#1 2007-10-27 15:02:17
Short, dumb, left-handed, and brain-damaged — such is the pedophile that emerges from scientific studies on the biology of “deviant erotic age-preferences.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071022/wl … 1022191516
Offline
#3 2007-10-27 17:19:05
I'm batting a thousand today.
Offline
#4 2007-10-27 17:24:50
Meh, I wouldn't sweat it. I may bust balls about asshats to noobs but to be fair it's hard to keep up with every single post, the search engine doesn't work very well and old posts is better than no posts.
Offline
#5 2007-10-27 17:30:39
Pedos aren't sick? They're just looking for someone their own height?
Offline
#6 2007-10-27 17:37:47
Montecore wrote:
Pedos aren't sick? They're just looking for someone their own height?
Then why don't horse-fuckers have huge dicks?
Offline
#7 2007-10-27 17:58:55
DoucheEllington wrote:
Not a total asshat-maybe a bunghole visor?
What a disappointment. I thought you were linking to a bunghole visor. Go find me one, or I'll never forgive you.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#8 2007-10-27 18:13:29
tojo2000 wrote:
DoucheEllington wrote:
Not a total asshat-maybe a bunghole visor?
What a disappointment. I thought you were linking to a bunghole visor. Go find me one, or I'll never forgive you.
This may be the singular instance of "Bunghole visor" appearing on the interweb. I just used all the google & yahoo searches and came up with nothing. However, if you send me your waist & hip measurements, and also a picture of your bunghole, I'll try to make you one.
Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs
Offline
#9 2007-10-28 08:45:03
opsec wrote:
...the search engine doesn't work very well and old posts is better than no posts.
I think it works just fine. The real problem is knowing what to search FOR. The misspellings, or the editorializing? Seldom do we get such a literal title as the one above, so it's more a matter of guessing, "Gee, I could've sworn I remembered last week's asshats."
Offline
#10 2007-10-28 08:52:28
The search engine doesn't seem to search urls. I was hoping the new beta might have fixed that, but it doesn't seem so. This makes checking for asshats problematic.
Offline
#11 2007-10-28 09:39:39
It's not so much the URLs as the content of the posts, themselves. Sometimes people will post just a vid, or just five words, or just a link. Then all subsequent comments don't necessarily refer to item at hand. F'rinstance, take Orangeplus' earlier "Sexy" thread. It's a YouTube vid. The title is one word, and could be about anything. My remark there was not intended to deobfuscate, but how else might someone find it so as to avoid hatting/duplication?
Offline
#12 2007-10-28 09:52:27
This is exactly my point. The only way to tell if a url has been posted is the be able to search urls. Text is next to useless.
Cruel's search engine (way back when it worked properly) did search urls. There's probably a mod for this, I'll poke around the mods forum or ask Orange who is wise in these matters.
Offline
#13 2007-10-28 10:05:25
We are not using the Beta, too buggy (there is no beta yet, they haven't released one, there still in unstable dev). If you ask really really nicely, I'll build a full-text index and fix it myself.
Offline
#14 2007-10-28 11:12:16
Oh Orangie, would you? Could you? I've got some steamy sissy luvin ready if you do...
Well, maybe less steam and more methane; had beans last night.
Offline
