Anonymous Confessions: I had an extremely weird dream that's going to become relevant

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Anonymous Confessions: I had an extremely weird dream that's going to become relevant

«‹›4 »

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

DOWN his rear end? Up I'd get, but this?

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 00:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:31

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Putty posted:

normal people have their assholes located on the lower part of their body rather than the top

Stop shoving your body norms up my throat.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 03:12

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Improbable Lobster posted:

People always use it incorrectly too

I love it when someone other than me points this out, because I feel like people need to know that but hate having to be the one to explain it/come up with examples on the spot.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2016 20:20

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Every morning I'm at Cracker Barrel ordering myself a nice sit-down meal / 7000 calories plus bacon grease for dipping, 'round there I'm a big-rear end deal.

(Thanks, Sugar Ray. I guess.)

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 03:14

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Torquemada posted:

No kidding, someone just dropped "reaping the masturbatory whirlwind" in one of the other threads I'm following.

Did someone call down the thunder of bean-flickery?

# ¿ Feb 7, 2017 20:15

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Parallel universe goon: Please give us as thorough a sample of the other world's dialect as possible. I understand you may not spell everything "correctly" but syntax/usage should be pretty on point if you learned enough that you occasionally slip into using it.

Language experts would, at the very least, be able to verify that it seems like a plausible, cohesive dialect and that it isn't currently in use on THIS earth.

burial fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Feb 23, 2017

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 02:33

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Fintilgin posted:

Dear Harvard Linguistics Expert,

Enclosed is a post from the something awful dot com forums...

Hey, now. There are probably people on the forums already that are semi-qualified to do this sort of analysis. DON'T RUIN THIS.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2017 05:37

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Solice Kirsk posted:

I lost my virginity to Nine Inch Nail's Pretty Hate Machine.

gently caress, I did too.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2017 20:20

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

My wife and I don't make a habit out of hanging out with opposite-gendered folks solo. It's not, like, official policy or anything and it's no big deal if some set of circumstances comes into play and it winds up happening, but that's just sort of how it worked out/the most mutually comfortable option. It's been 8ish years and I don't think either one of us is unhappy with the arrangement. I guess I can see how some people might be though. :shrug:

It helps that neither one of us is super social to begin with.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2017 05:12

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

maskenfreiheit posted:

Yeah but you probably wouldn't turn down a ride just because it'd be a woman driving, right?

Oh, gently caress no. That falls under circumstances/things happen. Similarly, nobody would freak out if opposite gender person stopped by to see us and only one of us was home. We aren't THAT weird. I hope.

# ¿ Jun 2, 2017 05:59

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Gruff as hell. Jeez.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2017 03:30

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Solice Kirsk posted:

edit: /\/\/\ drat you!/\/\/\

Dude sounds gruff as hell.

Sorry! It's clearly the perfect response. And it was amusing. I haven't thought about that story in forever.

# ¿ Jun 18, 2017 08:56

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Don't we? Maybe some people were just born with these sorts of inclinations. Maybe some people can't HELP IT.

e: In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about the inclination to discuss things better left way alone.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2017 16:16

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Yorkshire Pudding posted:

You're right, I misread that. Yeah dump people if they gently caress their ex when they're with you.

Wait, this still isn't right, is it? I didn't have anything to do with this so if you intentionally misunderstood to hurt somebody, well, you missed and made me sad by mistake.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2017 06:22

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Yorkshire Pudding posted:

Now I'm confused.

I read the original statement as "If somebody has ever cheated on a partner, you can never trust them again". I said that was stupid because something that occurred far in the past when you weren't around doesn't mean someone should be branded "irredeemable cheater" for life.

The actual statement was "If your current SO cheats on you with their ex, you can't trust them", which I agree with and think that is grounds for break up because somebody sleeping with their ex means they still have feelings for them and don't respect you.

KomodoWagon posted:

No, the actual statement was "if someone cheats on their ex (at the time their SO) with YOU, it is a bad idea to pursue a relationship with that person." Hope your evening reading classes work out.

This is what I understood it to mean. If someone will cheat with you, they'll eventually cheat on you. It's been true in my experience, mostly.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2017 15:52

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I have a feeling peg legs are going to be far more common if this is the primary place the pirate fleet is drawing on for members.

# ¿ Jul 3, 2017 23:43

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Jew it to it! posted:

That's not wood you're tapping on, matey.

Way to ruin the surprise. Also, diabetes-related foot loss is, I assume, serious business, that's all.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 02:53

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Sky pirate jokes. Let's get this right.

Don Carnage: cool or lame?

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 06:04

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I'm just feeling this out. For some reason, I worried that question could only be answered in a horrible way.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2017 06:49

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I use the crosswalk but I mash the button really vigorously.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2017 08:20

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Solice Kirsk posted:

Post the number loq!

edit:
or PM it to me

I kind of want it too. I could do with the government getting all up in my fries.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2017 20:27

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Bust Rodd posted:

Netflix and Chill

I think there was some discussion about this phrase in the /r/relationships thread recently wherein some kid (and me!) learned that this is apparently not literal and actually is just code for casual bonin'. Which meaning were YOU going for? 'cause either (or both!) would work.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 01:46

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Inescapable Duck posted:

What the gently caress is it with american toilets where the bowl is apparently full to the rim all the time

Is this about the dudes claiming that sitting down results in ball/dick dunking? because I'm equally confused. As an american and a male with a pretty ok package, I can't figure out the logistics there either.

Do some people have truck nutz for actual testicles or?

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 07:10

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Inescapable Duck posted:

I mean under the same principle swirlies would be near impossible in their traditional sense in Australian toilets because unless something has gone very wrong with the plumbing they water level is never anywhere near that high (let alone our arcane flushing magic)

I've never seen a toilet that wasn't clogged be more than a third full at most.

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 07:13

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Fartbox posted:

15 and 16 is legal in most of europe so

a 17 year old hoking up with a 14 year old IS still strange though, simply because most 14 year olds are still really childish while 17 year olds are usually starting to reach that adult pleateu

I'd say that if he felt a little weird about it/broke up with her after he found out she was lying about her age, "starting to reach that adult plateau" describes perfectly what was going on there. (The "starting to" is a really important bit.)

# ¿ Sep 24, 2017 17:37

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I wear togas. Well, a toga. And not at parties - just in general. It's gold and I think it was my mother's.

Everyone thinks I'm delightful. Or at least "delightfully eccentric."

All of that is cool, right? Everything I just typed is cool?

# ¿ Sep 26, 2017 19:41

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

got any sevens posted:

Life is a banquet and some people are starving

I have no choice but to take that as a "yes."

# ¿ Sep 27, 2017 01:44

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I think the idea is that if you had, you wouldn't be recommending such a potentially disastrous course of action? but that's just me, offering my completely unsolicited observation of the exchange and what I figure was meant based on context.

Also, I'm probably right. I think that's some number of points in my favour.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2017 07:22

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Jastiger posted:

I don't see how that follows. Wouldn't it follow that maybe I HAD and didn't have any disastrous outcomes?

Speculating, again, but wasn't the implication that the only way to avoid the near-inevitable unrequited affection likely resulting from the casual loving of a desperate and/or really into you co-worker is to head it off by being a really unsatisfying lay?

I mean, that could maybe lead to non-disastrous outcomes but it doesn't make you look great. I AM NOT SAYING YOU AREN'T GREAT, I'm just interpreting.

e: Beaten, and without having to use even one 43-word sentence.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2017 08:03

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

limp_cheese posted:

What about if you are your own grandpa?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWJAbl_lV5A

This is the first time maybe ever that somebody posted a vaguely-described youtube link on these forums and I both a) knew FOR SURE exactly what it was going to be and b) was really happy to be right.

Thank-you is what I'm saying.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2017 08:02

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Gynovore posted:

I expected it to be Futurama.

But you were wrong. You were wrong and I was happy.

OH LIMP_CHEESE, YOU ARE NATURE'S GREATEST WONDER.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2017 08:33

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Nocheez posted:

I believe the Sheik one, only because I listened to a story on The Moth's podcast about a girl who flew in and was basically a high-class hooker for these guys. They have limitless money and can buy anything they want - even their way out of trouble. They are some of the most disgusting people in the world - claiming religious high ground while flagrantly doing whatever they feel like.

I heard that one a long while ago. I recall that it was well-told and, therefore, kind of upsetting? but I may be exaggerating the details in my head.

I did know a guy back in college that may or may not have had some part in that whole world though. He was quite a bit older (30ish) and married to an Indian lady. He claimed her parents were insanely wealthy - either magnates or royalty of some kind. Told me stories about their trips overseas to visit, talked about the perks of having married hyper-rich, etc. I'd say he was completely bullshitting me except once I actually went to his house and met her/saw all of his incredibly expensive poo poo firsthand. It was odd.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2017 18:47

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

You could have just asked me I MEAN THE HOT GIRL IN THE VIDEO to reshoot. Just saying.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2017 03:43

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Theophany posted:

Eh, Sam ran a bar in Cheers and that worked out just fine.

Yeah! He only backslid, what, once? Twice?

...Oh.

# ¿ Oct 20, 2017 06:58

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I thought the coldest part of any given witch was the tit?

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 03:56

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

�not at the end of SApril?

# ¿ Oct 27, 2017 08:39

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

Listen here, fruit-boots, I don�t much like you making GBS threads up this thread with your hilarious antics.

Except maybe I do?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 21:26

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

All and any of your antics are fine by me, eff dash bee. Especially since I�m way too low-profile to be ~~your~~the Master Manipulation Unit�s target.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2017 21:39

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

fruit on the bottom posted:

But you�re also a man so how can you be mansplained to?

~~mods~~ puppetmaster(s)???

Mansplaining is just when somebody (a man, I guess?) explains something in a way you don�t like, isn�t it? I�m so confused.

burial fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 15, 2017

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 19:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:31

burial: Sep 13, 2002; actually, that won't be necessary.

I KNEW it.

# ¿ Nov 15, 2017 20:01

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > Anonymous Confessions: I had an extremely weird dream that's going to become relevant

«‹›4 »