself to sleep every night knowing that those homicidal nut jobs are suffering like their victims.

*sigh*, a person can dream :)


Hah! Why don't you just senselessly kill them yourself and cut out the middle man?

I'm betting that you are too lazy. Or a coward. A smarter person would have come up with something better.

0/10
 
2013-02-18 03:29:10 AM  

super_grass: You need better ways to compensate for you lack of manhood.


*outraged return volley!*

Uchiha_Cycliste: What if they are just little shiats because of bad parents and we can get them better guardians?


If they're found to be not genuinely deranged, absolutely.

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?



Funny-Clicky
 
2013-02-18 03:29:33 AM  
I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.
 
2013-02-18 03:31:32 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.


The LA Times is actually a newspaper
 
2013-02-18 03:35:51 AM  

BigBurrito: FTA: "To me, 10- and 11-year-olds do bad things," he said. "They throw rocks through windows. They shoot BB guns at people's cars. They hit people with sticks, they set a cat on fire. Those are things that children do. But this was a plot to kill."

Is this really a thing? Cats on fire? What the hell is wrong with people.


That's what I'm wondering. As kids, we did pretty much everything on that list except set cats or dogs on fire. I think our favorite pastimes, growing up, were throwing snowballs at cars and dirt clods at each other.
 
2013-02-18 03:36:19 AM  

super_grass: Children and family of gun owners and NRA supporters deserve be executed on pay-per-view with all the profits going to the relatives of the people being senselessly killed by guns in this country.

I'd watch the hell out of it and laugh myself to sleep every night knowing that those homicidal nut jobs are suffering like their victims.

*sigh*, a person can dream :)


Don't you just like...wanna.. I dunno...shoot us?

super_grass: You need better ways to compensate for you lack of manhood.


Nice projection, you're afraid of inanimate objects, but it's our manhood in question. OK.
 
2013-02-18 03:38:23 AM  
Kids these days.  When I was that age, if a girl was mean, you thew mud at her.  Same if you liked her.  Mud was the go-to at 10.
 
2013-02-18 03:43:28 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.


what is the proper punishment for the owner of this gun?
or if the kid bought it, the seller of the gun?

and if the punishment doesnt include 10-50 years in prison or death, how would we actually get people to secure their guns??
currently some people failing completely
 
2013-02-18 03:43:48 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.

The LA Times is actually a newspaper


Aaaah yeah, one of those newsprint things I unfold all over the desk to disassemble and clean my guns on. My dog reads them on the potty while she's in the middle of an indoor accident. Pretty useful stuff.
 
2013-02-18 03:44:37 AM  

jtown: Kids these days.  When I was that age, if a girl was mean, you thew mud at her.  Same if you liked her.  Mud was the go-to at 10.


Where was all this mud coming from??
 
2013-02-18 03:47:27 AM  

BigBurrito: FTA: "To me, 10- and 11-year-olds do bad things," he said. "They throw rocks through windows. They shoot BB guns at people's cars. They hit people with sticks, they set a cat on fire. Those are things that children do. But this was a plot to kill."

Is this really a thing? Cats on fire? What the hell is wrong with people.


Someone really needs to put a tail on this guy. I think there's a 10% chance he's got bodies buried under his chrysanthemums; a 33% chance he's molesting livestock. Something's wrong with him or possibl y his own kids.
 
2013-02-18 03:47:40 AM  
An armed teacher could have put those two little farkers down nice and quick. Clearly we need at the very least armed patrols in our elementary schools.
 
2013-02-18 03:48:59 AM  

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


Sandy Hook, Sandy Bridge, same same
 
2013-02-18 03:53:50 AM  
This is a direct result of the media coverage that floods all news channels after an unfortunate tragedy occurs.
 
2013-02-18 03:57:17 AM  
I realize that all children are unique and precious snowflakes who are already perfect in every way and just need space and nurturing to find themselves, but I can't help but think that maybe beating these little dickweeds until they sh*t their pants and bleed and vomit and need stitches might help them along.  Just planting seeds.
 
2013-02-18 03:57:47 AM  

namatad: violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

what is the proper punishment for the owner of this gun?
or if the kid bought it, the seller of the gun?

and if the punishment doesnt include 10-50 years in prison or death, how would we actually get people to secure their guns??
currently some people failing completely


I don't know the answer to this question. I don't know where the kid got the gun, so it's hard to apply a solution to this scenario.

I've mentioned the idea of tax credits for approved and properly installed guns safes. I don't know if that is a good idea or not, but it never seemed to elicit much of a discussion. Regardless it all boils down to common sense and responsible gun ownership, and lately we aren't seeing enough of either. And that human stupidity will always be the weakness in any decent idea.
 
2013-02-18 03:58:47 AM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.

The LA Times is actually a newspaper


That was pretty good
 
2013-02-18 04:00:57 AM  

Xexi: This is a direct result of the media coverage that floods all news channels after an unfortunate tragedy occurs.


More likely a direct result of shiatty parenting. Also piss-poor government regulation.
 
2013-02-18 04:27:18 AM  

Giltric: The firearm doesn't create the disregard for human life.
People are broken...address that first before more firearm legislation.


Bingo! and it starts right at the top, with our blood thirsty WashDC Daddy Warbucks Military reigning hell all over the place non-stop since before most of us were born. it's glorified in movies, it's daily propaganda, it's a damn shame. human life has no value to our fearless clown shoe wearing leaders. it starts at the top and trickles down. it's nice to live in the USA; i'm thankful i'm not in one of the many countries where death and destruction has been our calling card, or drones buzz overhead looking to take out another target. rich powerful american families make big bucks off human suffering. sick sad world.
 
2013-02-18 04:27:22 AM  

Iplaybass: Xexi: This is a direct result of the media coverage that floods all news channels after an unfortunate tragedy occurs.

More likely a direct result of shiatty parenting. Also piss-poor government regulation.


psychologists feel otherwise
 
2013-02-18 04:30:07 AM  
People, lock up your gotdam guns. 

....that is all......
 
2013-02-18 04:36:21 AM  
And so begins the copy-cats. With all the attention people get from school shootings, we should see a lot more of these.
 
2013-02-18 04:53:39 AM  

jtown: Kids these days.  When I was that age, if a girl was mean, you thew mud at her.  Same if you liked her.  Mud was the go-to at 10.


Are kids still alowed to throw mud at kids who are mean to them?

Are they allowed to do anything to kids who are mean to them?  Other than telling the teacher, I mean.

How does a ten year old timebomb respect his anger any more?
 
2013-02-18 04:57:11 AM  

GranoblasticMan: Smoking GNU: America is broken.

Have you tried turning it off and on again?


No, but Chris Dorner did.
 
2013-02-18 05:01:31 AM  

BigBurrito: FTA: "To me, 10- and 11-year-olds do bad things," he said. "They throw rocks through windows. They shoot BB guns at people's cars. They hit people with sticks, they set a cat on fire. Those are things that children do. But this was a plot to kill."

Is this really a thing? Cats on fire? What the hell is wrong with people.


Came in here to point this out.  Setting a cat on fire is just a thing children do?
 
2013-02-18 05:06:39 AM  

namatad: 1) take the children from the parents - FOREVER
2) toss the parents in prison - FOREVER (also sterilize them, just in case)
3) the kids should probably be sterilized just to be safe
4) the kids should be moved to another part of the country or planet and never have contact with anyone who was in their life previously

seriously
when do we actually start doing things differently?
or do are we just willingly accepting a certain amount of shrinkage in the system?


Well, the system IS cold.
 
2013-02-18 05:12:19 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: TomD9938: Uchiha_Cycliste: I think I would love to see a ten year old try to shoot a .45

Yeah, my thought as well.  And Remington 1911?  Thought that was just Colt.

While nothing came of this incident, it still may be a good idea to put these two in a comfortable cage for the rest of their lives.

If we dont, and they finally go ahead and cause actual damage when they're 20 year old tweakers, people will ask why these two nut-bags werent coralled earlier.

Maybe, maybe not, What if they are just little shiats because of bad parents and we can get them better guardians? Otherwise you my be right.


Probably too late, since they were already about to act on it, the sociopaths.
 
2013-02-18 05:13:01 AM  
A friend grew  up in the projects in Cleveland and they used to go have cap gun fights at the greyhound bus station to scare the folks that happened to be waiting for connecting buses.  One time an officer with a dog managed to get there faster than they were expecting and as they were running away, the dog got away from its keeper and followed the kids into the projects where the cops wouldn't go without lots of reinforcement.  Apparently the dog found a kid that usually sat quietly mumbling to himself and the kid set the dog on fire.
 
2013-02-18 05:19:52 AM  

phalaeo: BigBurrito: FTA: "To me, 10- and 11-year-olds do bad things," he said. "They throw rocks through windows. They shoot BB guns at people's cars. They hit people with sticks, they set a cat on fire. Those are things that children do. But this was a plot to kill."

Is this really a thing? Cats on fire? What the hell is wrong with people.

Came in here to point this out.  Setting a cat on fire is just a thing children do?


Some, yes.  Kids to an insurmountable amount of stupid shiat because they don't have a sense of what will happen, and a complete lack of a sense of repercussion, backed by insatiable curiosity.  Same with toys up the nose or a million other retarded things.

Can't even say it's particularly psychotic unless it's an older child.  The indicator for that is how they feel afterward.
 
2013-02-18 05:28:33 AM  

super_grass: Children and family of gun owners and NRA supporters deserve be executed on pay-per-view with all the profits going to the relatives of the people being senselessly killed by guns in this country.

I'd watch the hell out of it and laugh myself to sleep every night knowing that those homicidal nut jobs are suffering like their victims.

*sigh*, a person can dream :)


And they say only right-wingers are bigots.
 
2013-02-18 05:32:19 AM  

IlGreven: quatchi: mental health care (Which the NRA itself now endorses ,you'll note)

...no, they don't.  They just say they do to take the heat off.  But as long as they keep national health organizations and HMOs on their "enemies of the 2nd amendment" watchlist for deigning to have the opinion that perhaps fewer guns would save us millions in healthcare costs, don't believe it for a second.


And exactly what makes you say that??  Why would you honestly believe they are against mental health care???
 
2013-02-18 05:36:10 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't know the answer to this question. I don't know where the kid got the gun, so it's hard to apply a solution to this scenario.


nope
the question is NOT given the facts, what should happen.
the question is GIVEN the plausible scenarios, what should happen.

case 1) the gun was left in a public bathroom by the gun's owner. this happens often it seems, at least in fark headlines. What should happen to the gun owner? (my thought is 10-20 hard time)

case 2) the gun is owned by one of the parents of the two children. What should happen to the parent? (my thought is 10-20 hard time)

case 3) someone sold the gun to the child. What should happen to the seller? (my thought is death my hanging ...)

/we know that we dont know HOW the kid got the gun. we CAN talk about these 3 scenarios.
/what will happen? probably NOTHING.
/Most likely scenario is parent's gun. kid "stole" it. Gun was not in a safe. Wasnt locked in a drawer or kid got access to key. Didnt have a trigger lock or kid got access to the key.
/Once again, the question is NOT, how did the kid get the gun. IT is what SHOULD we do to reduce the number of these events. Given the 3 scenarios, WHAT should be done?
 
2013-02-18 05:42:37 AM  
Farkage: IlGreven: quatchi: mental health care (Which the NRA itself now endorses ,you'll note)

...no, they don't.  They just say they do to take the heat off.  But as long as they keep national health organizations and HMOs on their "enemies of the 2nd amendment" watchlist for deigning to have the opinion that perhaps fewer guns would save us millions in healthcare costs, don't believe it for a second.


And exactly what makes you say that??  Why would you honestly believe they are against mental health care???

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-scie nc e-on-gun-violence/

It's not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don't know how to study guns' connection to violence.  It's rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes.  As The Times reported, "Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work."

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004.  There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.


This.
 
2013-02-18 05:48:22 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.


Ah, see while i would normally agree with you on the whole clip/magazine terminology usage, i discovered recently WHY the media uses the term clip MOST of the time... If you pay close attention you will hear them use the term magazine from time to time, and this used to make me think that there were some smarter journalists out there... then i saw the same journalist use the wrong term during another segment at a later date... This caught my attention, and i started looking into it...

The answer:  The media uses the term "Magazine" and "Magazine fed" when they are talking about "assault weapons", aka, Scary Looking Guns, and use the term "Clip" when the gun in question isn't on the Scary Looking Guns list... Listen for them to say "A magazine fed assault rifle" when something like an AR or AK is used in next tragic event...
 
2013-02-18 05:53:05 AM  

quatchi: Farkage: IlGreven: quatchi: mental health care (Which the NRA itself now endorses ,you'll note)

...no, they don't.  They just say they do to take the heat off.  But as long as they keep national health organizations and HMOs on their "enemies of the 2nd amendment" watchlist for deigning to have the opinion that perhaps fewer guns would save us millions in healthcare costs, don't believe it for a second.

And exactly what makes you say that??  Why would you honestly believe they are against mental health care???

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-scie nc e-on-gun-violence/

It's not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don't know how to study guns' connection to violence.  It's rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes.  As The Times reported, "Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work."

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004.  There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.

This.


You quoted an opinion blog as "facts"??  That was a liberal-biased opinion about "gun research".  How about if you try reading this and give another shot at answering my question, mkay?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-2923101.html
 
2013-02-18 06:00:38 AM  
Farkage: quatchi: Farkage: IlGreven: quatchi: mental health care (Which the NRA itself now endorses ,you'll note)

...no, they don't.  They just say they do to take the heat off.  But as long as they keep national health organizations and HMOs on their "enemies of the 2nd amendment" watchlist for deigning to have the opinion that perhaps fewer guns would save us millions in healthcare costs, don't believe it for a second.

And exactly what makes you say that??  Why would you honestly believe they are against mental health care???

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-scie nc e-on-gun-violence/

It's not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don't know how to study guns' connection to violence.  It's rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes.  As The Times reported, "Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work."

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004.  There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.

This.


You quoted an opinion blog as "facts"??  That was a liberal-biased opinion about "gun research".  How about if you try reading this and give another shot at answering my question, mkay?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-2923101.html

A link from 2009?

Sure let's see what ya got...

From your link...

The NRA did win concessions.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.


You're not very good at this, are you?
 
2013-02-18 06:03:26 AM  
As kids, we lived in the Valley. At night we could see the cat fires up on the Ridge. We knew enough not to go up there.
 
2013-02-18 06:07:38 AM  

CeroX: violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.

Ah, see while i would normally agree with you on the whole clip/magazine terminology usage, i discovered recently WHY the media uses the term clip MOST of the time... If you pay close attention you will hear them use the term magazine from time to time, and this used to make me think that there were some smarter journalists out there... then i saw the same journalist use the wrong term during another segment at a later date... This caught my attention, and i started looking into it...

The answer:  The media uses the term "Magazine" and "Magazine fed" when they are talking about "assault weapons", aka, Scary Looking Guns, and use the term "Clip" when the gun in question isn't on the Scary Looking Guns list... Listen for them to say "A magazine fed assault rifle" when something like an AR or AK is used in next tragic event...




Plausible.
I've just attributed it to reporters who really don't know better.
What they know about guns and gun culture comes from video games, movies, and other reporters. Theses sources commonly use phrases like "toss me a clip" and call anything in 223 a "high powered assault rifle" (which is an oxymoron in itself).

Reporters think loading on the details gives the story more punch. But since their sources are wrong or misleading, their descriptions and narratives are also wrong.

When equally clueless lawmakers write things based on those reports, the results are comical.

/like how people feared Dorner was running house to house with a Barret.
/A ten thousand dollar twenty pound gun that somehow makes the ban list every damn time despite having killed fewer people than Laura Bush.
 
2013-02-18 06:11:24 AM  

violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.


OH MY GOD WHO THE HELL CARES ???
 
2013-02-18 06:14:19 AM  

way south: video games, movies, and other reporters.


Welcome to the mutation of language
Repeat a miss-use of word enough, and the definition of the word changes or gets an additional meaning.
Annoying english grammar teachers everywhere can go on and on about the destruction of language, but in the end, living languages change over time, including the definition of words.

I would be willing to bet that if you did a survey of the population, that the majority of people would use clip to mean a hand gun magazine and limit magazine to something only for a rifle. Or use the completely interchangeably. Or not even know that magazine is an option.

Certainly inner city gun owners would probably only use clip.
 
2013-02-18 06:15:08 AM  

padraig: violentsalvation: I don't know where this 1911 came from, but people need to secure their f*cking guns, goddammit.

And it's a magazine, not a clip, LA Times.

OH MY GOD WHO THE HELL CARES ???


school teachers and pedants
/Apedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of his or her learning.
/aka an annoying fark
 
2013-02-18 06:19:55 AM  

Giltric: The firearm doesn't create the disregard for human life.
People are broken...address that first before more firearm legislation.


Broken people are a lot less dangerous without guns in their hands.
 
2013-02-18 06:21:52 AM  

way south: I've just attributed it to reporters who really don't know better.


The reporters themselves probably don't, but i've seen reporters use both terms... which makes me think that when one of the Big Scary Guns is used in a crime, they HAVE to use certain buzzword terms, "High Powered Assault Rifle, Magazine Fed Assault Rifle, High Capacity Magazines, Automatic Assault Weapon"

Notice they NEVER say "High Capacity Clip"? They always use the term magazine when talking about guns that have been historically banned in the past.

Once you get the automatic reaction to flip out over the incorrect usage of the terms, you start to realize that they actually do use correct terminology, but only in context... a context that appears to be trying to associate the term "magazine" with the term "assault weapon". Otherwise they use the term clip...
 
2013-02-18 06:35:38 AM  

quatchi: Farkage: quatchi: Farkage: IlGreven: quatchi: mental health care (Which the NRA itself now endorses ,you'll note)

...no, they don't.  They just say they do to take the heat off.  But as long as they keep national health organizations and HMOs on their "enemies of the 2nd amendment" watchlist for deigning to have the opinion that perhaps fewer guns would save us millions in healthcare costs, don't believe it for a second.

And exactly what makes you say that??  Why would you honestly believe they are against mental health care???

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/the-blockade-on-scie nc e-on-gun-violence/

It's not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don't know how to study guns' connection to violence.  It's rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes.  As The Times reported, "Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work."

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004.  There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus.

This.

You quoted an opinion blog as "facts"??  That was a liberal-biased opinion about "gun research".  How about if you try reading this and give another shot at answering my question, mkay?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-2923101.html

A link from 2009?

Sure let's see what ya got...

From your link...

The NRA did win concessions.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such v ...


You don't see a difference between the statement of "The NRA is against mental health care" and having someone's rights restored?  Really?  And as I said, the initially quoted article had nothing to do with mental health, did it?  But that is your "Evidence"?  Goalpost moving or just comprehension fail?
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report