that doesn't mean they don't have anything other than a face. FFS.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:51, archived)
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:52, archived)
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:56, archived)
I'd expect anyone not autistic to imagine a person with a face, when a face is mentioned, not an entirely disembodied face.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:54, archived)
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:56, archived)
and she made both of them. what?
She might not have mentioned the tits in the first statement, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:56, archived)
Hence, seeing that the sour faced bint has no tits whereas you do, means you know the bint is not you.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:57, archived)
which is good, I thought I was going a bit mad.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:59, archived)
Therefore saying "No, I've got lallies" does not refute the original claim.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 17:59, archived)
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:00, archived)
Admittedly, it doesn't prove whether Wow is or is not a sour faced bint, but that's not what's apparently an issue here, it's whether she was the sour faced bint that she saw.
I love pointless arguments.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:01, archived)
No tits were mentioned.
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:02, archived)
Or do you always begin a conversation by stating all the facts which might conceivably be referred to later on?
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:03, archived)
because the person in the mirror would have tits, because she has tits.
The argument runs thus:
1. observation: person looks at me who possesses property "sour-faced"
2. hypothesis: person is my reflection
3. observation: I have tits, but person has no tits
4. therefore: person is not my reflection
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:01, archived)
nothing on b3ta matters though, so why stop doing something that doesn't matter?
(, Thu 4 Jun 2009, 18:03, archived)