allthumbs

I had sex with a hippie chick once. She stunk. just say no to hippie sex

yeah dfa, you chicken f'er

I would not think twice about building where you mentioned. Hell, I'd build on Mt. St. Helens, no problemo. I refuse to live in fear. btw, don't tell me I'm living in fear because I pack either. I'm living prepared and offensive, take charge mindset.

K, I've said it all along...no one reads his shit. It's too fucking boring. He's a lunkhead though and doesn't hear or care.

Sounds like DFA's position is that since car jackings don't happen to a person every day, said person should not arm himself in anticipation of said event popping up oneday. DFA would rather be a victim. That's fine, if that's the way he wants to live. Do body bags come in Pink?

Did I hear that Clancy is under some kind of investigation because of his knowledge of the spy biz?

Responsible dog owners should bring the shit home and flush it. People suck sometimes.

Jesus DFA, Floridians are senile and incontinent. The Bush camp didn't have to rig the election.

Fox news is on it. Well, certainly not to my surprise, SH has fucked up again. Now what? War seems immanent.

POPCORN !!! PEANUTS !!!

may cool heads prevail

hahaha, Dru you can paint the same picture in the boating industry. just replace gri gri with gold chains, rolex, trophy wives, etc...

ignorant slut

Yeah, and keep that shit outta the rivers.

I know I don't care. The park can probably use the money. Life goes on.

"Where's the Pork?"

09:30 14 December 02 Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition A cunning statistical study has exposed scientists as sloppy reporters. When they write up their work and cite other people's papers, most do not bother to read the original. The discovery was made by Mikhail Simkin and Vwani Roychowdhury of the University of California, Los Angeles, who study the way information spreads around different kinds of networks. They noticed in a citation database that misprints in references are fairly common, and that a lot of the mistakes are identical. This suggests that many scientists take short cuts, simply copying a reference from someone else's paper rather than reading the original source. To find out how common this is, Simkin and Roychowdhury looked at citation data for a famous 1973 paper on the structure of two-dimensional crystals. They found it had been cited in other papers 4300 times, with 196 citations containing misprints in the volume, page or year. But despite the fact that a billion different versions of erroneous reference are possible, they counted only 45. The most popular mistake appeared 78 times. The pattern suggests that 45 scientists, who might well have read the paper, made an error when they cited it. Then 151 others copied their misprints without reading the original. So for at least 77 per cent of the 196 misprinted citations, no one read the paper. So much for the myth... hahahaha

NOAA moors one of their ships in front of my cabin about twice a year. Usually there's some hotties running around the deck in skimpy bikinis, cavorting and frolicking and showing their tits to us when we run out to them in our boats. There's definitely some "hanky-panky" going on with NOAA.

Don't be such a smart ass Jimbo.

Yeah Rob, and I was actually being serious for once. I love getting a good massage now and then; really takes the kinks out...and I'm talking about the real ones. I dated a massage therapist for about six months. It was awesome.

Hey, hogshitrunoff would make a good avatar for someone.

He has 6 long posts in a row, essentially talking to himself. The subject matter is bizarre and too deep for any but a nerd. What's this idiot's problem anyway? I think he needs to get laid.

massage therapy

God you're boring Mtn. Goat You don't seriously think anyone in their right mind reads that shit do you?

How touching...a college moment