D_Relentless Original
Expert Member
I lost my Box in this widescreen... Ok Maxcok, we will behave, put it back please. 
:shock: I had no idea I'd been instructed to fuck you, but I'm more than happy to oblige if your husband approves.Awww! Where did you get a friend like that!?! I would like a friend like that! That is, of course, when you're done fucking me as you have been so instructed to do.
I swear it wasn't me. I think it was Hick with his giant neon green type.I lost my Box in this widescreen... Ok Maxcok, we will behave, put it back please.![]()
I could send you an instant notification....Is there an eta on the fucking? I'm not sure whether to go back to sleep or hang around for the action.
....or I could hang out and amuse you in the meantime.In the meantime, I'll keep myself amused by staring at Hickboy's enormous Aww.![]()
Would you like me to keep it warm until Tardis shows up? :smile:Tardis, max - I have a box you can borrow.
I could send you an instant notification....
....or I could hang out and amuse you in the meantime.
Would you like me to keep it warm until Tardis shows up? :smile:
There is a distinct dearth of jello in this thread.:biggrin1:
I keep telling you it's BYOJ.
Here. What amusements shall we delight in first?Such efficiency max. :smile: I'd love to be on your "imminent max cock outings" mailing list.
Now come here, and let's amuse ourselves together.
hmm..... molto mysterioso......All this early morning max-action, makes the text that woke me at 4.19am seem quite fortuitous.
You know who you are. I will have my revenge.![]()
Thanks, sexualnapalm and Mr. T.
The cactus is strong, resilient, and lasts a very long time in the most challenging conditions.
Or was someone talking about my phallus?
:haha:YouTube - Psyco - Lighten up FrancisLighten up, Francis. It's a fucking internet message board, not federal court.
I think corrupt is way too strong a word for this situation.
This thread is starting look like a homecoming
I can assure you, all of you, that I did NOT report wallaboi's thread. When I pointed out to wallaboi that there was already a thread dedicated to his particular fascination, it was intended to help. There was a LOT of funny material in that old thread. He was offended, quite obviously, and attacked my (lack of) character. That's not a first for me, so I responded politely, and went on my way. I had no need to report him, he was (I thought) having fun. I have a rather rich ego, so people having fun at my expense isn't really a problem for me.
If you don't want to believe me, you don't have to. Still, I have no record of lying on this or any other forum. Take my word, or don't. That's up to you.
BTW, Hoss, who has a habit of randomly dredging up old threads, had posted on the OLD eggcorns thread between the time of the exchange between walla and myself, and the time it got merged. For a period of several hours they were directly atop each other in the forum. Corruption, or simply good house-keeping? I for one don't care, cuz it's REALLY not that big a deal, folks.
There are a lot of different critiques I might toss out with respect to the moderation of this site......:tongue:..........
But, "corrupt"? Not one of them.
Threads are merged, and there's a long-standing tradition of it here. See: http://www.lpsg.org/76415-thread-merge-on-aisle-three.html
It's less common today, but before Google really got a good footing, when you did a search, you had to try Alta-Vista, Yahoo, Lycos, etc., and they all gave different results.
a) The searches didn't give strong results
b) You had to look at numerous place to find what you were looking for
How is this related?
a) I agree that Rob does a great job with the site, but the search function here, has been a sore spot for ages. My habit for searching, is to find ONE of the most unique words, and search it. It became a habit because, previously, if you entered more than one word in the search box, it wasn't an AND search, or was an OR search. That it, adding more words didn't limit the search, it expanded the search, looking for all threads with EITHER of the items entered, not narrowing the result to posts with BOTH of the search terms.
b) If you want a real nightmare... Say you have a mad crush on Mario Lopez. You're looking for a pic of him, and you're sure that someone here must've posted before. Go to the Celeb forum and look for THE thread about him. Oh wait, there's not ONE, there are closer to 40 (or more), ditto with Julian Rios (although most of his are tough to find by title, because the thread titles are usually, "Can someone ID this guy?", so you get a ton of results that look totally unrelated, and have to dig into the thread to see that it's only a passing mention of him, or possibly that exact pic that you were looking for). In Information Management, the whole theory of access, is to provide one (or as few as possible) access point (just like Google, you search in one box, instead of 20 various sites), so that researchers can get to their info, instead of spending all of their time looking. By merging threads, sometimes with identical titles, and nearly verbatim questions, your search is going to give you better results (fewer threads to have to look through).
Reasons we don't merge threads: a) the duplicates haven't been noticed yet, b) they're different enough, or have a particular twist that verges from the other similar thread, c) this is a big one, merging the two together, for example, while they were running concurrently, would cause a convoluted, totally unreadable and jumbled mess.
Well at least I have contributed to sales at the lpsg kiosk. I would have thought you went for the corn dog ...you big fat bastardopcorn:
He shouldn't have to ask...they should have informed him as to why it was moved. And his point is valid...![]()