Thread for Things That Made You Frown Today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

I meant like... you had it, and now you have it not. /inception noise

---

lol.

Finally picked up my Christmas present from the post office today... took Leafa (NOT Leifa!!) out of the box... and her tiny wing broke off. And it's impossible to glue. LAME. (First world Christmas problems, I know).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petiteSylvan

Finally picked up my Christmas present from the post office today... took Leafa (NOT Leifa!!) out of the box... and her tiny wing broke off. And it's impossible to glue. LAME. (First world Christmas problems, I know).

---

My Dad had a similar event with a winged marble Christmas present. He was quite unhappy. Hope it works out better for you.

Thanks! I think I'm going to need help with this one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Wait, does your drowning statistic back up the statement you made in the previous sentence?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Schizophrenia isn't fatal. Your logic is flawed and flat out stupid.

---

I'm not offering any logical arguments. I'm saying that a mature regulatory system has to take into account acute and chronic side effects, for example death and schizophrenia. I'm further saying that we as a nation don't take the position that anything that can cause death is more dangerous than anything that can't. I'm finally saying that the specific case of 5,000 per 1,000,000 risk of schizophrenia represents more of a danger than the specific case of 1 per 1,000,000 risk of death, and more of a danger than any currently legal substance (except nicotine, which I am also for banning).

Please note how nowhere in the above paragraph are the words therefore, then, thus, etc. I'm still not offering any logical arguments. Please, please don't say "well by that logic...". I have made three empirical claims. If you would like to dispute them, your only choices are to do so empirically or futilely.

Attachment 7156

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Yes.I'm not offering any logical arguments. I'm saying that a mature regulatory system has to take into account acute and chronic side effects, for example death and schizophrenia. I'm further saying that we as a nation don't take the position that anything that can cause death is more dangerous than anything that can't. I'm finally saying that the specific case of 5,000 per 1,000,000 risk of schizophrenia represents more of a danger than the specific case of 1 per 1,000,000 risk of death, and more of a danger than any currently legal substance (except nicotine, which I am also for banning).

Please note how nowhere in the above paragraph are the words therefore, then, thus, etc. I'm still not offering any logical arguments. Please, please don't say "well by that logic...". I have made three empirical claims. If you would like to dispute them, your only choices are to do so empirically or futilely.

---

>I'm further saying that we as a nation don't take the position that anything that can cause death is more dangerou

No, only you take that asinine position.

He's also not for the banning of saturated fats but he is for the banning of 64 ounce drinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Androidpk

Hmm.. perhaps Rinko Kinkuchi or Rooney Mara.

---

Bae Doona would also be an excellent choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taernath

I meant like... you had it, and now you have it not. /inception noise

---

Man, you shouldn't explain your jokes to the humorless. It's funnier when they don't get it.