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

captainfuckitall    

Rank #616 on Comments
captainfuckitall Avatar Level 342 Comments: Sold Soul
Offline
Send mail to captainfuckitall Block captainfuckitall Invite captainfuckitall to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#616
Highest Content Rank:#10530
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 40 total,  90 ,  50
Comment Thumbs: 44404 total,  55010 ,  10606
Content Level Progress: 76.27% (45/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 87.6% (876/1000)
Level 342 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 343 Comments: Sold Soul
Subscribers:20
Content Views:9652
Times Content Favorited:12 times
Total Comments Made:14193
FJ Points:15107

latest user's comments

#27 - As much as I like Yahtzee and think that he's a seriously grea…  [+] (5 new replies) 10/24/2013 on Video games +2
User avatar #61 - vicsix (10/25/2013) [-]
He loves Spec Ops: The Line, and he said it has mediocre gameplay. But the story, setting, and mood of the game is what he said makes it amazing. He never calls it fun, but eye opening and intuitive.
User avatar #66 - captainfuckitall (10/25/2013) [-]
Oh, I haven't seen that one yet.
#50 - zombieatemybrains (10/25/2013) [-]
This is true, but that's his opinion, he never said you can't enjoy a game for its story or graphics. When you watch a reviewer you don't watch them to find out if the game is good for everyone, you find out if the game is good from their opinion. If you share their opinions then you will probably agree, for instance I watch several reviewers whose opinions I don't agree with on certain genres. If I know they don't like the game, that might be the reason that I purchase the game, because I know more about the game because of their opinion. If he was a bad reviewer then he wouldn't talk about aspects of the game, or give a critical review based on his opinion. If he was a bad reviewer he would just throw out a score without really knowing the game just to get views or to go along with the crowd.

tl;dr Every reviewer has an opinion, and you should decide whether their opinion is like yours or not. Different opinion =/= bad reviewer. Half-assing reviews for money = bad reviewer.
User avatar #52 - captainfuckitall (10/25/2013) [-]
It's not so much about a difference of opinion as the subject itself. You're right, the fact that he reviews in a certain way doesn't make him a bad critic, however, depending on HOW critics review things it very well may. As beautiful as a game may be, its content may still be awful, so if a critic gives it a massive rating based purely on beauty (or gives a good game a bad rating based on bad graphics) that would make them a bad critic.
#54 - zombieatemybrains (10/25/2013) [-]
True, which is part of the reason Yahtzee doesn't do scores, he doesn't want people to look at a score and suddenly decide if the game is good or bad, either you listen to the review and get his whole opinion, or you find someone else. That's part of the reason I respect his reviews, if he used scores I would have far less respect for him. But I see what you're saying, which is why I only listen to Yahtzee for gameplay reviews, if I want to know how good or bad the story and graphics are, I'll go to someone who reviews that stuff more in depth. Either way, I don't think he's a bad reviewer, he just focuses on gameplay above all else, which is entirely his choice.
#10 - Rule one of illegal dealings: Never use your own product.  [+] (1 new reply) 10/24/2013 on My health teacher had this... 0
#11 - devout feminist (10/24/2013) [-]
according to biggie it's rule number 4
#18 - Not as much as Hamilton's wife. 10/24/2013 on Slap a bitch +1
#94 - Well good for you, I'm proud of you. Keep it up. 10/24/2013 on My creation in a nutshell +2
#6342116 - "Some people are gay, just get over it" "So… 10/24/2013 on retard forum 0
#49 - I love how everyone bitches about social awkwardness and intro…  [+] (4 new replies) 10/24/2013 on My creation in a nutshell +1
User avatar #93 - cocosmama (10/24/2013) [-]
Actually, I am currently working on facing my anxieties. I had a panic attack recently and fear of another is motivating me to try not being afraid. And so far the things I feared are not that bad. Of course, I started small.
User avatar #94 - captainfuckitall (10/24/2013) [-]
Well good for you, I'm proud of you. Keep it up.
#89 - viperish (10/24/2013) [-]
That's because the people who are doing something about it aren't bitching about it.
User avatar #90 - viperish (10/24/2013) [-]
How the fuck did that happen
#46 - Why would you go on the internet and tell lies? 10/24/2013 on -.- +1
#203 - It's the majority of the minority of voted comments here. …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/24/2013 on Read Description 0
User avatar #204 - rhetoricalfunny (10/25/2013) [-]
1. A majority of a minority is a minority.

2. That is anecdotal bullshit. Unless you can provide numbers for.

a. The # of unique FJ users.
b. The # of Tumblr posts per week (day, month, etc.)
c. The # of comments opposed to Tumblr, supporting Tumblr (Laughing at, and laughing respectively)
d. The support of each comment by unique members.

Until you can provide numbers that prove that, you cannot claim your point has any validity. It's nothing but anecdotal bullshit.
#8 - We must live in different areas, then. Every single time me or… 10/23/2013 on Canda strikes back +8
#6 - I don't know about you, but your average check-up wait is only…  [+] (3 new replies) 10/23/2013 on Canda strikes back +73
User avatar #7 - majordraco (10/23/2013) [-]
It will take at least a week to get an appointment, and if you need to be treated you will wait six months.
User avatar #21 - turtletroll (10/23/2013) [-]
You call up and say you want a appointment. Then they ask you when you want to come in. People mainly go in on Saturdays so sometimes you can`t go in then. But if it`s serious then they can take you straight in
User avatar #8 - captainfuckitall (10/23/2013) [-]
We must live in different areas, then. Every single time me or a family member has been seriously sick, they accepted us in right away.
#5 - May I have a link for verification? 10/22/2013 on I Forget.. +1
#5 - >This is what CoD fags actually believe  [+] (1 new reply) 10/22/2013 on CoD in a nutshell +6
#8 - xast (10/23/2013) [-]
CoD ark
>Your mom is a respectable and diligent women.
#3 - Fun Fact: Pilots in WW1 were fed extra carrots with their meal… 10/22/2013 on Special Eyes! 0
#22 - I use Metric and Imperial and I feel like I'm an abomination …  [+] (1 new reply) 10/22/2013 on Metric 0
User avatar #27 - splendiddust (10/22/2013) [-]
nah dude, thats common as hell, we use metric for most things, usually things that count like weighing, science you know the smart stuff. And then imperial for surfboards and TVs. But we only ever use inches and feet
#19 - Because of the cursive, I first saw Wally's name as "Ball… 10/21/2013 on Knights of the Justice League +4
#18 - They're called Kniggas you filthy plebeian. 10/21/2013 on Knights of the Justice League +12
#4 - Good lord, I love Justin Bieber. I'm his #1 fan. I love cock s…  [+] (2 new replies) 10/21/2013 on inb4 banana +2
#5 - pootismang (10/21/2013) [-]
Good lord, I love Justin Bieber. I'm his #1 fan. I love cock so bad. Oh god, please give it to me. takes a way boobs for a few days and we're all turning into faggots.
User avatar #11 - teleamachus (10/22/2013) [-]
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I love Justin Bieber. I'm his #1 fan. I love cock so bad. Oh god, please give it to me. takes a way boobs for a few days and we're all turning into faggots. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
#88 - You would have a point except for the fact that murder and bul… 10/21/2013 on Stop being a fag, I'd say... 0
#199 - And I corrected myself. *Majority, from what I've seen. 10/21/2013 on Read Description 0
#197 - Yes, that would be all well and good if I had not taken that s… 10/21/2013 on Read Description 0
#21 - Yes, but he has INFINITE POWER. He could 'purge the system' in…  [+] (7 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Seems alright. 0
#25 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
refer to my first reply to you.

Anyways, have you ever heard of the theory that the universe is just a giant computer? Cracked.com did a pretty cool segment on it. The gist of it is that the entire universe is made of atoms, and within each atom are quarks, and within each quark there are building blocks that are binary. If each is assigned a 0 and a 1, then the entire universe is the ultimate computer. Computers are built to compute; to calculate. So what is the universe trying to compute?

Purveyors of the theory suggest that the universe is simply calculating its own existence; why it exists and what happens to itself. We are all a part of it. All the atrocities and tragedies are all a part of the universe "doing what it can with what it has". It's a little depressing to think about - that we're all just specs in an experimental, cosmic agenda. But that's the entire point. We cannot hope to understand that end-game, nor the entire purpose of, the universe. because we exist within it, and we cannot see or comprehend anything outside of it.

Apply this to "God", and you'll understand why you cannot understand him or his actions.
#27 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
You should also consider that we'll have the technology to build a similar universe simulation ourselves within the next few decades. (albeit smaller - an interesting exercise is to calculate how many times you can recursively simulate a universe given our estimate of the size of the universe and a fundamental unit, generally a planck length)

In any case, while a great programmer in the sky would certainly exist outside our universe and is fundamentally unobservable, there's no reason to think that he's any more singular or perfect than a team of programmers in our universe.
#29 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
If everything in the universe exists as a part of the simulation, then it's impossible for the program within the simulation to ever reach anywhere near the level of depth and computing that the universe could.

That isn't to say that smaller models cannot represent bigger ones. It's more that we are limited by our human programmers - which are limited by our capacity to comprehend "things". What if there's an aspect to the universe that we don't understand, because we cannot detect it or even understand it? What if our brains are limited to that? Then there's no way we could program it at all. In this light, we are less perfect than the supposed programmers of our universe.

In compsci, we would be the objects (in an object-oriented program). And there would be other objects out there that we cannot interact with. There would be other objects that we are not aware exist, because of "private" methods and class variables. Assuming this, there's no way that the object could exceed the program itself.
#61 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
I'm not sure how much CS you've had, but this could theoretically go either way and it's really quite fascinating. On one hand, it's (relatively speaking) trivial to write a program that outputs its own source code, and not through some file reading trick, you can do it with any fundamental computer (the theory lingo is Turing Machine).

On the other hand, there are results proving that a Turing Machine simulating another Turing Machine is fundamentally more powerful than the machine it simulates.

I tend to favor the former possibility. Elegant simulations tend to have a very limited and universally applied set of rules (which is, for the most part, what physics has shown us to be applicable in practice). There are some things, like external sources of randomness influencing events on the QM scale, that will likely always limit our ability to model our own universe; but, it's not unreasonable to think that we can extrapolate all the rules and apply them to our own simulation.
User avatar #62 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
But to extrapolate means to comprehend what is beyond the data. And what if it is something that is either not within the data - due to the lack of necessary equipment - nor within our comprehension? That's where the usefulness of a simulation ends.

And a Turing machine can never be more than what its parent program is. It can perform more iterations of a certain task, but it cannot do more than what it was programmed to do. That's why AI hasn't truly been invented yet. And that's why we have not reached the technological singularity yet.
#28 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
Well, that image failed miserably, please accept a second one to account for any inconvenience -

www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101109.gif

www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2055#comic
User avatar #30 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
Thank you
#17 - If he doesn't believe he should interfere with human will, why…  [+] (9 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Seems alright. 0
User avatar #19 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
This post was about the great flood. Assuming (man I'm using that word a lot in this thread) that god knows everything, it means that he knows the evils in every man/woman's heart. Along the same path of logic that I presented earlier, if his intention is to have everyone contend with the devil, but everyone is losing, and moreover everyone is affecting everyone else, then it would only be logical to purge them from the system. Assuming that they have no hope to get back into his good graces.

This entire argument is riding on the assumption that god knows EVERYTHING. And I mean EVERYTHING. It's very difficult to argue with that. And I'm just trying to help you guys understand Christians' perspective a little more. Or any religion with a single god
User avatar #21 - captainfuckitall (10/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but he has INFINITE POWER. He could 'purge the system' in many better ways than simply killing people off. The reality is he could turn back time if he wanted to and prevent us from ever eating the apple (which he knew we were going to do), instead of letting it happen. It just seems to be a massive cop-out that he 'refuses to change free will' or fix the problems that he himself created, and then gets mad when people do bad things over them.
#25 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
refer to my first reply to you.

Anyways, have you ever heard of the theory that the universe is just a giant computer? Cracked.com did a pretty cool segment on it. The gist of it is that the entire universe is made of atoms, and within each atom are quarks, and within each quark there are building blocks that are binary. If each is assigned a 0 and a 1, then the entire universe is the ultimate computer. Computers are built to compute; to calculate. So what is the universe trying to compute?

Purveyors of the theory suggest that the universe is simply calculating its own existence; why it exists and what happens to itself. We are all a part of it. All the atrocities and tragedies are all a part of the universe "doing what it can with what it has". It's a little depressing to think about - that we're all just specs in an experimental, cosmic agenda. But that's the entire point. We cannot hope to understand that end-game, nor the entire purpose of, the universe. because we exist within it, and we cannot see or comprehend anything outside of it.

Apply this to "God", and you'll understand why you cannot understand him or his actions.
#27 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
You should also consider that we'll have the technology to build a similar universe simulation ourselves within the next few decades. (albeit smaller - an interesting exercise is to calculate how many times you can recursively simulate a universe given our estimate of the size of the universe and a fundamental unit, generally a planck length)

In any case, while a great programmer in the sky would certainly exist outside our universe and is fundamentally unobservable, there's no reason to think that he's any more singular or perfect than a team of programmers in our universe.
#29 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
If everything in the universe exists as a part of the simulation, then it's impossible for the program within the simulation to ever reach anywhere near the level of depth and computing that the universe could.

That isn't to say that smaller models cannot represent bigger ones. It's more that we are limited by our human programmers - which are limited by our capacity to comprehend "things". What if there's an aspect to the universe that we don't understand, because we cannot detect it or even understand it? What if our brains are limited to that? Then there's no way we could program it at all. In this light, we are less perfect than the supposed programmers of our universe.

In compsci, we would be the objects (in an object-oriented program). And there would be other objects out there that we cannot interact with. There would be other objects that we are not aware exist, because of "private" methods and class variables. Assuming this, there's no way that the object could exceed the program itself.
#61 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
I'm not sure how much CS you've had, but this could theoretically go either way and it's really quite fascinating. On one hand, it's (relatively speaking) trivial to write a program that outputs its own source code, and not through some file reading trick, you can do it with any fundamental computer (the theory lingo is Turing Machine).

On the other hand, there are results proving that a Turing Machine simulating another Turing Machine is fundamentally more powerful than the machine it simulates.

I tend to favor the former possibility. Elegant simulations tend to have a very limited and universally applied set of rules (which is, for the most part, what physics has shown us to be applicable in practice). There are some things, like external sources of randomness influencing events on the QM scale, that will likely always limit our ability to model our own universe; but, it's not unreasonable to think that we can extrapolate all the rules and apply them to our own simulation.
User avatar #62 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
But to extrapolate means to comprehend what is beyond the data. And what if it is something that is either not within the data - due to the lack of necessary equipment - nor within our comprehension? That's where the usefulness of a simulation ends.

And a Turing machine can never be more than what its parent program is. It can perform more iterations of a certain task, but it cannot do more than what it was programmed to do. That's why AI hasn't truly been invented yet. And that's why we have not reached the technological singularity yet.
#28 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
Well, that image failed miserably, please accept a second one to account for any inconvenience -

www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101109.gif

www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2055#comic
User avatar #30 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
Thank you
#14 - But can't that same 'all powerful' logic be used to mean he co…  [+] (11 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Seems alright. +1
#16 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
That's true. But whatever he finds meaningful is unclear - or perhaps unfathomable - to us as humans. A popular belief is that he does not change human nature, nor reverse the adverse effects of the fruit of knowledge, because he desires the free will/love of his "children" rather than direct intervention.

I remember speaking with a Christian once. He said, "It's a common misconception that Christianity is about God vs. The Devil. God could obliterate the Devil on a mere whim. No, it's about us versus the devil. Each of us, as children of God, must contend with the devil to overcome the evils in this life."

Or something along those lines.
User avatar #17 - captainfuckitall (10/21/2013) [-]
If he doesn't believe he should interfere with human will, why does he believe he has a right to take human life?

Seems like an excuse, frankly.
User avatar #19 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
This post was about the great flood. Assuming (man I'm using that word a lot in this thread) that god knows everything, it means that he knows the evils in every man/woman's heart. Along the same path of logic that I presented earlier, if his intention is to have everyone contend with the devil, but everyone is losing, and moreover everyone is affecting everyone else, then it would only be logical to purge them from the system. Assuming that they have no hope to get back into his good graces.

This entire argument is riding on the assumption that god knows EVERYTHING. And I mean EVERYTHING. It's very difficult to argue with that. And I'm just trying to help you guys understand Christians' perspective a little more. Or any religion with a single god
User avatar #21 - captainfuckitall (10/21/2013) [-]
Yes, but he has INFINITE POWER. He could 'purge the system' in many better ways than simply killing people off. The reality is he could turn back time if he wanted to and prevent us from ever eating the apple (which he knew we were going to do), instead of letting it happen. It just seems to be a massive cop-out that he 'refuses to change free will' or fix the problems that he himself created, and then gets mad when people do bad things over them.
#25 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
refer to my first reply to you.

Anyways, have you ever heard of the theory that the universe is just a giant computer? Cracked.com did a pretty cool segment on it. The gist of it is that the entire universe is made of atoms, and within each atom are quarks, and within each quark there are building blocks that are binary. If each is assigned a 0 and a 1, then the entire universe is the ultimate computer. Computers are built to compute; to calculate. So what is the universe trying to compute?

Purveyors of the theory suggest that the universe is simply calculating its own existence; why it exists and what happens to itself. We are all a part of it. All the atrocities and tragedies are all a part of the universe "doing what it can with what it has". It's a little depressing to think about - that we're all just specs in an experimental, cosmic agenda. But that's the entire point. We cannot hope to understand that end-game, nor the entire purpose of, the universe. because we exist within it, and we cannot see or comprehend anything outside of it.

Apply this to "God", and you'll understand why you cannot understand him or his actions.
#27 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
You should also consider that we'll have the technology to build a similar universe simulation ourselves within the next few decades. (albeit smaller - an interesting exercise is to calculate how many times you can recursively simulate a universe given our estimate of the size of the universe and a fundamental unit, generally a planck length)

In any case, while a great programmer in the sky would certainly exist outside our universe and is fundamentally unobservable, there's no reason to think that he's any more singular or perfect than a team of programmers in our universe.
#29 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
If everything in the universe exists as a part of the simulation, then it's impossible for the program within the simulation to ever reach anywhere near the level of depth and computing that the universe could.

That isn't to say that smaller models cannot represent bigger ones. It's more that we are limited by our human programmers - which are limited by our capacity to comprehend "things". What if there's an aspect to the universe that we don't understand, because we cannot detect it or even understand it? What if our brains are limited to that? Then there's no way we could program it at all. In this light, we are less perfect than the supposed programmers of our universe.

In compsci, we would be the objects (in an object-oriented program). And there would be other objects out there that we cannot interact with. There would be other objects that we are not aware exist, because of "private" methods and class variables. Assuming this, there's no way that the object could exceed the program itself.
#61 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
I'm not sure how much CS you've had, but this could theoretically go either way and it's really quite fascinating. On one hand, it's (relatively speaking) trivial to write a program that outputs its own source code, and not through some file reading trick, you can do it with any fundamental computer (the theory lingo is Turing Machine).

On the other hand, there are results proving that a Turing Machine simulating another Turing Machine is fundamentally more powerful than the machine it simulates.

I tend to favor the former possibility. Elegant simulations tend to have a very limited and universally applied set of rules (which is, for the most part, what physics has shown us to be applicable in practice). There are some things, like external sources of randomness influencing events on the QM scale, that will likely always limit our ability to model our own universe; but, it's not unreasonable to think that we can extrapolate all the rules and apply them to our own simulation.
User avatar #62 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
But to extrapolate means to comprehend what is beyond the data. And what if it is something that is either not within the data - due to the lack of necessary equipment - nor within our comprehension? That's where the usefulness of a simulation ends.

And a Turing machine can never be more than what its parent program is. It can perform more iterations of a certain task, but it cannot do more than what it was programmed to do. That's why AI hasn't truly been invented yet. And that's why we have not reached the technological singularity yet.
#28 - devout feminist (10/21/2013) [-]
Well, that image failed miserably, please accept a second one to account for any inconvenience -

www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20101109.gif

www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2055#comic
User avatar #30 - guitarguise (10/21/2013) [-]
Thank you
#195 - They are assumptions though. You're trying very hard to prove …  [+] (3 new replies) 10/21/2013 on Read Description 0
User avatar #202 - rhetoricalfunny (10/24/2013) [-]
"By majority opinion."
84 people is not a majority

"Most do" Again. Still a contradiction as no opinion has been polled, and as such no conclusion can be drawn. Any majority minority is a stat pulled straight out of your ass.

It's be more like, I think white people are superior, therefore I am a nazi. (Example.)
Point 1, is the cause of point 2. Whether or not one admits to point 2 is irrelevant. Funnyjunk is an image sharing site. Accrediting us with OC is giving us way too much credit. You want OC, follow actual comic and sketch artists, Funnyjunk is reposts of reposts, reposted on a site, from a site of reposts.

And that's the way I fucking like it.
User avatar #203 - captainfuckitall (10/24/2013) [-]
It's the majority of the minority of voted comments here.

It's actually pulled from observable evidence gained from comments on the majority of Tumblr posts. You're right though, I shouldn't speak for everyone; even so, my opinion is obviously supported.

But that's still wrong.
User avatar #204 - rhetoricalfunny (10/25/2013) [-]
1. A majority of a minority is a minority.

2. That is anecdotal bullshit. Unless you can provide numbers for.

a. The # of unique FJ users.
b. The # of Tumblr posts per week (day, month, etc.)
c. The # of comments opposed to Tumblr, supporting Tumblr (Laughing at, and laughing respectively)
d. The support of each comment by unique members.

Until you can provide numbers that prove that, you cannot claim your point has any validity. It's nothing but anecdotal bullshit.
#133 - Didn't a guy already go making a list and discover that Roboco… 10/21/2013 on Smart Title 0

Comments(481):

[ 481 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #489 - myfourthaccount (07/18/2014) [-]
dude, you're like my most favorite person on earth right now haha
User avatar #487 - imvlad (05/04/2014) [-]
you brought shame to your house
User avatar #483 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Have you by chance had an older account here before?
User avatar #484 to #483 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
Yes I have. My first username was Hiimquinn, but it was deleted for some reason I never found, so I just made another.
#485 to #484 - aerosol (04/22/2014) [-]
Oh. Never mind then. I saw someone call you Dave and I mistook you for someone else.
User avatar #486 to #485 - captainfuckitall (04/22/2014) [-]
It's fine. It was a joke from a picture a while back where a man was looking out the window and saw a dog and his owner walking down the street. The dog barked at another, bigger dog, and his owner just turned and said "See, this is why you have no fucking mates, Dave".
User avatar #481 - iforgotmyothername (03/20/2014) [-]
you are one cool tempered potato compared to me, bringing my fury upon your wrongness. i salute you, and thumbed up all your comments in the a capella debate.
User avatar #482 to #481 - captainfuckitall (03/20/2014) [-]
It's alright, I apologize for making you upset, but you don't need to thumb my posts up. Thumbs are a way to express positivity or negativity toward any type of comments; if you do not like them, it is perfectly within your right to thumb them down.
User avatar #474 - aherorising (11/20/2013) [-]
you're a really cool bro
#471 - shiifter (10/06/2013) [-]
This still makes me giggle.

Oh and by the way, i never actually thumbed you down. I just said that i did.
User avatar #472 to #471 - captainfuckitall (10/06/2013) [-]
The thing is, the way I found OUT you gave me those thumbs was because of the question mark, which allows people to see who voted on content. I could only KNOW it was you if you had thumbed them down, which you did.

And now you not only prove to be an idiot, but a liar as well.
#473 to #472 - shiifter (10/12/2013) [-]
Wait? You still remembered that? That's hilarious.

By the way, i screencapped this. it's like a trophy.
User avatar #468 - satrenkotheone (09/22/2013) [-]
I would just like to say thank you.
#466 - devout feminist (08/25/2013) [-]
Due to your pointlessly rude comment on the post "Jesus ain't got time for shit",

I have gone through 20 of your previous comments and thumbed them all down.

You're also a stupid, unfunny, tryhard feelfag. Exactly the kind of user that this site is infamous for.
User avatar #467 to #466 - captainfuckitall (08/25/2013) [-]
I wasn't pointlessly rude. If you read it more carefully, you would find I am not insulting your god or faith, but rather, the people who spread it about; and even they are just doing it to themselves, while I am mearly making an observation

It's ironic you call me tryhard, considering you just went through the time to thumb-down my last 20 comments as if it would have any effect on me personally or my ranking here. It's also odd you call me stupid, considering you were the one who read it uncorrectly. And I think the fact I have so many comment thumbs anyways (including my own jesus comment) speaks to the point that I am, in fact, quite hilarious. "Feelfag", is that supposed to be a derogatory term for someone who is passionate about certain things? If so, then I take pride in it, as it is only through passion that things grow.

Considering you are pretentious, arrogant, immature, and without a sense of humour; you fit the criteria for '12 year old funnyjunker' far better than I do.
#463 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.   
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.   
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.   
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
Hey, I would just like to say thank you for telling me to get an account.
Yea I know, odd thing to give thanks for when I could have gotten one easily but then again, I was a dumb bastard then and could not think very well.
I notice your comments from time to time and get some good knowledge off of them, mainly the Lovecraft related ones.
But like I said, thank you very much and continue to be awesome.
User avatar #464 to #463 - captainfuckitall (07/16/2013) [-]
You are just a wonderful person, you know that? Thank you very much for your kind words and appreciation, and I'm glad you have made an account and made many friends here, including myself
#465 to #464 - captainspankmonkey (07/16/2013) [-]
You're welcome, good sir.
You're welcome, good sir.
User avatar #461 - potgardener (06/01/2013) [-]
youre pretty fucked in the head if beating a kid is a good idea, parents would need to hit their kids if they taught them what was right and wrong from the beginning
User avatar #462 to #461 - captainfuckitall (06/01/2013) [-]
It's ironic how you talk about avoiding situations, when your very comment isn't needed considering I already explained, about five times now, that I do not mean you must 'abuse' your children in order to get good results. My comment, and all the comments afterwards, were about how when compassion and support fails you must turn to punishment and discipline, including simply smacking your kid upside the head

Perhaps you should read more and get better informed before jumping to opinions, yes?
#459 - bossdelainternet (05/11/2013) [-]
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest  threads i've seen this year.   
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...   
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
I'd just like to say thank you for created one of the funniest threads i've seen this year.
To sum up why i thought it was so funny, a quote...
"Most people would say 'I lost. I give up.', but you, you just keep trying. You're like the Dominican Republic, always killing the guy in charge and saying 'Ah, this new guy, this new guy's gonna get it right!'." - Family Guy
User avatar #460 to #459 - captainfuckitall (05/11/2013) [-]
I'm not sure whether I should take that as a compliment or an insult

I choose the former

Thank you, good sir
#453 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
I just thought I'd let you know that I just did an awful thing and quoted your majestic deep words of death wisdom onto my facebook. I gave you credit, but as part of my shame for stealing I thought I'd tell you. That was honestly one of the best things I've ever read.

Which is also why I screencapped it. Don't worry I swear I'm not going to try to get to frontpage with it I just wanted to save it.
User avatar #454 to #453 - captainfuckitall (11/12/2012) [-]
Not at all, I am not concerned with thumbs in the least. If you would like to post it, by all means do so, if you'd like to take credit, do so as well; I care not for material value or fame, as long as comprehend and understand the message
#455 to #454 - WhattheNorris (11/12/2012) [-]
Oh man you just keep getting better:)    
   
But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
Oh man you just keep getting better:)

But I wouldn't dare steal your credit.
#449 - captainspankmonkey (02/27/2012) [-]
Internet problems
That is why :P
User avatar #450 to #460 - captainfuckitall (02/27/2012) [-]
ahhh, haha, sorry then :P
#447 - devout feminist (09/26/2011) [-]
you're a lovely person
User avatar #448 to #458 - captainfuckitall (09/26/2011) [-]
awe, thank you, kind stranger :3

that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
#444 - captainspankmonkey (08/22/2011) [-]
Im becoming level 28 soon
User avatar #445 to #454 - captainfuckitall (08/22/2011) [-]
sooooooooooooooooon............
User avatar #446 to #455 - captainspankmonkey (08/22/2011) [-]
very soooooooooooooooooooooon......
[ 481 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)