Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Giganova    

Rank #27492 on Comments
Giganova Avatar Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower
Offline
Send mail to Giganova Block Giganova Invite Giganova to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Steam Profile: Monotic
Consoles Owned: Xbox 360, Xbox, PSX, PS2, Sega Saturn, Dreamcast, N64, SNES, Commodore 64, Gameboy, Gameboy Pocket, Gameboy Light, Gameboy Color, Gameboy Advance, Gameboy Advance SP, NDS, 3DS, PSP, PSVita
Interests: Vidya Games
Date Signed Up:11/24/2010
Last Login:9/01/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#27492
Highest Content Rank:#2587
Highest Comment Rank:#4053
Content Thumbs: 5511 total,  6131 ,  620
Comment Thumbs: 2055 total,  2625 ,  570
Content Level Progress: 10% (10/100)
Level 155 Content: Faptastic → Level 156 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 54% (54/100)
Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 221 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:1
Content Views:116504
Times Content Favorited:338 times
Total Comments Made:840
FJ Points:3578
Favorite Tags: crashes (6) | Cars (4) | tags (4) | the (4) | why (4) | lol (3) | You (3) | Answers (2) | i (2) | Yahoo (2)

latest user's comments

#466397 - Am I the only one not bitching about this and wait until THE S…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/21/2013 on Video Games Board - console... +2
User avatar #466398 - walkingdisaster (05/21/2013) [-]
But bitching is fun
#89 - We already know when its coming out you moron, October 2013.  [+] (1 new reply) 05/15/2013 on The times are a-changing 0
User avatar #412 - leapinglizard (05/16/2013) [-]
well obviously some people do not know if they are calling me about it.... not everyone can be as smart as you
#10 - And you only replied to tell me that, 6 days after I posted th… 05/14/2013 on My title is better than... -1
#20 - >At least be educated on the topic when you try to argue =…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/12/2013 on Sounds right. 0
User avatar #22 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
> First of all, it wasn't an insulting phrase. I meant it sincerely. And apparently it was needed.

> I never said that. I said Linux, Windows, & Mac all have their own merits and reasons for use.
> No... You guys tell each other to delete your System32, we ban people on forums doing that shit.
> No, WIndows isn't stable. On one of their release floors they got the BSOD. There's a reason supercomputers, almost all space programs, microchips, and servers use Linux backbones. Because it's reliable.
> No, you don't. Because Windows has no package management system. Installations are all indepedant. You don't have orphan checking to remove unneeded files. You don't have a list of active software. Windows only updates system (or Windows integrated - i.e. Office & drivers) software.
> No, because exe is Microsoft proprietary code. Doesn't run on Mac. And WINE is a last ditch option. In reality, you aren't supposed to run Microsoft software on Linux, because it's made for Windows. Mac can't do it either. Doesn't make Mac bad? Linux has executables - no extensions. Of course usually you shouldn't use an executable directly unless you know what you're doing. You SHOULD get your software through the package manager (or at least by installing through a rpm/deb/) so it's automagically adding repo data, dependencies, putting the data into your task manager, putting files into the proper /usr/bin and /usr/lib folders, etc. And use alternatives. Photoshop -> GIMP. Office -> LibreOffice. So on and so forth. Just because the alternatives are free doesn't make them inferior. In fact the free alternatives are usually better since they're OSS, getting help from more developers who are more passionate and actually care a lot more about the people using their software.

Again, you obviously haven't tried Linux. Again, you obviously don't understand the topic we're discussing to any large degree. Refer to my comment 21.
#18 - >Windows programs get updated regularly >I can downl…  [+] (4 new replies) 05/12/2013 on Sounds right. 0
User avatar #19 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
Why choose Linux? Because you want Linux. That's the only reason. Just like you choose a Mac because you want a Mac. Mac has less software than Windows, Mac updates like a Windows. Windows has been the mainstream OS for much longer - of course it has the most software.

There's a lot of reasons to use Linux, there's a lot of reasons to use Mac or Windows too! And you should choose what fits YOU best. Obviously, you haven't even tried Linux, so you're needlessly looking down on it.

Personally, I dislike Mac. It's nice for simplicity, but I don't like it THAT simple. Windows 7 is nice. Windows 8 I actually enjoyed, to be honest. It's funky, but I'm used to the keyboard shortcuts it's obviously fond of. But I use Linux on my computers. My girlfriend does the same - she actually can't stand using Windows anymore.

Why? Because Linux is snazzy. The package system is super, super simple. Just click on the checkbox for things you want to uninstall, update, or install and click apply! Done! When you get updates, you're notified of all of them. And not just computer updates, updates to EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE! And they fetch dependencies so you don't have those "missing X" errors! Because it's got a great community (if you reciprocate). Advocating OSS, which makes the world a better place. It's codebase is so beautiful, they use it as a benchmark for all other OSS work. And that makes it blazing fast and stable as a rock. Because it's easier to develop for! Because it's about choice! You want simplicity like Mac? Use Gnome! Want simplicity like Windows? Use KDE? Want anything in between, we have Cinnamon, MATE, XFCE, OpenBox, and whatever else you could need! Want bleeding edge? Manjaro. Want stable? Debian. Want mainstream? Mint/Ubuntu.

I could go on and on, but I'm out of space. At least be educated on the topic when you try to argue or look down on something. If you want to know why you'd choose Linux, don't ask people. Use Linux and decide if it's right for you!
User avatar #21 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
Because ultimately it's your personal preferences. Nobody can tell you what you will or won't like. And talking about it doesn't get the messages across properly. Just like I could tell you about the features of a Mac and you'd probably be disgusted, even if they're great features (and many of them are)! Personal experience is pretty much the only option in this case. Just try a live boot! No need to install, just play around. It's another choice. Like both WIndows & Linux? Dual boot! And if you need any help wiki.archlinux.org/ (but seriously, don't use Arch. The wiki is great but the OS is for experts only.). Try some different DEs, and remember it's not all about interface! I use a minimal interface on my laptop OS and the lightest background applications possible and I went from 2 hours battery to 4 hours battery (when I'm just using Chrome). So while it's not super pretty, it's super efficient. If you don't like it, that's great! Stay with Windows or Mac! It's no skin off my nose! I'm just glad you gave it a chance and expanded your knowledge!
User avatar #20 - Giganova (05/12/2013) [-]
>At least be educated on the topic when you try to argue = not needed.

People always act like Linux is the holy grail of operating systems because its "free". I just wanted to know why you choose Linux and nothing more.

Windows has a great community too, Windows is stable too, I can personalize Windows, I can use checkboxes to update stuff. These items are not Linux exclusive.

I tried Linux, it doesn't run exe and that Wine stuff is annoying.
User avatar #22 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
> First of all, it wasn't an insulting phrase. I meant it sincerely. And apparently it was needed.

> I never said that. I said Linux, Windows, & Mac all have their own merits and reasons for use.
> No... You guys tell each other to delete your System32, we ban people on forums doing that shit.
> No, WIndows isn't stable. On one of their release floors they got the BSOD. There's a reason supercomputers, almost all space programs, microchips, and servers use Linux backbones. Because it's reliable.
> No, you don't. Because Windows has no package management system. Installations are all indepedant. You don't have orphan checking to remove unneeded files. You don't have a list of active software. Windows only updates system (or Windows integrated - i.e. Office & drivers) software.
> No, because exe is Microsoft proprietary code. Doesn't run on Mac. And WINE is a last ditch option. In reality, you aren't supposed to run Microsoft software on Linux, because it's made for Windows. Mac can't do it either. Doesn't make Mac bad? Linux has executables - no extensions. Of course usually you shouldn't use an executable directly unless you know what you're doing. You SHOULD get your software through the package manager (or at least by installing through a rpm/deb/) so it's automagically adding repo data, dependencies, putting the data into your task manager, putting files into the proper /usr/bin and /usr/lib folders, etc. And use alternatives. Photoshop -> GIMP. Office -> LibreOffice. So on and so forth. Just because the alternatives are free doesn't make them inferior. In fact the free alternatives are usually better since they're OSS, getting help from more developers who are more passionate and actually care a lot more about the people using their software.

Again, you obviously haven't tried Linux. Again, you obviously don't understand the topic we're discussing to any large degree. Refer to my comment 21.
#2 - Actually, Linux updates change system data, they don't add so …  [+] (6 new replies) 05/11/2013 on Sounds right. 0
User avatar #5 - Fgner (05/11/2013) [-]
Yes, yes they do.

> Update the OS - access to the new stable repos. Usually including a lot of new software, and virtually all the existing software is updated.
> Update a program - I went from Blender 2.64 to 2.66 and got myself some sexy ass dynamic topology for sculpting!
> Update system utility - free bug fixes securities!

Sure, system data may be changed, but what's the point of an update if it ONLY changes system data. Then nobody would bother to get it nor bother to support the people doing it.
User avatar #18 - Giganova (05/12/2013) [-]
>Windows programs get updated regularly
>I can download Blender on windows too.
>Windows updates fix security.
>Windows has alot more compatible programs.

I don't see why I would choose linux.
User avatar #19 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
Why choose Linux? Because you want Linux. That's the only reason. Just like you choose a Mac because you want a Mac. Mac has less software than Windows, Mac updates like a Windows. Windows has been the mainstream OS for much longer - of course it has the most software.

There's a lot of reasons to use Linux, there's a lot of reasons to use Mac or Windows too! And you should choose what fits YOU best. Obviously, you haven't even tried Linux, so you're needlessly looking down on it.

Personally, I dislike Mac. It's nice for simplicity, but I don't like it THAT simple. Windows 7 is nice. Windows 8 I actually enjoyed, to be honest. It's funky, but I'm used to the keyboard shortcuts it's obviously fond of. But I use Linux on my computers. My girlfriend does the same - she actually can't stand using Windows anymore.

Why? Because Linux is snazzy. The package system is super, super simple. Just click on the checkbox for things you want to uninstall, update, or install and click apply! Done! When you get updates, you're notified of all of them. And not just computer updates, updates to EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE! And they fetch dependencies so you don't have those "missing X" errors! Because it's got a great community (if you reciprocate). Advocating OSS, which makes the world a better place. It's codebase is so beautiful, they use it as a benchmark for all other OSS work. And that makes it blazing fast and stable as a rock. Because it's easier to develop for! Because it's about choice! You want simplicity like Mac? Use Gnome! Want simplicity like Windows? Use KDE? Want anything in between, we have Cinnamon, MATE, XFCE, OpenBox, and whatever else you could need! Want bleeding edge? Manjaro. Want stable? Debian. Want mainstream? Mint/Ubuntu.

I could go on and on, but I'm out of space. At least be educated on the topic when you try to argue or look down on something. If you want to know why you'd choose Linux, don't ask people. Use Linux and decide if it's right for you!
User avatar #21 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
Because ultimately it's your personal preferences. Nobody can tell you what you will or won't like. And talking about it doesn't get the messages across properly. Just like I could tell you about the features of a Mac and you'd probably be disgusted, even if they're great features (and many of them are)! Personal experience is pretty much the only option in this case. Just try a live boot! No need to install, just play around. It's another choice. Like both WIndows & Linux? Dual boot! And if you need any help wiki.archlinux.org/ (but seriously, don't use Arch. The wiki is great but the OS is for experts only.). Try some different DEs, and remember it's not all about interface! I use a minimal interface on my laptop OS and the lightest background applications possible and I went from 2 hours battery to 4 hours battery (when I'm just using Chrome). So while it's not super pretty, it's super efficient. If you don't like it, that's great! Stay with Windows or Mac! It's no skin off my nose! I'm just glad you gave it a chance and expanded your knowledge!
User avatar #20 - Giganova (05/12/2013) [-]
>At least be educated on the topic when you try to argue = not needed.

People always act like Linux is the holy grail of operating systems because its "free". I just wanted to know why you choose Linux and nothing more.

Windows has a great community too, Windows is stable too, I can personalize Windows, I can use checkboxes to update stuff. These items are not Linux exclusive.

I tried Linux, it doesn't run exe and that Wine stuff is annoying.
User avatar #22 - Fgner (05/12/2013) [-]
> First of all, it wasn't an insulting phrase. I meant it sincerely. And apparently it was needed.

> I never said that. I said Linux, Windows, & Mac all have their own merits and reasons for use.
> No... You guys tell each other to delete your System32, we ban people on forums doing that shit.
> No, WIndows isn't stable. On one of their release floors they got the BSOD. There's a reason supercomputers, almost all space programs, microchips, and servers use Linux backbones. Because it's reliable.
> No, you don't. Because Windows has no package management system. Installations are all indepedant. You don't have orphan checking to remove unneeded files. You don't have a list of active software. Windows only updates system (or Windows integrated - i.e. Office & drivers) software.
> No, because exe is Microsoft proprietary code. Doesn't run on Mac. And WINE is a last ditch option. In reality, you aren't supposed to run Microsoft software on Linux, because it's made for Windows. Mac can't do it either. Doesn't make Mac bad? Linux has executables - no extensions. Of course usually you shouldn't use an executable directly unless you know what you're doing. You SHOULD get your software through the package manager (or at least by installing through a rpm/deb/) so it's automagically adding repo data, dependencies, putting the data into your task manager, putting files into the proper /usr/bin and /usr/lib folders, etc. And use alternatives. Photoshop -> GIMP. Office -> LibreOffice. So on and so forth. Just because the alternatives are free doesn't make them inferior. In fact the free alternatives are usually better since they're OSS, getting help from more developers who are more passionate and actually care a lot more about the people using their software.

Again, you obviously haven't tried Linux. Again, you obviously don't understand the topic we're discussing to any large degree. Refer to my comment 21.
#7 - Look again!  [+] (3 new replies) 05/08/2013 on My title is better than... -1
#9 - nuttyprofessor (05/14/2013) [-]
Maybe you need to look again? That doesn't even look close...
User avatar #10 - Giganova (05/14/2013) [-]
And you only replied to tell me that, 6 days after I posted the comment?
User avatar #8 - Relinies (05/08/2013) [-]
There are clearly purple buttons on her controller, buddy...
#1 - Funny how she is using a NES Max on a SNES.  [+] (5 new replies) 05/07/2013 on My title is better than... +3
#4 - Relinies (05/08/2013) [-]
Hate to burst your bubble, but that IS a SNES controller.
#7 - Giganova (05/08/2013) [-]
Look again!
#9 - nuttyprofessor (05/14/2013) [-]
Maybe you need to look again? That doesn't even look close...
User avatar #10 - Giganova (05/14/2013) [-]
And you only replied to tell me that, 6 days after I posted the comment?
User avatar #8 - Relinies (05/08/2013) [-]
There are clearly purple buttons on her controller, buddy...
#12 - This is the **** I'm talking about. If i…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/06/2013 on inb4 edgies 0
User avatar #62 - roflsaucer (05/06/2013) [-]
No, it would be equally ridiculous because a 5 year old hardly understands religion at all, and therefore could not argue for or against it.
#31 - anonymous (05/06/2013) [-]
tldr: HUE HUE I KNOW HOW THESE ANIMALS POOP! I AM DA SMRT!
User avatar #20 - notcoolman (05/06/2013) [-]
i like the thought but honestly this would have made me say that for any religion honestly, its not like i dont get the message he is talking about its the execution that bugs me
#282 - Ah so, its always been there? When did "always" begin then? 04/26/2013 on Regret 0
#51 - Fair enough, you seem like a nice guy that knows his stuff. … 04/22/2013 on True Dat 0
#49 - Believing you know everything because you listen to scientist,…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/21/2013 on True Dat 0
#50 - foulsmell (04/22/2013) [-]
Neither I nor scientists stake a claim to know everything. What separates the discoveries of science from the claims of religion is evidence. Scientists don't make a claim to certainty on how the universe came to be. Theists do. The corollary argument can't have escaped you, could it? Theists claim that the universe was created by a deity--wished into existence using what can only be described as magic. Theists claim to know God's or gods' will and impose it upon other people. That is piety. That is faith. That is the willingness to accept anything without evidence.

Please, in future, don't misrepresent the religion vs. irreligion and theism vs. atheism debates under the false dichotomy of "Christianity vs. atheism". There are many more religions out there that stake a claim to the certainty of the universe, and they're comparably evil as Christianity.

What I would need you to understand most is that while you are free to believe that "something powerful set [the universe] in motion," there currently is no, and has never been, any empirical evidence to support the claims of Christianity, let alone theism; let alone deism. No one is coercing you into believing that the Doppler Redshift, gravity, Heliocentrism, the Big Bang or evolution by natural selection exist. All of these have been proven, and whether you believe in them or not is irrelevant. These phenomena will continue to occur and exist without your permission or acknowledgment. You're not ignorant for believing in something different, you're ignorant for denying facts that have been demonstrably proven in favor of claims that cannot be substantiated by anyone and can only be propagated by faith. I and most atheists reject the concept of a supernatural dimension because, evidently, the universe operates just fine without any such assumption.

Please, don't mistake my tone as hostile. I mean no ill-will towards you, despite last night's comment (which I must admit was a cheap shot, on my end).
User avatar #51 - Giganova (04/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you seem like a nice guy that knows his stuff.

I believe in the big bang, evolution and everything like that, but I believe that somebody created that big bang instead of it coming from absolutly nothingess.
#27 - 100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there… 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#25 - Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really sh… 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#23 - Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evol…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#21 - No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the plan…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#19 - 5 Billion years  [+] (8 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat 0
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#17 - I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where ani…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#15 - I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said…  [+] (12 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#13 - Did I say I believe evolution is not true? If a god created a …  [+] (14 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#14 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
if god produced a world fit for people to evolve, why did he have to put humans on it in the first place and why are there skeletons of trilobites and dinosaurs?
#15 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said that God created a universe where evolution could happen.
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#11 - So, you think you are above people because you think something…  [+] (16 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat 0
#12 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
no, i know i'm not better than people, it seems Christians have a problem discerning the difference actually.
And as for the ridiculously over simplified version of the big bang you are talking about, they have very good ideas as to what happened, As for a god, how do you explain proven things like evolution?
User avatar #13 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Did I say I believe evolution is not true? If a god created a Universe that was habitable for life to EVOLVE, then its still evolution.

You say, there was 1 big bang, there was a 99% that the entire universe ANNIHILATED itself but instead hit the 1%, then another 99% of stars not even existing or the laws being majorly different, but hit the 1% again, then there was 99% procent our star wouldn't be formed, but it hit it AGAIN, then another 99% chance the Earth wouldn't even exist, but hit 1% again, then 99% procent life wouldn't be able to survive here, but hit 1% AGAIN, then 99% the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs and ALL animals, but no, 1% again, then 99% humans wouldn't evolve, but guess what, 1% and then that humans became super intelligent, 1% again.

Yeah, my idea is really for idiots.
#14 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
if god produced a world fit for people to evolve, why did he have to put humans on it in the first place and why are there skeletons of trilobites and dinosaurs?
#15 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said that God created a universe where evolution could happen.
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#9 - Is believing that a higher power created the universe a religi…  [+] (18 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#10 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no but there are much better theories than what religion has to offer, and to address 'is believing that a higher power created the universe a religion all of a sudden?' well no, it was created 2013 years ago and it's called Christianity, it has the same theory and I've heard it's quite popular amongst idiots.
User avatar #11 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
So, you think you are above people because you think something different? Okay....

Better theories like what? The Big Bang? Explosion from complete, energyless nothingness?

"There was an explosion, we don't know how it happend or how its even possible, but there was an explosion....or bounce....or split....or no beginning at all"
#12 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
no, i know i'm not better than people, it seems Christians have a problem discerning the difference actually.
And as for the ridiculously over simplified version of the big bang you are talking about, they have very good ideas as to what happened, As for a god, how do you explain proven things like evolution?
User avatar #13 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Did I say I believe evolution is not true? If a god created a Universe that was habitable for life to EVOLVE, then its still evolution.

You say, there was 1 big bang, there was a 99% that the entire universe ANNIHILATED itself but instead hit the 1%, then another 99% of stars not even existing or the laws being majorly different, but hit the 1% again, then there was 99% procent our star wouldn't be formed, but it hit it AGAIN, then another 99% chance the Earth wouldn't even exist, but hit 1% again, then 99% procent life wouldn't be able to survive here, but hit 1% AGAIN, then 99% the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs and ALL animals, but no, 1% again, then 99% humans wouldn't evolve, but guess what, 1% and then that humans became super intelligent, 1% again.

Yeah, my idea is really for idiots.
#14 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
if god produced a world fit for people to evolve, why did he have to put humans on it in the first place and why are there skeletons of trilobites and dinosaurs?
#15 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said that God created a universe where evolution could happen.
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#6 - Its really easy to say Scientist are always right because you …  [+] (22 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat -1
#47 - foulsmell (04/21/2013) [-]
This is why the scientific method exists. It eliminates junk theories by severely reducing bias. Arguments from authority/appeal to authority has no place in science. If scientist X publishes a paper detailing the results of an experiment he conducted and claims that his experiment yielded something remarkable, it is subject to review, criticism and evaluation from anyone who reads it. Not just people who are scientists by profession, but everyone. Whether Einstein had been the one to discover and publish a paper on the theory of general relativity or Darwin had been the one to publish his paper on the theory of by natural selection to explain is irrelevant, their theories were descriptive and explanative of facts and natural phenomena. That's why they've managed to withstand the test of time. Science grows under the spotlight of skepticism, while religion atrophies beneath it.

If others in the scientific field (or even you, if you feel so compelled) decide they want to duplicate the experiment in an effort to test the claims made by scientists X in his paper, they can do just that. And if all variables from the original experiment have been accounted for in the duplicates; and if it is repeatedly shown that similar results cannot be reached, scientist X is then discredited and his career as a scientist is essentially over.

TL;DR-- Checks and balances in the scientific community prevent bad ideas from propagating. And if you try to cheat your way to the top as a scientist, your reputation will never recover.
#34 - stiltsformidgets has deleted their comment.
#8 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
No i don't believe that they are always right, but when they do more experiments to prove why it went wrong and then do more to explore different possibilities, it is true. To blindly follow a religion because it tells you it is right without any evidence is ridiculous. I'm not as gullible as you to believe everything i'm told.
User avatar #9 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Is believing that a higher power created the universe a religion all of a sudden?
Thats like saying that If I have an iPod I'm a Apple lover.


Besides, there are no experiments possible to show how the universe was created.
#10 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no but there are much better theories than what religion has to offer, and to address 'is believing that a higher power created the universe a religion all of a sudden?' well no, it was created 2013 years ago and it's called Christianity, it has the same theory and I've heard it's quite popular amongst idiots.
User avatar #11 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
So, you think you are above people because you think something different? Okay....

Better theories like what? The Big Bang? Explosion from complete, energyless nothingness?

"There was an explosion, we don't know how it happend or how its even possible, but there was an explosion....or bounce....or split....or no beginning at all"
#12 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
no, i know i'm not better than people, it seems Christians have a problem discerning the difference actually.
And as for the ridiculously over simplified version of the big bang you are talking about, they have very good ideas as to what happened, As for a god, how do you explain proven things like evolution?
User avatar #13 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Did I say I believe evolution is not true? If a god created a Universe that was habitable for life to EVOLVE, then its still evolution.

You say, there was 1 big bang, there was a 99% that the entire universe ANNIHILATED itself but instead hit the 1%, then another 99% of stars not even existing or the laws being majorly different, but hit the 1% again, then there was 99% procent our star wouldn't be formed, but it hit it AGAIN, then another 99% chance the Earth wouldn't even exist, but hit 1% again, then 99% procent life wouldn't be able to survive here, but hit 1% AGAIN, then 99% the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs and ALL animals, but no, 1% again, then 99% humans wouldn't evolve, but guess what, 1% and then that humans became super intelligent, 1% again.

Yeah, my idea is really for idiots.
#14 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
if god produced a world fit for people to evolve, why did he have to put humans on it in the first place and why are there skeletons of trilobites and dinosaurs?
#15 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said that God created a universe where evolution could happen.
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#3 - Painfull to know the truth ey?  [+] (30 new replies) 04/19/2013 on True Dat 0
#46 - foulsmell (04/21/2013) [-]
Your ignorance compounds my anger.
User avatar #49 - Giganova (04/21/2013) [-]
Believing you know everything because you listen to scientist, pathetic.
We are humans, we exist for a mere 100.000 years. We don't even know how the universe is created and we will never know because we were not there. I believe something powerfull set it in motion but am completely forced to believe other things and called a lame "ignorant christian".

So I don't give a shit if your angry, now you know how it is if FJ suddenly turned against atheists and YOU would try to prove yourself but was called a "ignorant atheist" instead.
#50 - foulsmell (04/22/2013) [-]
Neither I nor scientists stake a claim to know everything. What separates the discoveries of science from the claims of religion is evidence. Scientists don't make a claim to certainty on how the universe came to be. Theists do. The corollary argument can't have escaped you, could it? Theists claim that the universe was created by a deity--wished into existence using what can only be described as magic. Theists claim to know God's or gods' will and impose it upon other people. That is piety. That is faith. That is the willingness to accept anything without evidence.

Please, in future, don't misrepresent the religion vs. irreligion and theism vs. atheism debates under the false dichotomy of "Christianity vs. atheism". There are many more religions out there that stake a claim to the certainty of the universe, and they're comparably evil as Christianity.

What I would need you to understand most is that while you are free to believe that "something powerful set [the universe] in motion," there currently is no, and has never been, any empirical evidence to support the claims of Christianity, let alone theism; let alone deism. No one is coercing you into believing that the Doppler Redshift, gravity, Heliocentrism, the Big Bang or evolution by natural selection exist. All of these have been proven, and whether you believe in them or not is irrelevant. These phenomena will continue to occur and exist without your permission or acknowledgment. You're not ignorant for believing in something different, you're ignorant for denying facts that have been demonstrably proven in favor of claims that cannot be substantiated by anyone and can only be propagated by faith. I and most atheists reject the concept of a supernatural dimension because, evidently, the universe operates just fine without any such assumption.

Please, don't mistake my tone as hostile. I mean no ill-will towards you, despite last night's comment (which I must admit was a cheap shot, on my end).
User avatar #51 - Giganova (04/22/2013) [-]
Fair enough, you seem like a nice guy that knows his stuff.

I believe in the big bang, evolution and everything like that, but I believe that somebody created that big bang instead of it coming from absolutly nothingess.
User avatar #5 - soopergrover (04/19/2013) [-]
Not really, considering all my belief that there's no deity doesn't come completely from scientists' research.
#4 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
*sigh* look at the original, this is what scientists did so we don't have to, there is evidence freely available to the public of their advancements, try and say that about religion.
User avatar #39 - atrocitustheking (04/20/2013) [-]
There is plenty of information regarding religion, it's just that there seems to be a lot less interested in knowledge of their own faith. Pitiful, really. The Christian Tradition is a very rich philosophical tapestry upon which Western Civilization owes much.
User avatar #6 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Its really easy to say Scientist are always right because you just follow them and they can say all they want as evidence and you would believe it, even if it was fake.
#47 - foulsmell (04/21/2013) [-]
This is why the scientific method exists. It eliminates junk theories by severely reducing bias. Arguments from authority/appeal to authority has no place in science. If scientist X publishes a paper detailing the results of an experiment he conducted and claims that his experiment yielded something remarkable, it is subject to review, criticism and evaluation from anyone who reads it. Not just people who are scientists by profession, but everyone. Whether Einstein had been the one to discover and publish a paper on the theory of general relativity or Darwin had been the one to publish his paper on the theory of by natural selection to explain is irrelevant, their theories were descriptive and explanative of facts and natural phenomena. That's why they've managed to withstand the test of time. Science grows under the spotlight of skepticism, while religion atrophies beneath it.

If others in the scientific field (or even you, if you feel so compelled) decide they want to duplicate the experiment in an effort to test the claims made by scientists X in his paper, they can do just that. And if all variables from the original experiment have been accounted for in the duplicates; and if it is repeatedly shown that similar results cannot be reached, scientist X is then discredited and his career as a scientist is essentially over.

TL;DR-- Checks and balances in the scientific community prevent bad ideas from propagating. And if you try to cheat your way to the top as a scientist, your reputation will never recover.
#34 - stiltsformidgets has deleted their comment.
#8 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
No i don't believe that they are always right, but when they do more experiments to prove why it went wrong and then do more to explore different possibilities, it is true. To blindly follow a religion because it tells you it is right without any evidence is ridiculous. I'm not as gullible as you to believe everything i'm told.
User avatar #9 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Is believing that a higher power created the universe a religion all of a sudden?
Thats like saying that If I have an iPod I'm a Apple lover.


Besides, there are no experiments possible to show how the universe was created.
#10 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no but there are much better theories than what religion has to offer, and to address 'is believing that a higher power created the universe a religion all of a sudden?' well no, it was created 2013 years ago and it's called Christianity, it has the same theory and I've heard it's quite popular amongst idiots.
User avatar #11 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
So, you think you are above people because you think something different? Okay....

Better theories like what? The Big Bang? Explosion from complete, energyless nothingness?

"There was an explosion, we don't know how it happend or how its even possible, but there was an explosion....or bounce....or split....or no beginning at all"
#12 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
no, i know i'm not better than people, it seems Christians have a problem discerning the difference actually.
And as for the ridiculously over simplified version of the big bang you are talking about, they have very good ideas as to what happened, As for a god, how do you explain proven things like evolution?
User avatar #13 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Did I say I believe evolution is not true? If a god created a Universe that was habitable for life to EVOLVE, then its still evolution.

You say, there was 1 big bang, there was a 99% that the entire universe ANNIHILATED itself but instead hit the 1%, then another 99% of stars not even existing or the laws being majorly different, but hit the 1% again, then there was 99% procent our star wouldn't be formed, but it hit it AGAIN, then another 99% chance the Earth wouldn't even exist, but hit 1% again, then 99% procent life wouldn't be able to survive here, but hit 1% AGAIN, then 99% the asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs and ALL animals, but no, 1% again, then 99% humans wouldn't evolve, but guess what, 1% and then that humans became super intelligent, 1% again.

Yeah, my idea is really for idiots.
#14 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
if god produced a world fit for people to evolve, why did he have to put humans on it in the first place and why are there skeletons of trilobites and dinosaurs?
#15 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I just said that I believed in evolution 3 times and even said that God created a universe where evolution could happen.
#16 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
what i'm saying is the comment about a planet with animals capable of evolution is wrong
User avatar #17 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
I didn't even said that, I said God created a planet where animals would evolve and he added us too. Thats what I believe.
#18 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
how old do you think the earth is?
User avatar #19 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
5 Billion years
#20 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
so humans have been around for all of those years? in your opinion
User avatar #21 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
No, In the beginning, God created the Sun, Earth, All the planets, after that the Animals and then us.
#22 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
please then explain dinosaurs, the complete lack of historical evidence to back you and why there are no human skeletons that old.
User avatar #23 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Oh my god, how many times do I have to say I believe that evolution created the dinosaurs and humans where added after that.

And anyways, wheres YOUR evidence that shows human age? Do you have an ancient human skeleton laying around your house or something? Wait, scientist told that right? So it must be true.
#26 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
well no because they could get a skeleton knowing just how old it is like someone that died 100 years ago then using their equipment see if it is correct.

^^^they probably have already done that
User avatar #27 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
100 years and 4 billion years is really different, since there was around 59% more C14 and C12 100000 years ago then now, distorting the accuracy.
#24 - normanreedus (04/19/2013) [-]
carbon dating does work actually, it has estimated the earths age which you probably base that belief on also you never said that humans came after dinosaurs, you said that the planets were made then the humans.
User avatar #25 - Giganova (04/19/2013) [-]
Again, you have no proof yourself that Carbon Dating really shows the real ages, you just take it as a fact because they say its that way without even knowing it themselfs.
#89 - Grimmwaters, good joke boy! Everybody knows black people don't… 04/16/2013 on Don't reply to this content +22
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 2050 / Total items point value: 2400

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#42 - kingofslime **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #43 to #42 - Giganova (11/25/2012) [-]
I worked to hard to just give them away to some stranger.
#44 to #43 - kingofslime **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #45 to #44 - Giganova (11/25/2012) [-]
Yes, its true, I don't collect items anymore since there are like 1 billion right now and the point system is ****** up.

But I will keep the stuff I did collect, I spend hours refreshing.
So, sorry.
#46 to #45 - kingofslime **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#30 - ishmari (09/09/2012) [-]
If you gave me a Green Thumb Sword, I could probably merch it for a red thumb sword for myself, giving me more items! ;P

But, I'll actually trade for it, if you'd like.
User avatar #32 to #30 - Giganova (09/09/2012) [-]
Sorry, I already donated the 2.

People where getting rustled and started to mass thumb me down.
#33 to #32 - ishmari (09/09/2012) [-]
Did you consider giving the items to people who needed them or could've used them?
:c
User avatar #35 to #33 - Giganova (09/09/2012) [-]
Yes, ofcourse.
#36 to #35 - ishmari (09/09/2012) [-]
Jad didn't need one. ._.
User avatar #37 to #36 - Giganova (09/09/2012) [-]
........

**** .
#38 to #37 - ishmari (09/09/2012) [-]
It's annoying particularly for me because I tried trading with Jad before and he gave me the most ridiculously stupid offer and was kind of a douche.
#39 to #38 - ishmari (09/09/2012) [-]
The comments still on his profile.
User avatar #40 to #39 - Giganova (09/09/2012) [-]
Oh **** , man, I'm really sorry, but i got 12 thumb downs in 3 sec (!)
So i wanted to get rid of them as soon as possible, to show i'm not a hoarder.

I just accepted the first 2 (sigh)
One luckely didnt have one yet.

I'm really sorry.
User avatar #29 - Gazereth (09/09/2012) [-]
If you do donate, As I was first comment on your post about it, I'd greatlu appreciate one.. <3
User avatar #34 to #29 - Giganova (09/09/2012) [-]
Very sorry mate, I already gave 2 away.

I'll give my next one (If it ever drops) to you.
User avatar #41 to #34 - Gazereth (09/09/2012) [-]
Thank you :)
User avatar #19 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
Hey man. can I offer you something for the sword in stone? :)
User avatar #20 to #19 - Giganova (09/08/2012) [-]
yeah sure
User avatar #21 to #20 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
I'll send you gem you dont have
User avatar #22 to #21 - Giganova (09/08/2012) [-]
Thanks alot, man.
User avatar #24 to #22 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
increasing your item count :)
wish you had dupes of crystal monster or oracle statue :/
User avatar #26 to #24 - Giganova (09/08/2012) [-]
too bad they both don't drop anymore.
User avatar #28 to #26 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
yeah that's why I'm buying them at high values :/
User avatar #23 to #22 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
wait I'm sending more
User avatar #25 to #23 - Giganova (09/08/2012) [-]
wow, even more thanks!
User avatar #27 to #25 - pandacub (09/08/2012) [-]
No problem
#18 - shamoosh (08/25/2012) [-]
can i haz furnce?
User avatar #17 - yourmum (08/25/2012) [-]
THANK YOU SO MUCH

I LOVE YOU AND I WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU, YOU ARE THE HERO THAT GOTHAM DESERVES
User avatar #7 - fullretard (08/19/2012) [-]
you give nazi gold I give magic lolli or still not for trade becos you don't have a magic lolli
User avatar #10 to #7 - Giganova (08/19/2012) [-]
deal, trade me.
User avatar #1 - frozenpickle (08/19/2012) [-]
Dolan meteorite, gay bacon, rare bacon and something else you want for the gold?
User avatar #2 to #1 - Giganova (08/19/2012) [-]
Sorry, the Nazi Gold is not for trade.

But care to tell me why everyone wants one?
User avatar #4 to #2 - frozenpickle (08/19/2012) [-]
no i just missed the last 5 drops and i am looking for stuff i dont have
User avatar #3 to #2 - frozenpickle (08/19/2012) [-]
well, secretly i am hitler, and i want my gold back, i also want an oven, then i am going to find some jews
User avatar #5 to #3 - Giganova (08/19/2012) [-]
I see, we'll i'm sorry Fuhrer, but its not up for trade because the Jews are forcing me.
User avatar #6 to #5 - frozenpickle (08/19/2012) [-]
then i am going back to hunt some more, i will get it, eventually
 Friends (0)