Conquer Club

mandalorian2298 wrote:Best Prank Ever: Hectar convincing Whump that he became a Mod.

That was pretty hilarious too, to be fair.

Plutoman wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

Plutoman wrote:I'm getting the impression that a majority of the population here are drug addicts...

Whoopsie!

Looks like you mispelt 'casual occasional users' as 'addicts'... how embarassing for you.

I don't see a difference. But arguing against a whole board of them is useless, as you and the rest are not going to get off the addiction due to the words of someone else online.

You do know what addiction means do you ?

The1exile wrote:

Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.

Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.

I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.

And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.

No... ignorant conservatives usually don't.

Here's a teeny-tiny clue to helping you see the dichotomoy though: It's kind of hard to be an 'addict' if you're not actually addicted to something.
Or is your experience of prohibited substances so limited that you actually imagine it's impossible to use a 'drug' without becoming instantly dependant upon it?

Plutoman wrote:But arguing against a whole board of them is useless.

Actually I think it's the bit where you don't have a clue about the reality of the topic you're considering discussing that makes the enterprise useless... the fact that we all disagree with your uninformed and unrealistic viewpoint that appears to have absolutely no anchorage in fact or truth, is pretty much by-the-by.

Anyway, until next time, have fun in your fantastical narcophobic world... but try to lay off the 'j00 R ADDICTS!!!1' bollocks for the while; it's not only woefully ignorant and inaccurate of you to use the word, but it's also mildly insulting to those you're addressing.

Plutoman wrote:If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

Oh, hang on... I see what the problem here is: You're actually an imbecile.

You do realise that there are reasons for doing things that don't involve being addicted to them, right? Or does it also follow that whenever I drink a can of coke I'm only doing it because I'm 'addicted'? What about when I change my cat's litter tray, am I 'addicted' to that? Why is it that you seem to assume that banned substances are only indulged in because a user is automatically 'addicted', but that this isn't the case with all other substances (the non-banned ones)?

Whoah there Pluto! Don't think about touching your keyboard to reply! By using it you're just indulging your addiction to pressing its buttons.

hiitsmestevie1 wrote:i have a family full of pranksters. but i think the worst was katsup packets uner the little prongs on a toilet seat .. (so when someone sits down ,the katsup squirts out..(onto the walls,and their clothing.) hard for me to explain.. but everyone seems to think it was funny as heck. so my dad had to do one up,and use mustard packets at his work. im sure his employees loved him for that one!

Thats pretty f'n funny but would hate for it to happen to me. I wanna try this at work now, lol.

Plutoman wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.

Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.

I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.

And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

No you don't know what addiction means; what you are talking about; or the meaning of the cosmos. And do you know what? it's waiting to share its secrets with you.

Just do it, man. Give in. Join the gang. Holding out against peer pressure is not 'cool', it's stupid. This forum is one big drugfest. I'm high right now, and have been for days. And you need to make a choice. Stop posting here, or get with the program.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Here's a teeny-tiny clue to helping you see the dichotomoy though: It's kind of hard to be an 'addict' if you're not actually addicted to something.
Or is your experience of prohibited substances so limited that you actually imagine it's impossible to use a 'drug' without becoming instantly dependant upon it?

The point you've missed is that everyone on drugs claims that - most people claim they cna avoid the addiction in the first place when they try them. And always, in every single case I've seen (not a small amount, either), they've been an addict that didn't realize it. It's not something that you notice right away. It's not something you notice at all until you try to get off the drugs.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Actually I think it's the bit where you don't have a clue about the reality of the topic you're considering discussing that makes the enterprise useless... the fact that we all disagree with your uninformed and unrealistic viewpoint that appears to have absolutely no anchorage in fact or truth, is pretty much by-the-by.

I know quite a bit about the subject, and the fact that you're trying to deny it all tells me quite a bit. I'm guessing you know how to get them and smoke them, and that's probably about it. And bringing up the fact that most of you disagree? Invalid. Considering everyone disagreeing is in the same situation as you.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Anyway, until next time, have fun in your fantastical narcophobic world... but try to lay off the 'j00 R ADDICTS!!!1' bollocks for the while; it's not only woefully ignorant and inaccurate of you to use the word, but it's also mildly insulting to those you're addressing.

It's not ignorant when all the signs are there

Dancing Mustard wrote:Oh, hang on... I see what the problem here is: You're actually an imbecile.

Considering you just mentioned that calling you an addict was mildly insulting, this seems slightly hypocritical to me.

Dancing Mustard wrote:You do realise that there are reasons for doing things that don't involve being addicted to them, right? Or does it also follow that whenever I drink a can of coke I'm only doing it because I'm 'addicted'? What about when I change my cat's litter tray, am I 'addicted' to that? Why is it that you seem to assume that banned substances are only indulged in because a user is automatically 'addicted', but that this isn't the case with all other substances (the non-banned ones)?

Quite incorrect comparisons. None of those activities are addictive at all. Drugs produce a physiological need for them which most people can't feel unless they try to quit.

Dancing Mustard wrote:Whoah there Pluto! Don't think about touching your keyboard to reply! By using it you're just indulging your addiction to pressing its buttons.

heavycola wrote:No you don't know what addiction means; what you are talking about; or the meaning of the cosmos. And do you know what? it's waiting to share its secrets with you.

Just do it, man. Give in. Join the gang. Holding out against peer pressure is not 'cool', it's stupid. This forum is one big drugfest. I'm high right now, and have been for days. And you need to make a choice. Stop posting here, or get with the program.

Yes, I do happen to know what addiction means. I did research on drugs, as my family does foster care, and we had several druggies come into our household. Oddly, they were addicted, but always denied it, regardless of how much they tried to get more drugs. They also tried to defend their reasons for having the drugs. Seems to be the same thing here.

I'm not going to take drugs myself, I'm not giving in to peer pressure. You may have, but I'm not going to be an idiot. Drugs cause physical and mental impairment when taken, along with the withdrawal afterwards.

I've got a good life ahead of me - I'm not going to ruin it by getting addicted to drugs and damaging my mental facilities.

And you are right. I think I'm leaving this section of the forum. Only 3 people I've liked here, hecter, apey, and Fircoal. Haven't seen many others yet.

This is almost certainly my last post here. Goodbye, don't expect a response - it's not worth it to me to argue with an addiction. None of you are going to change your minds with my arguments on an online forum.

- Goodbye,
Plutoman

Goodbye, plutoman!

Well... I'd spend five minutes of my life explaining to Pluto why he's a moron (and how he has perhaps the most closed-mind I've ever seen. But it appears that he's about to piss off for good; so I can't be fucked.

Good-riddance to bad rubbish say I.


Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go sniff some paint-thinner and scratch frantically at my face.

Plutoman wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.

Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.

I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.

And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

And everybody who has a beer is an alcoholic I suppose you silly man.
Ignorance like that is what prevents proper education on the subject and
yes will lead to some poor souls getting addicted,your attitude is shocking
and dangerous.

And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

I thought you were like 15.. that's one awesome paper round

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

Hmmm, that's an interesting but seperate issue... and one I suspect is best saved for a whole new thread.

Right now we're busy laughing at the hideously ignorant bleating of 'Plutoman'... but don't forget, if you're using this thrread, then you must be addicted to it.

Plutoman wrote:
I've got a good life ahead of me

How do you know, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow and be all Teri Schaivod' out. Have fun while you can dude.

Is Pluto arguing that we use drugs for the expressed purpose of being addicted to them? Or is the fact that we may (or may not, damned feebs) use them irrevocably make us addicts. I feel like I'm butchering English here (I did just hit the pipe, after all) (No I didn't, I'm in a freaking library) and that Pluto would appear to have left our plane of existence, but I feel this distinction needs to be made. Where does the causality lie? Are we addicts because we (ab)use, or are we users because we're addicts?

comic boy wrote:

Plutoman wrote:

The1exile wrote:

Plutoman wrote:I don't see a difference.

Then stop typing 100,000 posts on the subject and think about it.

I have thought about it, still don't see a difference. Like I said, it's worthless arguing about it with a whole forum of druggies, so I am going to stop posting about it. Kinda ruined the forum for me thought to come on and find half of them are drug addicts.

And yes, comic boy, I do know what addiction means. If everyone here wasn't addicted to drugs, they wouldn't use them.

And everybody who has a beer is an alcoholic I suppose you silly man.

Don't be silly, alcohol is not a drug.

HungrySomali wrote:

Plutoman wrote:
I've got a good life ahead of me

How do you know, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow

...wishful thinking indeed there HS; but I've certainly got my fingers crossed.

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

That was Unhinged Melody, by the Self-righteous Brother




What tax money??

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.

I do. I earn money. I spend it. And 17.5% goes to Gordon's slack jawed bespectacled side kick in n. 11.

Back on subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aMRHjDOPFA&eurl=http://www.niktitanik.com/?s=jubito&

Napoleon Ier wrote:

comic boy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:And people have every right to indulge in these masochistic habits Mustard. However, if Cola needs his stomach pumped/expensive psychotherapy/"alternative" treatments, I don't see why the f*cker should get my tax money.

Well yes when you actually pay tax then you could argue that and throw in those who eat,drink and smoke to excess if you like. However the point we are making is that everybody who takes ' drugs ' is not an addict and it is profoundly stupid to argue otherwise.

I do. I earn money. I spend it. And 17.5% goes to Gordon's slack jawed bespectacled side kick in n. 11.

VAT is a sales tax on certain items , if you dont like it then refrain from purchasing those items Now any chance of you addressing the salient point about addicts ?