the longest thread, thread - Occasionally NSFW

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:42 am

Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.

he actually was answering your question before you answered it.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:42 am

Skittles! wrote:
diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.
both are equally pointless
Yet both are easy to say fast

although they make you sound like a 'tard

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:42 am

reverend_kyle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.
he actually was answering your question before you answered it.

I only just got that.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:45 am

Skittles! wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.
he actually was answering your question before you answered it.
I only just got that.

still haven't got it

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:49 am

diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.
he actually was answering your question before you answered it.
I only just got that.
still haven't got it

Well, the question is 'how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?'

And the answer is 'A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.'

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:58 am

Skittles! wrote:
diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
hecter wrote:A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Isn't it 'How much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.'

Well, that's what I've thought all these years.
he actually was answering your question before you answered it.
I only just got that.
still haven't got it
Well, the question is 'how much wood would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?'

And the answer is 'A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.'

oh, very clever

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:59 am

Amazing.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:00 am

fantastic

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:00 am

Diddle, you're a lover.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:02 am

Skittles! wrote:Diddle, you're a lover.

would you care to explain

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:03 am

diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:Diddle, you're a lover.
would you care to explain

... Of pokemon.

diddle · Post by **diddle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:04 am

Skittles! wrote:
diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:Diddle, you're a lover.
would you care to explain
... Of pokemon.

fraid so

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:06 am

diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
diddle wrote:
Skittles! wrote:Diddle, you're a lover.
would you care to explain
... Of pokemon.
fraid so

-Sigh- That was close

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:08 am

[size=0].[/size]
[size=0].[/size]
[size=0].[/size]
[size=0].[/size]
[size=0].[/size]
-ARF-

reverend_kyle · Post by **reverend_kyle** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:10 am

You guys are not smart, carry on.

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:11 am

Thanks

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:05 am

I'd say that the level of intelligence of the average CCer has gone down 5 points because of that last page.

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:11 am

Yeah im not particularly fond of this thread anymore

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:19 am

blame the people not the thread.

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:20 am

strike wolf wrote:blame the people not the thread.

i do.

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:22 am

what's that supposed to mean? You're not blaming me are you?

Dariune · Post by **Dariune** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:23 am

strike wolf wrote:what's that supposed to mean? You're not blaming me are you?

No of course not.
Ive really enjoyed our chats about this and that.

But mainly now its just one word replies ... not too dissimilar to spamalot.

2dimes · Post by **2dimes** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:27 am

strike wolf · Post by **strike wolf** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:28 am

Dariune wrote:
strike wolf wrote:what's that supposed to mean? You're not blaming me are you?
No of course not.
Ive really enjoyed our chats about this and that.

But mainly now its just one word replies ... not too dissimilar to spamalot.

Oh, sorry for being paranoid.

happy2seeyou · Post by **happy2seeyou** » Mon Jun 25, 2007 11:47 am

Dariune wrote:Yeah im not particularly fond of this thread anymore

Lex, don't leave!