Hehe Science

Cleat Eastwood

Secteur

photo link broken, you useless man. honestly. try harder please.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

Cleat Eastwood

I can see it - orbs aplenty.

OffTheBackAdam

Let me sort it out for you!

Right, not posting, I suspect because it has _ in the address, some websites don't like them

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Truth_ ... 937456.jpg

Kieran_Burns

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

We're not abusing and they're not that miniscule.

I wonder if this is Schroedinger's thread? Are we in fact affecting that which is observed? Should we in actaulity NOT be looking at the image? Would the image BE an image if the image were not looked upon?

Or should we just go off and fap at more Olympic babes?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Kieran_Burns wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

We're not abusing and they're not that miniscule.

I wonder if this is Schoedinger's thread? Are we in fact affecting that which is observed? Should we in actaulity NOT be looking at the image? Would the image BE an image if the image were not looked upon?

Or should we just go off and fap at more Olympic babes?

Lets just fap,but not together

Blacktemplar

Kieran_Burns wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

We're not abusing and they're not that miniscule.

I wonder if this is Schroedinger's thread? Are we in fact affecting that which is observed? Should we in actaulity NOT be looking at the image? Would the image BE an image if the image were not looked upon?

Or should we just go off and fap at more Olympic babes?

If Schroedinger's involved, there should definitely be more pussy......

Cleat Eastwood

Blacktemplar wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

We're not abusing and they're not that miniscule.

I wonder if this is Schroedinger's thread? Are we in fact affecting that which is observed? Should we in actaulity NOT be looking at the image? Would the image BE an image if the image were not looked upon?

Or should we just go off and fap at more Olympic babes?

If Schroedinger's involved, there should definitely be more pussy......

or not

Kieran_Burns

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Blacktemplar wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Cleat is challenging knowledge and evolution by implying that like the image, science simply doesn't exist. But is itself a term used to quantify the fact that we constantly look for miniscule things to abuse.

Off to the Big Girls In thread

We're not abusing and they're not that miniscule.

I wonder if this is Schroedinger's thread? Are we in fact affecting that which is observed? Should we in actaulity NOT be looking at the image? Would the image BE an image if the image were not looked upon?

Or should we just go off and fap at more Olympic babes?

If Schroedinger's involved, there should definitely be more pussy......

or not

Well, this thread just collapsed....