RicardoObviouso

webmasters are not unlike online frankenstiens. they can be made.

sold it for $240.

oh man, i had cod and chips yesterday. excellent.

neither is someone pretending to be something. my point was that just because someone leads you to believe something about them, doesn't mean that - medically - they are. you completely missed. in this case, a woman had a breast reduction and took hormones so she could grow facial hair. does that make her a man? no. why? because she still has a vagina and ovaries and all the necessary organs it takes to get pregnant. people in her life call her a man because that's what she wants, and they respect her. the media calls her a man because it will sell newspapers and commercial spots.

the quote thing was just as prosis presented it. a play on the validity of quoting for purpose of arguing, if you will. i wouldn't intentionally misinform anyone. i am certain both man of action and double life have been played. i became totally confident when anton backed me up.

the legal/medical argument is moot. if a person leads a social worker to believe that they have ADD and Depression in order to qualify for welfare benefits and ritalin, yet they are perfectly healthy and merely working the system, which do you take as truth?

i never tire of that video... i love the banter between them. "where's the crank button?"

that's funny because when i asked him, this was his answer

d-lite also belonged to philosophyforums before she got banned for making up words.

he doesn't have a penis. part of the reproductive system for a woman is the vagina. i know this because he was interviewed on 20/20 a while back, then all of a sudden the story broke everywhere and kept changing slightly at each source. he was the one that said "i'm not transexual, i'm transgendered"

i would never take a job running a publicly traded company. man, the morale of this place really goes up a notch when someone gets canned.

so basically any woman who removes their breasts and dresses/acts like a guy is now considered a man? and by the way, a "transexual who kept her female genetalia" is an oxymoron. she would be considered transgendered.

anything '...ator' is also repulsive.

it was whenever he played those four shows in a row at the commodore and it was before he ever toured solo acoustic.

underdogs has a raw sound, but it's not flat. on a hi fi system it sounds great, whereas 'that song' sounds like complete shit. i'm not sure if you're getting my point.

it's a great song that sounds cheap and unprofessional.

i would be shocked if he ever 'toured' europe again. vancouver is a lame place to see a show if you're travelling for that purpose, especially the orpheum... if he was playing the commodore i'd suggest it. i'd say calgary or montreal would be more fun.

i just sent one of the dudes that works for me off 'on a jet plane.' no one in this office should be showing less than $110,000 on their T4, and he pulled in a whopping $66k, thanks to a 47% drop in numbers from last year. GOOD-BYE.

and is it just me or does 'that song' sound extremely low quality when played through any medium? it seems like i can have my amp dialed, then as soon as 'that song' comes on i have to re-tune it all... comes through really flat, and same with itunes or ipod.

day old subway is the most disgusting thing i've ever seen.

i'm thinking either 05 or 06

crazy thing - i was in ibiza sitting by the pool with my ipod listening to 'that song' and ian thornley walked by. the rest has been edited.

HILARIOUS!

i won't click on any of those in fear that it will be rick astley.

no, but it has jack black and dave grohl dressed up as truckers in drag.