Because then Dave Grohl wouldn't have gone on to found the Foo Fighters

Oh, that was a joke?
I just thought you couldn't read.

I figured it was a really obvious joke, given that no one likes foo fighters.

thisisbait.jpeg

Hell no, I love Dave Grohl but foo fighters is only a few steps above Nickelback.

damn. must be this stress to crank out another 1000 words, im cracking under the pressure, making such an obvious mistake

How's this? To conclude; the 2006 film; Snakes on a Plane was a well loved movie throughout its production, when it was released, and to this day. It’s cinematography, plot, and it’s audience's involvement of its development were understated by many critics and this movie did not receive its fair dues. And also, I will, without doubt, will not hesitate to such any cock presented to me. Also, thank you for your help :3

No no, don't oversell it people will think you're desperate, also two wills make a wont.

damn. must be this stress to crank out another 1000 words, im cracking under the pressure, making such an obvious mistake

I smell a solid A- so far.

Make a bold statement in the conclusion that wraps it all up, something like "And I, without a doubt, will not hesitate to suck any cock presented to me". Yeah, that will kill it. Shit with a paper like that your professor might just help you work towards a PhD!

How's this? To conclude; the 2006 film; Snakes on a Plane was a well loved movie throughout its production, when it was released, and to this day. It’s cinematography, plot, and it’s audience's involvement of its development were understated by many critics and this movie did not receive its fair dues. And also, I will, without doubt, will not hesitate to such any cock presented to me. Also, thank you for your help :3

No no, don't oversell it people will think you're desperate, also two wills make a wont.

damn. must be this stress to crank out another 1000 words, im cracking under the pressure, making such an obvious mistake

OOhhh, so then i can tie back into that in my conclusion, awesome (actually im just milking the fact the internet loved the fck out of the plot idea, thus helping turn the rating from pg13 to r )

Oh capitalize on that, too! You can have two ideas going at the same time! It will be brilliant!

I smell a solid A- so far.

Make a bold statement in the conclusion that wraps it all up, something like "And I, without a doubt, will not hesitate to suck any cock presented to me". Yeah, that will kill it. Shit with a paper like that your professor might just help you work towards a PhD!

How's this? To conclude; the 2006 film; Snakes on a Plane was a well loved movie throughout its production, when it was released, and to this day. It’s cinematography, plot, and it’s audience's involvement of its development were understated by many critics and this movie did not receive its fair dues. And also, I will, without doubt, will not hesitate to such any cock presented to me. Also, thank you for your help :3

No no, don't oversell it people will think you're desperate, also two wills make a wont.

damn. must be this stress to crank out another 1000 words, im cracking under the pressure, making such an obvious mistake

To keep all of your things at.

Apartments tend to get upset when you set up a metal lathe in your living room.

Actually, speedosnake was specifically quoting me. I was the original person who used the phrase 'banning specific weapons,' and all that ellojello was saying is that he should have sought clarification on what I meant rather than simply leading off with "banning specific weapons is retarded." So yes, since he was directly quoting me and called my statement retarded, and since ella was defending me, you were talking about me.

He himself actually already said that he assumed it not to include explosive weapons long before your comment. However, he quoted me, and I did in fact mean to include all manner of weapons in that statement (which is why I chose the word 'weapon' as opposed to 'gun' or 'firearm.')

I'm sorry, but it really seems like you are the one who did not read the entire conversation before jumping in, and while I'm glad you dialed down the cussing you're still being a bit snarky here. Calm down. There are no hard feelings. Hell, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the slowly-growing wall of purple lines on the left, too, so I don't blame you for anything other than the attitude honestly.

They have transcended the Aryan race. They now have eye and hair colors not possible biologically. They are the true ubermensch.

I don't have a suitable reaction picture for the awe you have bestowed upon me.

Geez. Everyone arguing over what I did or didn't mean.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, I chose 'weapons' instead of 'firearms' in that particular sentence for a reason. Everybody else is doing a pretty good job of keeping civil (minus a few people), so please try to do so yourself and refrain from telling people what I 'full fucking well meant,' when you could easily have just asked me.

I was never, ever, talking about you. Not even once. I was talking strictly about speedosnake. You should take more time to read what I'm saying and see who I'm talking to before making assumptions.

Actually, speedosnake was specifically quoting me. I was the original person who used the phrase 'banning specific weapons,' and all that ellojello was saying is that he should have sought clarification on what I meant rather than simply leading off with "banning specific weapons is retarded." So yes, since he was directly quoting me and called my statement retarded, and since ella was defending me, you were talking about me.

He himself actually already said that he assumed it not to include explosive weapons long before your comment. However, he quoted me, and I did in fact mean to include all manner of weapons in that statement (which is why I chose the word 'weapon' as opposed to 'gun' or 'firearm.')

I'm sorry, but it really seems like you are the one who did not read the entire conversation before jumping in, and while I'm glad you dialed down the cussing you're still being a bit snarky here. Calm down. There are no hard feelings. Hell, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the slowly-growing wall of purple lines on the left, too, so I don't blame you for anything other than the attitude honestly.

He worded it poorly and meant to say guns. That's what I'm really trying to get across to you. He meant that specific guns shouldn't be banned. He wasn't talking about rocket launchers, nothing in his argument would lead you to believe that he was, and whats more he later said firearms anyway. You know full fucking well he meant guns.

Geez. Everyone arguing over what I did or didn't mean.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, I chose 'weapons' instead of 'firearms' in that particular sentence for a reason. Everybody else is doing a pretty good job of keeping civil (minus a few people), so please try to do so yourself and refrain from telling people what I 'full fucking well meant,' when you could easily have just asked me.

I was never, ever, talking about you. Not even once. I was talking strictly about speedosnake. You should take more time to read what I'm saying and see who I'm talking to before making assumptions.

Actually, speedosnake was specifically quoting me. I was the original person who used the phrase 'banning specific weapons,' and all that ellojello was saying is that he should have sought clarification on what I meant rather than simply leading off with "banning specific weapons is retarded." So yes, since he was directly quoting me and called my statement retarded, and since ella was defending me, you were talking about me.

He himself actually already said that he assumed it not to include explosive weapons long before your comment. However, he quoted me, and I did in fact mean to include all manner of weapons in that statement (which is why I chose the word 'weapon' as opposed to 'gun' or 'firearm.')

I'm sorry, but it really seems like you are the one who did not read the entire conversation before jumping in, and while I'm glad you dialed down the cussing you're still being a bit snarky here. Calm down. There are no hard feelings. Hell, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the slowly-growing wall of purple lines on the left, too, so I don't blame you for anything other than the attitude honestly.

His phrasing was poor, yes, but he meant banning guns. Bombs and rocket launchers don't come into these debates for a good reason: no one is trying to legalize them. The debate against the gun banning argument is that it doesn't really stop anything and that there are other ways to go around killing people that are actually more dangerous (for instance the bombs in the boston marathon bombing). That's probably what he's referring to as retarded, not the idea that we should keep shit that is capable of destroying a building out of the general populaces hands.

He worded it poorly and meant to say guns. That's what I'm really trying to get across to you. He meant that specific guns shouldn't be banned. He wasn't talking about rocket launchers, nothing in his argument would lead you to believe that he was, and whats more he later said firearms anyway. You know full fucking well he meant guns.

Geez. Everyone arguing over what I did or didn't mean.

I hate to break it to you, but yes, I chose 'weapons' instead of 'firearms' in that particular sentence for a reason. Everybody else is doing a pretty good job of keeping civil (minus a few people), so please try to do so yourself and refrain from telling people what I 'full fucking well meant,' when you could easily have just asked me.

I was never, ever, talking about you. Not even once. I was talking strictly about speedosnake. You should take more time to read what I'm saying and see who I'm talking to before making assumptions.

Actually, speedosnake was specifically quoting me. I was the original person who used the phrase 'banning specific weapons,' and all that ellojello was saying is that he should have sought clarification on what I meant rather than simply leading off with "banning specific weapons is retarded." So yes, since he was directly quoting me and called my statement retarded, and since ella was defending me, you were talking about me.

He himself actually already said that he assumed it not to include explosive weapons long before your comment. However, he quoted me, and I did in fact mean to include all manner of weapons in that statement (which is why I chose the word 'weapon' as opposed to 'gun' or 'firearm.')

I'm sorry, but it really seems like you are the one who did not read the entire conversation before jumping in, and while I'm glad you dialed down the cussing you're still being a bit snarky here. Calm down. There are no hard feelings. Hell, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the slowly-growing wall of purple lines on the left, too, so I don't blame you for anything other than the attitude honestly.

mightily*