Brawndo: It's Got What Plants Crave. It's Got Electrolytes!

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Brawndo: It's Got What Plants Crave. It's Got Electrolytes!

The title of this post is excerpted from Idiocracy, a film I hadn't seen until this afternoon. The film itself deals with the premise of civilization having entered a sort-of ultra-modern medieval period as a result of a cultural shift in favor of demonizing intelligence / education. I found the film's initial idea being the premise fairly weak (dumb people reproduce more often than smart people, as a result of technology and medicine undermining natural selection, ergo the population becomes filled with idiots) because, even if stupid people are outbreeding smart people, the natural curiousity and intelligence of human beings as a species ensures that a solid portion of stupid parents' children will grow-up relatively intelligent anyway.

The world, however, I do think is frighteningly plausible, based on the idea that there might be a mechanism that could be used to undermine our natural curiousity / intelligence (as it has in the past) and lead to the proposed demonization of intelligence:

Theology.

The scene of the film I excerpted the title of this post from actually illustrates this quite well:

 

In Idiocracy's fantasy world, the United States is about to face a massive food shortage because of agricultural failure. Regardless of vigorous irrigation methods, crops simply aren't growing.

The protagonist of the film discovers that, as a result of corporate maneuvering for profit, water has been replaced by Brawndo - an energy drink - as far as any form of consumption (including farming practice) is concerned. Water is now only known as a septic agent, and Brawndo's slogan (It's Got What Plants Crave. It's Got Electrolytes!) has become common sense among the uneducated populace. The thing is, while the energy drink may have been a somewhat acceptable irrigation fluid for a little while, it's electrolytes (salt) built-up in the topsoil - killing crops and creating conditions necessary for dust storms

When the protagonist attempts to argue that the fields should be irrigated with water instead, the following argument ensues (not quoted word for word - I tried to break it down for better reading):

'...But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. You want us to put water on the crops instead?'

'Yes.'

'Like, the water that comes from the toilet?'

'Well, it doesn't have to come from the toilet, but yes. We should put water on the crops instead of Brawndo.'

'But Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!'

'Well, let's look at the situation. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo isn't working. We should just try the water out instead and see if that works.'

'Yeah? Well, I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.'

'Okay, look - we want to get this problem solved. So we have to try a solution of some kind. Let's see if the water hypothesis works, and go from there, rather than worrying about what plants may or may not crave.'

'But we know what plants crave. Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.'

'...Okay - what are electrolytes? Do you know?'

'Yeah. It's what they use to make Brawndo.'

'But why do they use them in Bawndo? What do they do?'

'They're part of what plants crave.'

'But why do plants crave them?'

'Because plants crave Brawndo, and Brawndo has electrolytes.'

 

Theists, I want to you go through the argument above, and pick-out the logical fallacies therein. And I want you to hold onto this thought for later.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeed Kevin... but Brawndo

Indeed Kevin... but Brawndo does have what plants crave...electrolytes, I fail to see your point.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I believe it's false dichotomy

I believe it's false dichotomy and circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I thought the movie itself

I thought the movie itself was rather silly and outlandish, but there were scenes, like this one, which were very good satire.

 

Like Cpt-Pinapple said, its circular reasoning, assumptions made on faulty presuppositions, and an unwillingness to take evidence into account.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh yeah:another one:

Oh yeah:

another one: Argument from ignorance.

 

To recap:

Quote:

'Like, the water that comes from the toilet?'

 

'Yeah? Well, I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.'

False Dichotomoy and argument from ignorance.

 

 

Quote:

'But we know what plants crave. Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.'

'...Okay - what are electrolytes? Do you know?'

'Yeah. It's what they use to make Brawndo.'

'But why do they use them in Bawndo? What do they do?'

'They're part of what plants crave.'

'But why do plants crave them?'

'Because plants crave Brawndo, and Brawndo has electrolytes.'

 

Circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:'...But

Kevin R Brown wrote:

'...But Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes. You want us to put water on the crops instead?'

'Yes.'

'Like, the water that comes from the toilet?'

'Well, it doesn't have to come from the toilet, but yes. We should put water on the crops instead of Brawndo.'

'But Brawndo has what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!'

'Well, let's look at the situation. The plants aren't growing, so I'm pretty sure that the Brawndo isn't working. We should just try the water out instead and see if that works.'

'Yeah? Well, I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.'

'Okay, look - we want to get this problem solved. So we have to try a solution of some kind. Let's see if the water hypothesis works, and go from there, rather than worrying about what plants may or may not crave.'

'But we know what plants crave. Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.'

'...Okay - what are electrolytes? Do you know?'

'Yeah. It's what they use to make Brawndo.'

'But why do they use them in Bawndo? What do they do?'

'They're part of what plants crave.'

'But why do plants crave them?'

'Because plants crave Brawndo, and Brawndo has electrolytes.'

 

 

Thanks for transcribing the scene, Kelly and I laughed our asses off.  Easily the funniest circular reasoning EVAR!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Oh

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Oh yeah:

another one: Argument from ignorance.

 

To recap:

Quote:

'Like, the water that comes from the toilet?'

 

'Yeah? Well, I've never seen plants grow out of a toilet.'

False Dicotomoy and argument from ignorance.

 

Quote:

'But we know what plants crave. Brawndo. It's got electrolytes.'

'...Okay - what are electrolytes? Do you know?'

'Yeah. It's what they use to make Brawndo.'

'But why do they use them in Bawndo? What do they do?'

'They're part of what plants crave.'

'But why do plants crave them?'

'Because plants crave Brawndo, and Brawndo has electrolytes.'

 

Circular reasoning.

 

 

 

 

Thank-you, Cap'n.

There's also a slighty sneaky, but very important, one that you missed:

Premise: Brawndo is what plants crave. It has electrolytes.

Conclusion: Plants should therefore be watered with Brawndo.

This is a non-sequitor fallacy. Even if the premise were entirely true, it does not follow that plants should therefore only be watered with Brawndo (even if they DID happen to crave an energy drink, it would not necessarily be healthy for  them.

 

So, holding onto this thought, allow me to make a statement:

I don't think that there is an intelligent deity who either created the Earth or guides my life. It think natural processes created the Earth, and I'm on my own as far as my life is concerned. The same would, of course, be true for yourself.

 

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

 

So, holding onto this thought, allow me to make a statement:

I don't think that there is an intelligent deity who either created the Earth or guides my life. It think natural processes created the Earth, and I'm on my own as far as my life is concerned. The same would, of course, be true for yourself.

  

 

This is the part where I say "But God created everything!" right?

 


Rev. Real
Rev. Real's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Great movie.  One of my

Great movie.  One of my favorites.  It's online on Youtube here.

The part where Brawdo begins is at the 3 min mark (no spoilers)

 

 

-RR

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Kevin R

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

 

So, holding onto this thought, allow me to make a statement:

I don't think that there is an intelligent deity who either created the Earth or guides my life. It think natural processes created the Earth, and I'm on my own as far as my life is concerned. The same would, of course, be true for yourself.

  

 

This is the part where I say "But God created everything!" right?

 

Beats me. You're the theist. Do you want to refute the statement?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


greek goddess
Rational VIP!Science Freak
greek goddess's picture
Posts: 361
Joined: 2008-01-26
User is offlineOffline
Is that Maya Rudolph in the

Is that Maya Rudolph in the movie? I love her!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:  Beats

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Beats me. You're the theist. Do you want to refute the statement?

 

 

 

I agree with the natural, however I do think their was a Deity.

 

I believe this because of the very process of creation from the Earth to the universe.

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Kevin R

Quote:

I agree with the natural, however I do think their was a Deity.

'Okay, I think water will grow the crops, but I just think Brawndo will do a better job...'

 

Quote:
I believe this because of the very process of creation from the Earth to the universe.

'This is because Brawndo has what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.'

 

Cap'n, if you agree with the natural explanations, and we don't have evidence that a deity is existent (and we have fairly strong evidence that one is, in fact, non-existent), why would you think that there's a deity?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I just saw the movie last

I just saw the movie last night and it was hilarious. Some parts I really loved (semi spoiler alert)

 

The pimp named "Upgrayedd" - spelled with 2 "D"s for a double dose of his pimpin' - and how the scientist ended up getting all into pimpin' after hanging with him and his hoes.

The "Fuddpuckers" restaurant chain being renamed "Buttfuckers"

The most popular move was called "Ass" and consisted of an hour and a half of video of somebody's ass farting - and it won 8 Oscars.

The most popular TV show was "Ouch My Balls" which had a guy keep getting his balls hurt - and how there were adds all around the screen like on cheap websites - also how advertising was literally all over everything.

The Secretary of (State?) got his position by winning a game show

The ad for some brand of cigarettes was "If you don't smoke (brand name) , fuck you."

 

Some of it was kind of true - that people said he talked like a fag because he used proper English - look at how a lot of people here brand anyone who is obviously intelligent with the "elitist" tag and how very intelligent people have been portrayed in fiction for decades - as either insane, evil, or totally socially incompetant.

 

 

 

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Rev. Real
Rev. Real's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-05-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Some of it

MattShizzle wrote:

Some of it was kind of true - that people said he talked like a fag because he used proper English - look at how a lot of people here brand anyone who is obviously intelligent with the "elitist" tag and how very intelligent people have been portrayed in fiction for decades - as either insane, evil, or totally socially incompetant.

I find the movie Idiocracy almost prophetic.  In the future the president is black.  In our future the president may be black (Obama).  In the future the economy is in ruins with the Dust Bowl because they water their crops with Brawndo.  In our future the economy will be in ruins because Bernanke waters the financial system with more liquidity.

Ron Paul is like the guy in Idiocracy that tries to explain that inflation is not the solution to an economy.  It's SOUND MONEY you fucking idiots!!!  But hey he talks like a fag (old crotchety man).

 

 

 

Some more observations:  Rehabilitation is much like the movie Running Man, Upgrayedd ripped off Rosebudd's cliche if ya noticed.

-RR

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Cap'n,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Cap'n, if you agree with the natural explanations, and we don't have evidence that a deity is existent (and we have fairly strong evidence that one is, in fact, non-existent), why would you think that there's a deity?

 

 

Did I not just say why?

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
To add things to my previous

To add things to my previous post:

 

Since I tried to put it in my own words and failed: plus it's late

 

 

Core of my beleifs:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh and if you want to

Oh and if you want to compare Digital physics to plants and electrolytes ask yourself this:

 

What's the formula for the electrical force between two charges? Then hold that thought.

 

 


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Coulomb's Law?

Are you referring to Coulomb's Law?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
OK how'd that picture wind

OK how'd that picture wind up at the bottom of my last post?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:Are you

entomophila wrote:

Are you referring to Coulomb's Law?

 

Yep.

 

 

 

Quote:

 

OK how'd that picture wind up at the bottom of my last post?

 

What?

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
F=kQqr^-2 where k is [4pi

F=kQqr^-2 where k is [4pi (epsilon)]^-1, why?

Edit:

Usually written in combined form to give: F=Qq/4pir^2(epsilon)

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
typo fairy

Matt, that was the typo fairy. She means you no harm!

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
sure, now other people show

sure, now other people show up.

 

Anyway, aside from the typo of r2 in the constant, Deluded is correct.

I'll wait for plant boy before I get to the point. He's the one that asked for the explanation.


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Coulomb's Law

I can't wait to hear this one!


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
square stuff

r ^ 2 = r2

No typo there or the fairy would have showed up!

 

BTW, what are we, chopped liver?

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
No, he meant I had put r^2

No, he meant I had put r^2 into the constant. It is not part of the constant, so he is right. On the other hand, since I have rewritten the law in the combined form, it doesn't matter.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:BTW, what are we,

Quote:

BTW, what are we, chopped liver?


 

I just get caught off guard when the peanut gallery suddenly shows up.

 

2) In the formula eplision represents the permativity of light in a vacuum (Or at least e0 does.).

 

Now why is that included in the formula?

 

Or should I just get to the point out right?

 

 

Oh and why put r^2 instead of r2? I find r2 doesn't clutter as much.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Now why is that

Quote:

Now why is that included in the formula?

 

Uh...because permittivity is one of the variables in how much force a point charge exerts, along with magnitude of charge, distance from the other charge, and magnitude of the other charge.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
square stuff

DG, are you sure that's what he meant (I'm assuming he is a "he" )?

 

This is why I'm a forensic entomologist, not a, er, physicist. I know enough to be dangerous...you know...what goes up must come down?

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
entomophila wrote:Matt, that

entomophila wrote:

Matt, that was the typo fairy. She means you no harm!

 

 

 

OK. I was worried some theist hacked and added something religious!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Fuck Matt's post, why is at

Fuck Matt's post, why is at the bottom of mine?

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:DG, are you sure

Quote:

DG, are you sure that's what he meant (I'm assuming he is a "he" )?

Yes, this is what he meant. The formula is F=Qq/4pi r^2 (epsilon). Can we just...get to the point, Cpt?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:Quote:DG,

deludedgod wrote:

Quote:

DG, are you sure that's what he meant (I'm assuming he is a "he" )?

Yes, this is what he meant. The formula is F=Qq/4pi r^2 (epsilon). Can we just...get to the point, Cpt?

 

I was trying to defend digital physics with the point of information exchange as the fundamental part of creation.

I just picked the electric force as an example.

The epsilon was there because the force is communicated through a photon exchange (Hence the permativity plays a factor in force strength.)

 

This is also true for other forces.  (Though Weak is from Bosons etc....)

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Did I not just say

Quote:
Did I not just say why?

Well, yes, you did. And it was a non-sequitor, as I had pointed-out:

Quote:
I believe [that there is a deity] because of the very process of creation from the Earth to the universe.

This is exactly the equivalent of saying, 'I will water crops with Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator, because it's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes!'

You're not failing at the level of scientific doctrine (...well, you might also be failing there -DG can be the judge of that) - you're failing at the most basic logical level. The entire argument you roost upon is based on a non-sequitor:

- Complex things can be intelligently created

- The universe is a complex thing

- Because the universe is a complex thing, it was created via intelligence

This ignores the fact that complex things can also be created via processes that are not intelligence-driven.

Quote:

Oh and if you want to compare Digital physics to plants and electrolytes ask yourself this:

'Well I ain't never seen no plant grow out of no toilet!'

You already named the type of logcial fallacy you just committed here, Cap'n.

I'm using the Brawndo scene as a comparative analogy to point-out your fundamental logical failures, not to compare pseudo-science to electrolytes.

Quote:

I'll wait for plant boy before I get to the point. He's the one that asked for the explanation.

Well, now that I'm here, please proceed to show DG where your scientific understanding goes astray too. Sticking out tongue

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:The

Kevin R Brown wrote:

The entire argument you roost upon is based on a non-sequitor:

- Complex things can be intelligently created

- The universe is a complex thing

- Because the universe is a complex thing, it was created via intelligence

This ignores the fact that complex things can also be created via processes that are not intelligence-driven.

 

Too bad I didn't make the argument 'The universe is so complex it had to be created by an intelligence.'

 

Quote:

Quote:

Oh and if you want to compare Digital physics to plants and electrolytes ask yourself this:

'Well I ain't never seen no plant grow out of no toilet!'

You already named the type of logcial fallacy you just committed here, Cap'n.

I'm using the Brawndo scene as a comparative analogy to point-out your fundamental logical failures, not to compare pseudo-science to electrolytes.

 

The fallacy involving the toilet is an argument from ignorance. How exactly is mine an argument from ignorance? I provided an explanation to defend it hence the point of my little quiz.

 

 

 

nice sig BTW.

 


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hack free zone

Matt, HA! No...no theist here. I thought the fairy would be a nice touch, and most people have no idea (nor do they probably care) that I literally do correct some things....kinda like a hit and run. I must be nuts, right?

 

 

 

 

 

 


entomophila
ScientistSuperfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-05-04
User is offlineOffline
fairy


Cpt_Pineapple wrote:

Fuck Matt's post, why is at the bottom of mine?

You must have had a typo or spelling error or she wouldn't have paid you a visit...

You spelled "dichotomy" wrong...FYI...no harm intended.


Aqua_Seal
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-04-08
User is offlineOffline
Typo fairy welcome

entomophila wrote:

Matt, that was the typo fairy. She means you no harm!

 

 

If I make a typo I hope the typo fairy visits that post.  Nothing worse than unintentionally creating a new typo meme.


narfachu (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
BRAWNDO

Have you ever had Brawndo? It's like driving an ice cream truck full of angry bees, or riding a dinosaur attached to a rocketship... It also tastes eerily similar to what liquified gummy worms mixed with mountain dew would taste like.

A.K.A.

Jesus.