b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 7243895 (Thread)

# I did think about it.
And decided that it definitely does not look anything like porn. In the slightest. It might look a bit like some GCSE level biology textbooks, but that's SCIENCE.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:07, archived)
# okay, well I'm here representing SCIENCE
and SCIENCE has proved (with graphs, and everything!) that this is nsfw.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:08, archived)
# and equations?
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:11, archived)
# equations were used
and maybe also computers or some shit.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:13, archived)
# hehehe
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:11, archived)
# i wish sigma 5 was about to post his nsfw picture
it would suit you
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:14, archived)
# actually, I'm not even at work, so I don't know why I care
post what you like!

muhahahaha!

edit: actually I think it is because it just looks horrible for some reason.

anyway, does b3ta have some kind of username search that I am too dumb to find. had to use glassco.cx to get the id, and then bash it into the profile.php url.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:17, archived)
# have you tried this?
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:28, archived)
# ah.
so yes, I really AM an idiot.

tilde username. fairly standard. good to know, ta.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:31, archived)
# I don't think it's widely known though

/edit: and then there's this: www.b3ta.com/board/users.php
could take a while to load though
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:38, archived)
# Ahah!
Well, my PHILOSOPHY of SCIENCE says SCIENCE proves nothing, but only sets up hypotheses for disproval (and leaves it to other people to explain where those hypotheses came from).

Anyway, if enough people object, I'll link it. I really don't think it's NSFW. Or it will get modded, which will prove me wrong.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:12, archived)
# fucking leave it
it is a top post
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:15, archived)
# er, yeah
the hypothesis here is that it is nsfw, we proved this by sending it to 1,000 working mandrils, and a significant percentage got fired - higher than would be expected from background sackings.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:16, archived)
# That would be one way of doing it, but a little brutal.
Fortunately we have sensitive mod-rils, who are generally more sensitive than that.
(, Thu 31 May 2007, 22:33, archived)