Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Flu ShotFollow

#52 Oct 15 2014 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Catwho wrote:
Got my flu shot on Sunday.

ENTIRELY UNRELATED I came down with norovirus on Monday. We know the vector - restaurant that served lunch to my husband and a friend last Thursday - his friend got sick the same day he did, on Sunday. I was sick as a dog Monday evening and yesterday. Felt like someone was unwinding my intestines through my bellybutton.

My tummy hurt so much that I completely forgot that my left arm was sore from the flu shot unless I touched it by accident. The army is fine now. Tummy still hurts. I'm drowning myself in hand sanitizer here at work and washing my hands obsessively to avoid spreading it. (Apparently those two basic hygiene practices cut the transmissions of illnesses at work down by ~80%.)


Glad to see you're doing your part to keep our troops safe from biological threats.


Took me a second to catch the joke - and fix the typo. Smiley: lol
#53 Oct 15 2014 at 12:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I used hand sanitizer today after picking up a big ole earthworm from the parking lot and tossing it back into the grass.

That was less germ fear and more the alcohol in it cuts through the worm-slime pretty effectively.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Oct 15 2014 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I used hand sanitizer today after picking up a big ole earthworm from the parking lot and tossing it back into the grass.

That was less germ fear and more the alcohol in it cuts through the worm-slime pretty effectively.


I just walk without rhythm
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#55 Oct 15 2014 at 1:51 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
I use hand sanitizer because it became a habit after a few years of shaking hands in countries that don't believe in toilet paper culturally.

Edited, Oct 15th 2014 3:52pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#56 Oct 15 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: "Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.Smiley: frown


Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument I responded to was "How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?". That's a totally different argument.
Only in that vacuous bubble you call your head.


Hell of a backpedal there. You do realize that we can actually read what you wrote earlier in this thread, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#57 Oct 15 2014 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is this a problem? Because it's almost never the flu itself that kills people, but the weakened state your body is in while fighting it that leaves you vulnerable to things like pneumonia that does. So while your immune system is busy spending energy fighting the fake flu you introduced to it in the shot, it's temporarily weakened and may result in you getting something more serious.

If you're a healthy person, this risk is essentially nil.


And so is your risk of dying to a flu.

Quote:
If you're not a healthy person, they recommend against getting the shot.


Assuming by "not a healthy person" you mean someone with a relatively weak immune system and not someone currently sick, that's completely backwards. Among the general population, the recommendation is for the elderly (50+) and the young (6mo to 4 years) to have the highest priority for flu shots. The assumption is that these groups are least likely to be able to fend off a secondary illness resulting from a flu. Which, not coincidentally, means they are also the groups least likely to be able to fend off a secondary illness resulting from the flu shot itself.


At the risk of repeating the obvious, the flu shot works by tricking your body into thinking it's been exposed to the flu, and forcing your immune system to make antibodies to it. The problem is that it's the body's reaction to the flu that is most life threatening, not the flu itself. So by creating that reaction (even if more mild and for a shorter duration) you are automatically creating a risk for yourself, in contrast to a higher risk if you get the flu, but a lower chance of getting the flu in the first place. It's not as clear cut a decision as some make it out to be. If you are in a profession where you have a high probability of being exposed to the most common strains of flu virus (teachers and health professionals) you should probably get a flu shot. But for most of the rest of us? It's a toss up really. There's certainly nothing crazy about choosing to pass on it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Oct 15 2014 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: "Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.Smiley: frown
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument I responded to was "How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?". That's a totally different argument.
Only in that vacuous bubble you call your head.
**** of a backpedal there. You do realize that we can actually read what you wrote earlier in this thread, right?
A backpedal, by definition, would mean I changed my stance in some way. Go ahead and quote my change of stance and I'll consider this post as having some sort of meaning.

ALSO: Waiting for those links to Conservative ideas of how to feed the needy without state/federal assistance. I can only assume you have not done that yet because you can't chose from the obviously many, many sites these would be posted on.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#59 Oct 15 2014 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I never mentioned anything about the cost of programs.


Fair enough. Most people do talk about the relative cost of say the military versus say food stamp programs, which is why I raised that point. But that aside, you basically just side stepped the core point I was making that it's about whether the thing the government is doing is a necessary function of the government or not. That's how conservative's make their choice.

Quote:
I specifically said that Republicans talk bad about big government unless its something that they like.


And I responded by saying that it's not about liking or disliking something, but about whether that thing is a necessary function of government. Operating a military is a necessary function of our federal government. Operating a food stamp program is not. Get it?

A sub argument I've been making is that liberals think in terms of using government power to support things they like and oppose things they dislike, and thus assume that conservatives do the same thing. That's projection though.

Quote:
So the argument is not about "big government", but certain things about big government. There's nothing wrong with arguing against/for certain things, as it is not all or nothing. However it becomes hypocritical when you generally speak ill of big government when your problem is only certain parts.


But not when "big government" is defined by conservatives as "government that does things outside the scope of the necessary government functions", and the "certain parts" we oppose are those things that are outside the scope of necessary government functions. If I believe that we should oppose non-necessary government spending, and I believe that the military is necessary, but food stamps are not, then supporting spending on the military while opposing it for food stamps is *not* hypocritical.

The method by which conservatives generate our list of "necessary functions" is not arbitrary either. It's codified in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution. Note that funding an army and navy are in that list. Note also that nowhere does "provide public education", "provide food to the hungry", "provide housing to the homeless", or "provide health care to the sick (or those who might become sick)" appear. These are not powers that the federal government is supposed to exercise. Now, it *can* do these things, but they are not necessary for the function of a federal government.


That is what conservatives are talking about when we say "small government". It's about the scope of the powers and keeping that scope as small and as close to the original list in the constitution as possible. It's not arbitrary. It's not about what we like or don't like.

Edited, Oct 15th 2014 4:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Oct 15 2014 at 5:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: "Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.Smiley: frown
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument I responded to was "How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?". That's a totally different argument.
Only in that vacuous bubble you call your head.
**** of a backpedal there. You do realize that we can actually read what you wrote earlier in this thread, right?
A backpedal, by definition, would mean I changed my stance in some way. Go ahead and quote my change of stance and I'll consider this post as having some sort of meaning.


Huh? I just did.

Quote:
How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?


Is an accurate description of what you said:

Quote:
"Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.


Yet, when I posted the former statement, you insisted that such an argument only existed in my head, thus presumably claiming that you never made such an argument. But you did. That's a backpedal (saying something, then insisting you didn't say it after the fact).

Technically, there's another interpretation of your response, but that one's even more moronic, so I'm ignoring it.

Quote:
ALSO: Waiting for those links to Conservative ideas of how to feed the needy without state/federal assistance. I can only assume you have not done that yet because you can't chose from the obviously many, many sites these would be posted on.


Why do I need links? You're actually arguing that private charitable organizations that feed the hungry would not exist if it were not for federal assistance programs (let's restrict this to federal government btw, since that's where the whole military versus social argument exists)? That's insane. And no, I'm not going to defend the straw man here. Obviously, the existence of such funding will result in charitable organizations taking the money, but they would exist whether the government funding existed or not. And there's some argument that in the absence of such government funding, they might be better funded, because more people would actually donate to such organizations directly rather than rest on the assumption that since they pay their taxes, the government will do it for them (that and the organizations would spend more time seeking such donations rather than ponying up to the government trough).


This is honestly a whole debate in itself. But whether you agree that this would work better doesn't change the fact that conservatives do believe that private organizations are vastly better at charity than the government and we should get the government out of the business entirely.

Edited, Oct 15th 2014 4:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#61 Oct 15 2014 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
And so is your risk of dying to a flu.


Depends on the flu.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#62 Oct 15 2014 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Fair enough. Most people do talk about the relative cost of say the military versus say food stamp programs, which is why I raised that point. But that aside, you basically just side stepped the core point I was making that it's about whether the thing the government is doing is a necessary function of the government or not. That's how conservative's make their choice.


Gbaji wrote:
And I responded by saying that it's not about liking or disliking something, but about whether that thing is a necessary function of government. Operating a military is a necessary function of our federal government. Operating a food stamp program is not. Get it?

A sub argument I've been making is that liberals think in terms of using government power to support things they like and oppose things they dislike, and thus assume that conservatives do the same thing. That's projection though.


Gbaji wrote:
The method by which conservatives generate our list of "necessary functions" is not arbitrary either. It's codified in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution. Note that funding an army and navy are in that list. Note also that nowhere does "provide public education", "provide food to the hungry", "provide housing to the homeless", or "provide health care to the sick (or those who might become sick)" appear. These are not powers that the federal government is supposed to exercise. Now, it *can* do these things, but they are not necessary for the function of a federal government

Is maintaining parks a necessary function of the government? I didn't see it on the list that you provided.

Gbaji wrote:
But not when "big government" is defined by conservatives as "government that does things outside the scope of the necessary government functions", and the "certain parts" we oppose are those things that are outside the scope of necessary government functions. If I believe that we should oppose non-necessary government spending, and I believe that the military is necessary, but food stamps are not, then supporting spending on the military while opposing it for food stamps is *not* hypocritical.

See above. The problem is that the "scope" is defined not by what is necessary, but what is liked.



Edited, Oct 16th 2014 5:29am by Almalieque
#63 Oct 15 2014 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: "Small, limited government" would by design mean "small, limited military" which you may note is NOT in the Conservative platform. Sorry, lil' buddy, you can't have it both ways.Smiley: frown
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The argument I responded to was "How can you claim to oppose spending on <some social program> on small government grounds, when you don't oppose spending on the military?". That's a totally different argument.
Only in that vacuous bubble you call your head.
**** of a backpedal there. You do realize that we can actually read what you wrote earlier in this thread, right?
A backpedal, by definition, would mean I changed my stance in some way. Go ahead and quote my change of stance and I'll consider this post as having some sort of meaning.
Huh? I just did.
No. You didn't. "Only in your head" referenced your statement that military spending is somehow unrelated discussion about small government.
gbaji wrote:
Bijou wrote:
ALSO: Waiting for those links to Conservative ideas of how to feed the needy without state/federal assistance. I can only assume you have not done that yet because you can't chose from the obviously many, many sites these would be posted on.
Why do I need links?
To prove your statement. D@mn you're thick. "Just let charity handle it" is not a solution.
gbaji wrote:
You're actually arguing that private charitable organizations that feed the hungry would not exist if it were not for federal assistance programs (let's restrict this to federal government btw, since that's where the whole military versus social argument exists)?
For all of you playing at home, that was a *perfect* strawman. 10 points for Slytherin.
gbaji wrote:
And there's some argument that in the absence of such government funding, they might be better funded.
And counterarguments that insufficient money being given to charitable organization led to the programs becoming a federal thing.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#64 Oct 16 2014 at 6:44 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
And so is your risk of dying to a flu.

No, you stupid, ignorant fuck, risk of dying to the flu and risk of having some negative consequence of the vaccine can't even be vaguely equivocated. Healthy people do die of flu, healthy people don't die from the flu vaccine. The less people who are vaccinated against a given strain of flu, the higher the chances of that strain mutating into a more lethal version. Influenza has been the cause of some of the greatest pandemic mass death events in human history.

The 1918 pandemic killed 3% of the world's population. Our ability to treat very effective flue strains is better now, but not dramatically. It's possible and in may ways likely that there will be another large pandemic of a lethal strain. More possible if idiots like you continue to make uninformed decisions.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#65 Oct 16 2014 at 7:01 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why do I need links?
Your tendency to misrepresent, over-exaggerate, or flat out lie about your points, use of manipulative language, more interest in arguing than the topics, a love of using hypotheticals and anecdotes in place of fact, and a ridiculous need to be the center of attention make you a completely unreliable source.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Oct 16 2014 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
No, you stupid, ignorant fuck, risk of dying to the flu and risk of having some negative consequence of the vaccine can't even be vaguely equivocated. Healthy people do die of flu, healthy people don't die from the flu vaccine.
Great, now we'll get a link to some obscure article in a local newspaper where a random house wife has 50 quotes sobbing about how her teenage son died after getting a mandatory flu shot for basketball camp or something.

I HOPE YOU'RE HAPPY! Smiley: mad
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#67 Oct 16 2014 at 2:13 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Great, now we'll get a link to some obscure article in a local newspaper where a random house wife has 50 quotes sobbing about how her teenage son died after getting a mandatory flu shot for basketball camp or something.

I wonder how much it wold cost to have billboards put up that read "After is not the same as because of"
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#68 Oct 16 2014 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
$300-$5000 a month in NYC depending on size, up to $8000 for digital.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Oct 16 2014 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
T-shirts are $19 each.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#70 Oct 16 2014 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll sell you space in my sig for only $50. Seen in nearly 70,000 posts!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Oct 16 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Is maintaining parks a necessary function of the government? I didn't see it on the list that you provided.


No, it's not. What's your point? Are you under the impression that conservatives are constantly demanding more spending on federal parks? Did liberals offer to reduce X dollars from the NPR budget if only conservatives would reduce the national park budget by the same amount, and conservatives refused? Cause I must have missed that.

Quote:
See above. The problem is that the "scope" is defined not by what is necessary, but what is liked.


You mean the point you failed to make? Wow. Really got me there!

Edited, Oct 16th 2014 3:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 Oct 16 2014 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
And so is your risk of dying to a flu.

No, you stupid, ignorant fuck, risk of dying to the flu and risk of having some negative consequence of the vaccine can't even be vaguely equivocated.


Yup. There's that correlation again. The more wrong you are, the more aggressively you post.

Quote:
Healthy people do die of flu...


Extremely rarely. When people within the mid age range get sick with the flu, it's nearly always because they had some other underlying health issue (ie: not healthy people). And it appears that the CDC doesn't actually track how many healthy people between the ages of 18 and 50 even get sick, much less die from the flu. So while we can assume that number is greater than zero, I would not assume it accounts for more than a tiny fraction of those who die from flu.


Quote:
healthy people don't die from the flu vaccine.


Here is you, once gain, making a completely false statement. Note, for the record, I have never said that healthy people can't or don't die from flu. You, on the other hand, have just made a ridiculous and easily refuted claim. Here's my result from a quick search on VAERS

Quote:
Found 103 cases where Age is 18-or-more-and-under-30 or 30-or-more-and-under-40 or 40-or-more-and-under-50 and Vaccine is FLU3 or FLU4 or FLUC3 or FLUN(H1N1) or FLUN3 or FLUN4 or FLUR3 and Patient Died


Hah. Very first one:

Age: 34.7
Died? Yes
Other Medications: No medications
Current Illness: NONE
Preexisting Conditions: NONE

It happens. Rarely? Sure. But it does. Even to people who appear to be perfectly healthy.

Quote:
The less people who are vaccinated against a given strain of flu, the higher the chances of that strain mutating into a more lethal version. Influenza has been the cause of some of the greatest pandemic mass death events in human history.

The 1918 pandemic killed 3% of the world's population. Our ability to treat very effective flue strains is better now, but not dramatically. It's possible and in may ways likely that there will be another large pandemic of a lethal strain. More possible if idiots like you continue to make uninformed decisions.


Except that there's quite a bit of evidence that by vaccinating people (especially children), we're also reducing our populations natural immunities to flu. So that when that nastier strain comes along (and it inevitably will regardless of how much we may slow it down by vaccinating people), more people will die. There's a reason why baby boomers have a lower risk of swine flu than those born later. It's because they grew up during a time period when flu vaccines were not handed out like candy and when variants of that flu strain were floating around. See, when you take a flu vaccination, it only protects you for a short amount of time, and just from that one particular variant of that one particular strain. If you actually get a flu and survive it (which the overwhelming majority of people will) you come out with long lasting immunity to that variant of that strain, and a degree of immunity to all other variants of the same strain.


I'm not saying "no vaccinations ever!". However, I am saying that it's not crazy at all for a healthy person who does not work in the health care or education fields to choose not to take the flu vaccine. Broad flu vaccinations are, at best, a trade off of effects, some positive, and some negative. It is just as foolish to say "everyone should get a flu shot" as to say "no one should get a flu shot".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 Oct 16 2014 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Here's my result from a quick search on VAERS

Hahhaha, holy ****, really, Jenny McCarthy? You are this fucking stupid? A self reported, un-validated database? Hey, I'll submit another record for you, then you'll have two examples. Jesus, I know the bar is low for you, but that's astonishing.



Except that there's quite a bit of evidence that by vaccinating people (especially children), we're also reducing our populations natural immunities to flu


Wow. That's not how that works, at all. I'd love to see this "evidence". Sounds fascinating.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#74 Oct 16 2014 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Flashback to this description of "natural selection" Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Oct 16 2014 at 7:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Here's my result from a quick search on VAERS

Hahhaha, holy ****, really, Jenny McCarthy? You are this fucking stupid? A self reported, un-validated database? Hey, I'll submit another record for you, then you'll have two examples. Jesus, I know the bar is low for you, but that's astonishing.


Just keep burying your head in the sand. Sure. They're all false claims, right? All of them? Can't let your bubble be burst. So why is it that the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists? And after Diphtheria, Influenza is the most common vaccine to result in claims. And guess what? I see 79 successful claims where the client died over the same period of time. Hmmm...

Of course, their data doesn't tell me how much was paid out based on type of vaccine, nor the details of age and health of those who died. I actually went to that source first, and then found my way to VAERS to get an idea of the data. It's an estimate, right? So...

Quote:
Found 1041 cases where Vaccine is FLU3 or FLU4 or FLUC3 or FLUN(H1N1) or FLUN3 or FLUN4 or FLUR3 and Patient Died


So approximately 10% of the total cases reported to VAERS involved people between the ages of 18 and 50. So, if we assume an even distribution of false reports, we should expect that 10% of those who received compensation from VICP were between those ages, right (I mean, why not?). So that gives us about 8 people in that age range who have not just died, but had their death confirmed to have been caused by the flu vaccine and who received compensation from the government for this.

Can we agree that this is likely to be a low ball count? Doubly so if the health care community is even half as vehement that any death that occurs after taking a flu vaccine can't have been caused by the vaccine as you are.


Quote:
Except that there's quite a bit of evidence that by vaccinating people (especially children), we're also reducing our populations natural immunities to flu

Wow. That's not how that works, at all. I'd love to see this "evidence". Sounds fascinating.


It's called having an understanding of how immune systems work. I'd explain it to you, but you'd likely need about 10 additional years of education to understand it. How's that for an answer? Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76 Oct 16 2014 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
It's called having an understanding of how immune systems work. I'd explain it to you, but you'd likely need about 10 additional years of education to understand it. How's that for an answer?

Not evidence, so about what we've come to expect.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 357 All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (356)