uh... would you rather be able to have a dog that feeds itself, or a dog that knows every trick a dog can do?
do you have a crush on me?
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:45:43 PMQuote from: Jimcantation on December 29, 2014, 04:45:21 PMdo you have a crush on me?No.
Quote from: Jimcantation on December 29, 2014, 04:45:21 PMdo you have a crush on me?No.
Are you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriate
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934
How many times do you cry daily?
Are you a fat ass
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934May I see your calculations? Right now, you'd be doing very poorly on a maths test.
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:59:06 PMQuote from: WBC Dustin on December 29, 2014, 04:56:41 PMAre you a fat assNope. You'd need a million of me to match the weight of a certain user here.rc is pretty fat I'll admit
Quote from: WBC Dustin on December 29, 2014, 04:56:41 PMAre you a fat assNope. You'd need a million of me to match the weight of a certain user here.
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:59:06 PMQuote from: WBC Dustin on December 29, 2014, 04:56:41 PMAre you a fat assNope. You'd need a million of me to match the weight of a certain user here.Me...
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:58:07 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934May I see your calculations? Right now, you'd be doing very poorly on a maths test.My calculations came from the behavior of electrons operating on the quantum scale, to be specific.
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 05:00:33 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:58:07 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934May I see your calculations? Right now, you'd be doing very poorly on a maths test.My calculations came from the behavior of electrons operating on the quantum scale, to be specific.I'll need proof of that.
Quote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 05:02:56 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 05:00:33 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:58:07 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934May I see your calculations? Right now, you'd be doing very poorly on a maths test.My calculations came from the behavior of electrons operating on the quantum scale, to be specific.I'll need proof of that.I cannot give you visual proof, since visible light passes through objects at that scale.
Quote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 05:03:43 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 05:02:56 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 05:00:33 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:58:07 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:57:03 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:55:28 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:54:44 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:53:36 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:52:51 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:52:09 PMQuote from: Numb Digger on December 29, 2014, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ßå¢øñŠħëłƒ on December 29, 2014, 04:49:51 PMAre you actually a numb digger or just a mildly unreceptive digger?A mildly unreceptive digger is probably a more appropriate term.On a scale of -∞ to ∞, how much more appropriate?∞ much appropriateTo 67 decimal places, please.∞.67The additional 65 decimals please.∞.6710293456671029345667102934566710293456671029345667102934567102934May I see your calculations? Right now, you'd be doing very poorly on a maths test.My calculations came from the behavior of electrons operating on the quantum scale, to be specific.I'll need proof of that.I cannot give you visual proof, since visible light passes through objects at that scale.Then give nonvisual proof.
AMA
