nothingtodohere
Rank #32747 on Subscribers
Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower Offline
Send mail to nothingtodohere Block nothingtodohere Invite nothingtodohere to be your friend Last status update:  

 
Gender:  male 
Age:  23 
Date Signed Up:  10/20/2011 
Last Login:  6/19/2013 
Location:  Coventry 
FunnyJunk Career Stats  
Content Thumbs:  1840 total, 2160 , 320 
Comment Thumbs:  2063 total, 2502 , 439 
Content Level Progress:  40% (40/100) Level 118 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 119 Content: Funny Junkie 
Comment Level Progress:  61% (61/100) Level 220 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 221 Comments: Mind Blower 
Subscribers:  2 
Content Views:  82328 
Times Content Favorited:  104 times 
Total Comments Made:  608 
FJ Points:  3985 
Favorite Tags:  i (3)  to (3)  WTF (3)  bro (2)  game (2)  here (2)  is (2)  Nothing (2)  otters (2)  see (2)  the (2)  u (2)  y (2)  You (2) 
latest user's comments
#8  Btw. The one with the Power Rangers. They're the the mighty mo… [+] (1 new reply)  02/06/2013 on Remember That Time When  +1 
#9 
nothingtodohere (02/06/2013) [] Sorry. NOT the morphin ones. And I didn't mean so associate them with a drug due to my misspelling.  
#321  OK agreed.  02/05/2013 on Statistics don't lie  0 
#319  If the amount of porn watched IS on the x axis then A vertical… [+] (2 new replies)  02/05/2013 on Statistics don't lie  0 
#320 
stealthfoxbrony (02/05/2013) [] I'm just gunna say we're both wrong, as there are too many undetermined factors in this graph.  
#315  Actually according to my comments the only flaw in the graph i… [+] (4 new replies)  02/04/2013 on Statistics don't lie  0 
#316 
stealthfoxbrony (02/04/2013) [] But that would mean the amount you admit to watching would increase infinitely in an incredibly small amount of time. #319 
nothingtodohere (02/05/2013) [] If the amount of porn watched IS on the x axis then A vertical line will show the amount admitted to because it would be the distance between the Y axis and the line that would show the amount. If it is a vertical line then its X value remains constant, suggesting that at that particular point is the limit to which you will admit to watching porn. Remember that we're looking for the X value, the y value is redundant. And since when was "time" a factor in this. Nowhere is time stated. #320 
stealthfoxbrony (02/05/2013) [] I'm just gunna say we're both wrong, as there are too many undetermined factors in this graph.  
#314  Comment deleted  02/04/2013 on Statistics don't lie  0 
#86  The line that represents that particular field is equal to a y… [+] (7 new replies)  02/03/2013 on Statistics don't lie  0 
#100 
stealthfoxbrony (02/03/2013) [] How would that theory work in conjunction with the other lines? The forearm strength is increasing. As is the amount of horse penises seen. As the capacity for horse genitalia pictures is fundamentally infinite, your logic does not make sense. #315 
nothingtodohere (02/04/2013) [] Actually according to my comments the only flaw in the graph is that the line of the amount of porn the viewer admits to watching should be vertical which would mean that the amount of porn watched could be on the X axis and the graph would be correct. #316 
stealthfoxbrony (02/04/2013) [] But that would mean the amount you admit to watching would increase infinitely in an incredibly small amount of time. #319 
nothingtodohere (02/05/2013) [] If the amount of porn watched IS on the x axis then A vertical line will show the amount admitted to because it would be the distance between the Y axis and the line that would show the amount. If it is a vertical line then its X value remains constant, suggesting that at that particular point is the limit to which you will admit to watching porn. Remember that we're looking for the X value, the y value is redundant. And since when was "time" a factor in this. Nowhere is time stated. #320 
stealthfoxbrony (02/05/2013) [] I'm just gunna say we're both wrong, as there are too many undetermined factors in this graph.  
#7  Hang on. According to that graph the amount of porn watched is… [+] (9 new replies)  02/03/2013 on Statistics don't lie  4 
#11 
stealthfoxbrony (02/03/2013) [] no Because all the other labels are for the Y axis therefore the amount of porn he you admit to watching remains constant. #86 
nothingtodohere (02/03/2013) [] The line that represents that particular field is equal to a y value, not an x value as the distance between the line and the x axis remains constant. Therefore the line's value for X increases whereas the value for Y remains constant. Ergo, if the amount of porn watched is on the X axis then that line shows an ever increasing amount of pornography viewed, which would nullify the suggestion that the amount of porn the viewer admits to watching remains limited. If that line were to be correct then it would be equal to an X value and would have the form of a VERTICAL line. CHECKMATE !!!!! #100 
stealthfoxbrony (02/03/2013) [] How would that theory work in conjunction with the other lines? The forearm strength is increasing. As is the amount of horse penises seen. As the capacity for horse genitalia pictures is fundamentally infinite, your logic does not make sense. #315 
nothingtodohere (02/04/2013) [] Actually according to my comments the only flaw in the graph is that the line of the amount of porn the viewer admits to watching should be vertical which would mean that the amount of porn watched could be on the X axis and the graph would be correct. #316 
stealthfoxbrony (02/04/2013) [] But that would mean the amount you admit to watching would increase infinitely in an incredibly small amount of time. #319 
nothingtodohere (02/05/2013) [] If the amount of porn watched IS on the x axis then A vertical line will show the amount admitted to because it would be the distance between the Y axis and the line that would show the amount. If it is a vertical line then its X value remains constant, suggesting that at that particular point is the limit to which you will admit to watching porn. Remember that we're looking for the X value, the y value is redundant. And since when was "time" a factor in this. Nowhere is time stated. #320 
stealthfoxbrony (02/05/2013) [] I'm just gunna say we're both wrong, as there are too many undetermined factors in this graph.  
#3  So what if you need a ****?  01/30/2013 on Some clever witty title.  0 
#52  Picture  01/30/2013 on Read Read As Read  0 
#16  Picture  01/28/2013 on Damn it Kool Aid!  0 