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

hide menu

noblexfenrir    

Rank #3599 on Comments
noblexfenrir Avatar Level 265 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to noblexfenrir Block noblexfenrir Invite noblexfenrir to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:12/29/2010
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#3599
Highest Content Rank:#1347
Highest Comment Rank:#1957
Content Thumbs: 9067 total,  10491 ,  1424
Comment Thumbs: 6943 total,  13248 ,  6305
Content Level Progress: 66% (66/100)
Level 190 Content: Anon Annihilator → Level 191 Content: Anon Annihilator
Comment Level Progress: 20% (20/100)
Level 265 Comments: Pure Win → Level 266 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:12
Content Views:231680
Times Content Favorited:539 times
Total Comments Made:7475
FJ Points:3599
Favorite Tags: You (14) | a (7) | Distraction (4) | i (4) | look (4) | the (4) | and (3) | God (3) | my (3) | oh (3) | please (3) | RUN (3) | she (3) | are (2) | but (2) | Cookie (2) | do (2) | eated (2) | game (2) | is (2)

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 30180
    Thumbs Up 1069 Thumbs Down 54 Total: +1015
    Comments: 172
    Favorites: 75
    Uploaded: 05/21/11
    Bow chicka wow wow Bow chicka wow wow
  • Views: 23605
    Thumbs Up 1060 Thumbs Down 92 Total: +968
    Comments: 160
    Favorites: 136
    Uploaded: 04/29/11
    Offencive Comp part 2 Offencive Comp part 2
  • Views: 14102
    Thumbs Up 573 Thumbs Down 14 Total: +559
    Comments: 23
    Favorites: 13
    Uploaded: 01/14/12
    When I grow up When I grow up
  • Views: 32147
    Thumbs Up 689 Thumbs Down 171 Total: +518
    Comments: 92
    Favorites: 30
    Uploaded: 12/05/12
    Backseat atheist Backseat atheist
  • Views: 12576
    Thumbs Up 441 Thumbs Down 79 Total: +362
    Comments: 39
    Favorites: 11
    Uploaded: 06/04/12
    Oh the irony Oh the irony
  • Views: 16262
    Thumbs Up 426 Thumbs Down 79 Total: +347
    Comments: 57
    Favorites: 21
    Uploaded: 12/20/12
    Ray Comfort predicted this Ray Comfort predicted this
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > [ 51 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

  • Views: 1253
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +6
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 01/16/12
    Message to SOPA Message to SOPA
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

  • Views: 7870
    Thumbs Up 14 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +11
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/10/11
    Pop up Smith Pop up Smith
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

user favorites

latest user's comments

#11 - Kind of the same concept with anyone who is rich being touted … 10 hours ago on John Lennon's Home 0
#124 - over* millions of years. 11/22/2014 on Science +1
#122 - Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into…  [+] (2 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +2
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#114 - Well origins of life isn't evolution, evolution is the process…  [+] (4 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +1
User avatar #116 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I know we have evidence, but it's not something we can watch and physically, constantly keep track of yet, you know?
It lasts millions of years. We don't live that long, is all I meant.
User avatar #122 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into play. We can (and do) watch and track it as far back as probably a few hundred years ago, and are developing better methods of analysis today.
Evolution is constant, it's always happening, dramatic changes (New appendages, better forms of pre-existing ones, reinvented organs, etc) take longer periods but less drastic ones (Shorter limbs, less hair, specific chemical production, etc.) take shorter periods. The shorter changes compound of millions of years and can result is the dramatic ones.

A decent example is if we write out the process:
1->2->3->4->5... We can understand the process here is adding 1 to the system will make it 1 number higher. This is synonymous to your concept of microevolution.

However one that represents your concept of macro evolution would be if I said:
If I continuously add 1 then my original number 0 will be 500. Simply because we didn't write or view me writing 1->500 doesn't mean the same process I wrote above doesn't apply. 1>2 is a small "adaptation". 1>2>3=1>3 is a slightly larger set of adaptations. 1>2>3>4>5=1>5 is an even larger set of adaptations. Etc etc etc. Understand my point?
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#108 - That's fine, I however would suggest doing some light reading/…  [+] (6 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +2
User avatar #110 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I like to think I know a bit about evolution, but I just don't grasp the fine points since it's not a point of much interest to me. The origins of life in general aren't very much of an interest to me.
It's just a big headache of a bunch of conflicting ideologies, you know? But, thank you for taking some time to chat with me.
User avatar #114 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Well origins of life isn't evolution, evolution is the process once life is already formed. The most credited hypothesis so far for the beginning of life would be abiogenesis. Also I would say the source you are learning evolution from is flawed since you were under the impression we had no observable evidence or that micro and macro were completely different processes, just think about finding a different, more credible source.

No worries mate it was fun, been awhile since I've had a religious conversation.
User avatar #116 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I know we have evidence, but it's not something we can watch and physically, constantly keep track of yet, you know?
It lasts millions of years. We don't live that long, is all I meant.
User avatar #122 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into play. We can (and do) watch and track it as far back as probably a few hundred years ago, and are developing better methods of analysis today.
Evolution is constant, it's always happening, dramatic changes (New appendages, better forms of pre-existing ones, reinvented organs, etc) take longer periods but less drastic ones (Shorter limbs, less hair, specific chemical production, etc.) take shorter periods. The shorter changes compound of millions of years and can result is the dramatic ones.

A decent example is if we write out the process:
1->2->3->4->5... We can understand the process here is adding 1 to the system will make it 1 number higher. This is synonymous to your concept of microevolution.

However one that represents your concept of macro evolution would be if I said:
If I continuously add 1 then my original number 0 will be 500. Simply because we didn't write or view me writing 1->500 doesn't mean the same process I wrote above doesn't apply. 1>2 is a small "adaptation". 1>2>3=1>3 is a slightly larger set of adaptations. 1>2>3>4>5=1>5 is an even larger set of adaptations. Etc etc etc. Understand my point?
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#103 - " I can provide evidence" " I cannot pro…  [+] (8 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +2
User avatar #106 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Well, I can't pretend to know anything.
But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me all that much, to be honest.
I don't want this to devolve into an argument, though, that's just me being ignorant.
User avatar #108 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
That's fine, I however would suggest doing some light reading/research into the subject of evolution and natural selection. As I said your current understanding of it is incredibly off and it would probably help to become more educated on the topic.

You may not be able to pretend to know anything, but having verifiable evidence on your side is a good thing because it gives you the ability to respond to someone who says your claim is wrong with your evidence and as such it strengthens your position.
User avatar #110 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I like to think I know a bit about evolution, but I just don't grasp the fine points since it's not a point of much interest to me. The origins of life in general aren't very much of an interest to me.
It's just a big headache of a bunch of conflicting ideologies, you know? But, thank you for taking some time to chat with me.
User avatar #114 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Well origins of life isn't evolution, evolution is the process once life is already formed. The most credited hypothesis so far for the beginning of life would be abiogenesis. Also I would say the source you are learning evolution from is flawed since you were under the impression we had no observable evidence or that micro and macro were completely different processes, just think about finding a different, more credible source.

No worries mate it was fun, been awhile since I've had a religious conversation.
User avatar #116 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I know we have evidence, but it's not something we can watch and physically, constantly keep track of yet, you know?
It lasts millions of years. We don't live that long, is all I meant.
User avatar #122 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into play. We can (and do) watch and track it as far back as probably a few hundred years ago, and are developing better methods of analysis today.
Evolution is constant, it's always happening, dramatic changes (New appendages, better forms of pre-existing ones, reinvented organs, etc) take longer periods but less drastic ones (Shorter limbs, less hair, specific chemical production, etc.) take shorter periods. The shorter changes compound of millions of years and can result is the dramatic ones.

A decent example is if we write out the process:
1->2->3->4->5... We can understand the process here is adding 1 to the system will make it 1 number higher. This is synonymous to your concept of microevolution.

However one that represents your concept of macro evolution would be if I said:
If I continuously add 1 then my original number 0 will be 500. Simply because we didn't write or view me writing 1->500 doesn't mean the same process I wrote above doesn't apply. 1>2 is a small "adaptation". 1>2>3=1>3 is a slightly larger set of adaptations. 1>2>3>4>5=1>5 is an even larger set of adaptations. Etc etc etc. Understand my point?
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#94 - Can you provide evidence that can be confirmed multiple times …  [+] (10 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +2
User avatar #95 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
No. I can provide evidence, but you will likely say it is false, or not supported because of iffy circumstance. I cannot provide repeatable evidence, and I cannot provide anything you can receive with your senses to prove that there is a God.
In that sense, I do not have evidence.
But, this does not change. Adaptation is a real thing, but a changing in, I guess, kinds of species is something I don't believe in. Can it be observed? Hardly. We can find skeletons, we can guess, but we can't observe it. We can't see it. We can't experiment with it.
It's just a matter of "My book is right, and yours is wrong."
At the end of the day, a third party could just say neither of us can really honestly prove anything 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
User avatar #103 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
" I can provide evidence"
" I cannot provide repeatable evidence, and I cannot provide anything you can receive with your senses to prove that there is a God. "
Then you don't have evidence. You have personal experience and that is completely useless because we as humans are fallible, hence the reason of evidence that is repeatably verifiable.

" Can it be observed? Hardly."
What are you talking about?
First we have organisms that change very fast in large ways because they are less complex, bacteria-virus', small organisms such as insects, fish, etc.

Adaptation IS evolution, again anyone saying otherwise simply does not understand the concept nor the theory. To say this organism can adapt by this method or that method, but then saying those adaptations won't change and pile on one another over generation after generation is incredibly ignorant of what the science shows.

"We can't see it."
Our genetic code is more than enough evidence, everything else is simply frosting on the cake. We have seen bacteria adapt to modern medicines in less than a decade.

"It's just a matter of "My book is right, and yours is wrong.""
It's more of "My scientific journal has evidence and yours has unverifiable claims." but if that's how you want to define it.

"neither of us can really honestly prove anything 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Ofcourse not, neither of us is omniscient, hence the necessary requirement of evidence. Something we have for evolution.
User avatar #106 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Well, I can't pretend to know anything.
But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me all that much, to be honest.
I don't want this to devolve into an argument, though, that's just me being ignorant.
User avatar #108 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
That's fine, I however would suggest doing some light reading/research into the subject of evolution and natural selection. As I said your current understanding of it is incredibly off and it would probably help to become more educated on the topic.

You may not be able to pretend to know anything, but having verifiable evidence on your side is a good thing because it gives you the ability to respond to someone who says your claim is wrong with your evidence and as such it strengthens your position.
User avatar #110 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I like to think I know a bit about evolution, but I just don't grasp the fine points since it's not a point of much interest to me. The origins of life in general aren't very much of an interest to me.
It's just a big headache of a bunch of conflicting ideologies, you know? But, thank you for taking some time to chat with me.
User avatar #114 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Well origins of life isn't evolution, evolution is the process once life is already formed. The most credited hypothesis so far for the beginning of life would be abiogenesis. Also I would say the source you are learning evolution from is flawed since you were under the impression we had no observable evidence or that micro and macro were completely different processes, just think about finding a different, more credible source.

No worries mate it was fun, been awhile since I've had a religious conversation.
User avatar #116 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I know we have evidence, but it's not something we can watch and physically, constantly keep track of yet, you know?
It lasts millions of years. We don't live that long, is all I meant.
User avatar #122 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into play. We can (and do) watch and track it as far back as probably a few hundred years ago, and are developing better methods of analysis today.
Evolution is constant, it's always happening, dramatic changes (New appendages, better forms of pre-existing ones, reinvented organs, etc) take longer periods but less drastic ones (Shorter limbs, less hair, specific chemical production, etc.) take shorter periods. The shorter changes compound of millions of years and can result is the dramatic ones.

A decent example is if we write out the process:
1->2->3->4->5... We can understand the process here is adding 1 to the system will make it 1 number higher. This is synonymous to your concept of microevolution.

However one that represents your concept of macro evolution would be if I said:
If I continuously add 1 then my original number 0 will be 500. Simply because we didn't write or view me writing 1->500 doesn't mean the same process I wrote above doesn't apply. 1>2 is a small "adaptation". 1>2>3=1>3 is a slightly larger set of adaptations. 1>2>3>4>5=1>5 is an even larger set of adaptations. Etc etc etc. Understand my point?
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#80 - The concept of believing in something drawn from ignorance. Wh…  [+] (12 new replies) 11/22/2014 on Science +1
User avatar #83 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
On what grounds would you have to say that it is drawn from ignorance, might I ask?
Faith is required, certainly, but faith is also required in macro-evolution. What makes that any different?
User avatar #94 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Can you provide evidence that can be confirmed multiple times in a controlled environment? The place I draw this position from is one of my own experience and research, however I have yet to be presented, or to find anything more than simple anecdotal evidence (which is useless).

Alright wow, been a long time since I've needed to respond to something like this. Actually kind of happy.

The concept of micro and macro evolution is really only something people on the religious side like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind discuss, generally they are both lumped together and just called evolution because they are the same thing. Micro-evolution is simply the propagation of selective traits and mutations over a short period of time, Macro-evolution is the same process but over a much longer period of time. Anyone claiming they are two different kinds of processes or forms of evolution simply doesn't understand the concept of evolution or natural selection as a guiding path.
User avatar #95 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
No. I can provide evidence, but you will likely say it is false, or not supported because of iffy circumstance. I cannot provide repeatable evidence, and I cannot provide anything you can receive with your senses to prove that there is a God.
In that sense, I do not have evidence.
But, this does not change. Adaptation is a real thing, but a changing in, I guess, kinds of species is something I don't believe in. Can it be observed? Hardly. We can find skeletons, we can guess, but we can't observe it. We can't see it. We can't experiment with it.
It's just a matter of "My book is right, and yours is wrong."
At the end of the day, a third party could just say neither of us can really honestly prove anything 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt.
User avatar #103 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
" I can provide evidence"
" I cannot provide repeatable evidence, and I cannot provide anything you can receive with your senses to prove that there is a God. "
Then you don't have evidence. You have personal experience and that is completely useless because we as humans are fallible, hence the reason of evidence that is repeatably verifiable.

" Can it be observed? Hardly."
What are you talking about?
First we have organisms that change very fast in large ways because they are less complex, bacteria-virus', small organisms such as insects, fish, etc.

Adaptation IS evolution, again anyone saying otherwise simply does not understand the concept nor the theory. To say this organism can adapt by this method or that method, but then saying those adaptations won't change and pile on one another over generation after generation is incredibly ignorant of what the science shows.

"We can't see it."
Our genetic code is more than enough evidence, everything else is simply frosting on the cake. We have seen bacteria adapt to modern medicines in less than a decade.

"It's just a matter of "My book is right, and yours is wrong.""
It's more of "My scientific journal has evidence and yours has unverifiable claims." but if that's how you want to define it.

"neither of us can really honestly prove anything 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Ofcourse not, neither of us is omniscient, hence the necessary requirement of evidence. Something we have for evolution.
User avatar #106 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Well, I can't pretend to know anything.
But, either way, it really doesn't matter to me all that much, to be honest.
I don't want this to devolve into an argument, though, that's just me being ignorant.
User avatar #108 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
That's fine, I however would suggest doing some light reading/research into the subject of evolution and natural selection. As I said your current understanding of it is incredibly off and it would probably help to become more educated on the topic.

You may not be able to pretend to know anything, but having verifiable evidence on your side is a good thing because it gives you the ability to respond to someone who says your claim is wrong with your evidence and as such it strengthens your position.
User avatar #110 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I like to think I know a bit about evolution, but I just don't grasp the fine points since it's not a point of much interest to me. The origins of life in general aren't very much of an interest to me.
It's just a big headache of a bunch of conflicting ideologies, you know? But, thank you for taking some time to chat with me.
User avatar #114 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Well origins of life isn't evolution, evolution is the process once life is already formed. The most credited hypothesis so far for the beginning of life would be abiogenesis. Also I would say the source you are learning evolution from is flawed since you were under the impression we had no observable evidence or that micro and macro were completely different processes, just think about finding a different, more credible source.

No worries mate it was fun, been awhile since I've had a religious conversation.
User avatar #116 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
I know we have evidence, but it's not something we can watch and physically, constantly keep track of yet, you know?
It lasts millions of years. We don't live that long, is all I meant.
User avatar #122 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
Which is where the misconception of micro and macro comes into play. We can (and do) watch and track it as far back as probably a few hundred years ago, and are developing better methods of analysis today.
Evolution is constant, it's always happening, dramatic changes (New appendages, better forms of pre-existing ones, reinvented organs, etc) take longer periods but less drastic ones (Shorter limbs, less hair, specific chemical production, etc.) take shorter periods. The shorter changes compound of millions of years and can result is the dramatic ones.

A decent example is if we write out the process:
1->2->3->4->5... We can understand the process here is adding 1 to the system will make it 1 number higher. This is synonymous to your concept of microevolution.

However one that represents your concept of macro evolution would be if I said:
If I continuously add 1 then my original number 0 will be 500. Simply because we didn't write or view me writing 1->500 doesn't mean the same process I wrote above doesn't apply. 1>2 is a small "adaptation". 1>2>3=1>3 is a slightly larger set of adaptations. 1>2>3>4>5=1>5 is an even larger set of adaptations. Etc etc etc. Understand my point?
User avatar #124 - noblexfenrir (11/22/2014) [-]
over* millions of years.
User avatar #123 - mapleknight (11/22/2014) [-]
Yeah, I guess that makes sense.
#74 - "1" Or you can repeat it as many times as the …  [+] (1 new reply) 11/22/2014 on Science 0
User avatar #163 - scootabot (11/22/2014) [-]
Alright, I said my piece. If you don't wanna listen, I won't act like you and shove their ideology down others' throats.

Have a good day.
#60 - Don't accept* 11/22/2014 on Science +1

user's channels

Join Subscribe atheism
Join Subscribe fucking-science
Join Subscribe morbid-channel
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1757 / Total items point value: 4077

Comments(161):

[ 161 comments ]

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #191 - revengeforfreeze (02/16/2014) [-]
Plz respond
User avatar #192 to #191 - noblexfenrir (02/16/2014) [-]
Oh wow sorry mate, for some reason I wasn't notified you posted on here before. Strange, but either way, I can't honestly say I have seen then, or seen any TED talks outside of segments here and there.
User avatar #194 to #192 - indone (06/19/2014) [-]
Did you watch any TED videos since?
User avatar #195 to #194 - noblexfenrir (06/20/2014) [-]
Some yes, although I find myself not connecting with TED's format of short explanations and little debate availability. They're good for background noise but for videos I pay special attention to, they don't fit the bill.
User avatar #196 to #195 - indone (06/20/2014) [-]
That's why I prefer open debate things like the ones Sam Harris usually engages in.

Who's your favourite scientist? Mine has to be Sam, man, he's so down to earth and smart.
User avatar #197 to #196 - noblexfenrir (06/20/2014) [-]
Dawkins or Carroll I'd have to say.
User avatar #198 to #197 - indone (06/20/2014) [-]
Carroll?
User avatar #199 to #198 - noblexfenrir (06/20/2014) [-]
Theoretical cosmologist at CIT. One of his books is "the arrow of time". He's not a Dawkins or a Harris, but I prefer him as a scientist.
User avatar #193 to #192 - revengeforfreeze (02/16/2014) [-]
No problem, it has happened to me too.

Interesting. They are packed with knowledge though so you ought to watch them , in my opinion
User avatar #190 - revengeforfreeze (02/07/2014) [-]
So, I've a question.

Have you seen any of the religiously themed TED talks?
#189 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (12/24/2013) [-]
Hey Noblex, thought you might be interested in this. You know Aronra right? Then you probably also know that he uses document maps to illustrate phylogenetic clades although these maps where animated rather than real.

So i decided to make my own phylogeny replication with document maps, although since i'm not an experienced paleonthologist it'll probably be less complex than most phylogeny project and will probably have to be constantly updated to fix errors and add information i overlooked, it's also in Dutch but i can translate it.

If you have any good articles or sources with information on taxonomic ranks i'd appreciate it very much.
User avatar #188 - schnizel (11/11/2013) [-]
Sup bro?
User avatar #187 - schnizel (11/10/2013) [-]
Daily reminder
That my people were the original heretics
#184 - Womens Study Major (10/22/2013) [-]
Is that all you do is **** on others beliefs?
User avatar #185 to #184 - noblexfenrir (10/22/2013) [-]
If they're wrong? Ofcourse I do. If it's just an opinion I think is wrong? I'll explain why I do but it's up to them how they take it.
User avatar #183 - christophrhitchens (10/17/2013) [-]
back from the dead
User avatar #180 - betta ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
EAUGHGUGRHWAU!

Y U THUMB DOWN MY COMIC

lol, I don't really care that you didn't like it. I'm just here to get some input on why you didn't like it.
User avatar #181 to #180 - noblexfenrir (10/12/2013) [-]
Jesus that was quick response, are you sitting watching the thumbs for it?

Anyways, the joke pacing was just really off. Really slow in the beginning for a joke that's been told to death in every variation possible, a shoehorned in joke about her eyes, and to be honest the over exaggerated language does annoy me when there is no reason for it whatsoever (I think it had something to do with nipples and lighting aflame), it's just there to be there.

Basically comic was too long for the joke you were doing and the joke you chose is overused in my opinion.
User avatar #182 to #181 - betta ONLINE (10/12/2013) [-]
True, but I just thought it'd be interesting to break the 4th wall a bit with the joke. I do need to work on making my comics shorter though; I agree with that.

Thank you for the input (:

I actually am watching the thumbs. I have no other website to check right now, so why the **** not :T
#178 - garymotherfinoak has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #179 to #178 - garymotherfinoak (08/30/2013) [-]
wrong profile, sorreh
User avatar #172 - robinwilliamson (06/23/2013) [-]
I'm a fan of your work, you're an honorable member of the Religion Board. God bless you.......oh wait
#154 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#157 to #154 - Womens Study Major (04/18/2013) [-]
He's really good at feigning intelligence and expertise. thats about it
User avatar #155 to #154 - noblexfenrir (04/14/2013) [-]
Thank you. It really means alot. I love reading your threads, you either bring up questions I'm curious to see the answer to, and on a few occasions shown me information I was unaware of.

Especially considering as of late I have had very little drive to converse on the board simply because it's getting tiring. Not the debating mind you, I love that to death. The people are more the problem. The most recent bout with xJokeface on your gay marriage thread is a very good example, it's just getting more and more difficult to show a shred of seriousness or even respect to some of the regulars there.
#156 to #155 - kanade **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#144 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#143 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#142 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#141 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#140 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#139 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#138 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#137 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
#136 - Womens Study Major (03/11/2013) [-]
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD

JESUS CHRIST is the Light of the world. Whoever follows Him will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life. Open your heart to Jesus Christ !
[ 161 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)