Upload
Login or register

shazain

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:8/14/2010
Last Login:9/02/2013
Stats
Content Thumbs: 37210 total,  41549 ,  4339
Comment Thumbs: 1827 total,  3840 ,  2013
Content Level Progress: 20.5% (205/1000)
Level 237 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Content: Ambassador Of Lulz
Comment Level Progress: 26% (26/100)
Level 218 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 219 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:2
Content Views:782364
Times Content Favorited:2292 times
Total Comments Made:987
FJ Points:38984

Text Posts

  • Views: 59673
    Thumbs Up 3102 Thumbs Down 131 Total: +2971
    Comments: 279
    Favorites: 104
    Uploaded: 05/27/12
    HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EVEN DO THAT HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EVEN DO THAT
  • Views: 93318
    Thumbs Up 3261 Thumbs Down 302 Total: +2959
    Comments: 135
    Favorites: 125
    Uploaded: 05/24/12
    necrophilia necrophilia
  • Views: 50359
    Thumbs Up 3293 Thumbs Down 357 Total: +2936
    Comments: 155
    Favorites: 238
    Uploaded: 05/18/12
    Honey Honey
  • Views: 47296
    Thumbs Up 2968 Thumbs Down 101 Total: +2867
    Comments: 162
    Favorites: 276
    Uploaded: 12/22/11
    Honey Honey
  • Views: 71690
    Thumbs Up 2983 Thumbs Down 301 Total: +2682
    Comments: 472
    Favorites: 160
    Uploaded: 05/27/12
    japan japan
  • Views: 42036
    Thumbs Up 2461 Thumbs Down 78 Total: +2383
    Comments: 334
    Favorites: 156
    Uploaded: 05/21/12
    WHO THE FUCK IS JACK!? WHO THE FUCK IS JACK!?

latest user's comments

#686 - **shazain rolls 6,491** who will i get married to?  [+] (1 reply) 04/07/2013 on Im so lucky 0
#687 - shazain (04/07/2013) [-]
**shazain rolls 7,579,594**
#45 - Very impractical. Although hand is being held up by magnetism,…  [+] (2 replies) 03/13/2013 on AWESOMESAUCE +2
#47 - anon (03/13/2013) [-]
Having no friction would allow the mouse to move more precisely than with a desk. you can still allow your weight to fall on the mouse, and that's what makes it so impervious to prosecution. You can move your hand freely and precisely without many mistakes, as opposed to the misclicking that can happen when you have a desk that has too much friction with the mouse.
#48 - shazain (03/13/2013) [-]
No friction makes it more fluid. Hence, you have less control over it.
#55 - Fine, Op confirmed, but if he hadn't, there is no way you coul…  [+] (3 replies) 03/12/2013 on Green Text Worthwhile Read -2
#56 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
I've done fabulous self-representing thus far (2 for 2 isn't bad), but that's neither here nor there. While you present yet another logical fallacy, Mr. Lawyer, I'll take my leave and allow you to wallow in the cesspool of your stupidity.
User avatar
#109 - scilla (03/12/2013) [-]
Here's a 3rd point, he wouldn't still refer to her as 'she' if he found out that she was not really a 'she'.
#60 - jazzytheferret (03/12/2013) [-]
Oh my...I hope no one gets hurt here.
#52 - You are so incredibly pathetic at analysing data. Point me to …  [+] (5 replies) 03/12/2013 on Green Text Worthwhile Read -3
#54 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
"clearly says". . .

Wait, so are people like you the reason that movies need to spell out the plot in big capital letters, having characters state and re-state the obvious in the fear that the audience might forget what's going on because it's not clearly stated throughout the film?

Because, before just now, I thought that was a byproduct of bad writing. I didn't realize there were people so dense that they would angrily demand a clear statement of intent from the writer due to a personal inability to interpret and deduce. I am really, truly sorry for your disability.

P.S. - The OP already confirmed it was a faux pas.
#55 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
Fine, Op confirmed, but if he hadn't, there is no way you could've proven it. Do the world a favor and never become a lawyer. Because in the court of law, we don't rely on "implications." You need fucking hard solid facts.
#56 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
I've done fabulous self-representing thus far (2 for 2 isn't bad), but that's neither here nor there. While you present yet another logical fallacy, Mr. Lawyer, I'll take my leave and allow you to wallow in the cesspool of your stupidity.
User avatar
#109 - scilla (03/12/2013) [-]
Here's a 3rd point, he wouldn't still refer to her as 'she' if he found out that she was not really a 'she'.
#60 - jazzytheferret (03/12/2013) [-]
Oh my...I hope no one gets hurt here.
#48 - Neither does it imply anywhere that she did not in fact have a penis.  [+] (7 replies) 03/12/2013 on Green Text Worthwhile Read -3
#51 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
Are you seriously trying to debate this?

If you want to have fantasies about fucking a shemale from McDonalds, that's your gig. But don't try to insist that because you lack basic reading comprehension skills, then your fantasies must be imposed upon reality.
#52 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
You are so incredibly pathetic at analysing data. Point me to one place in the whole text is clearly says she was a female without a dick. How can you firmly say that the anon is not into shemales? Do you know him personally? No. You're just basing it off of probability, that he probably isn't into shemales. But you're a fucktard who can't admit to what evidence shows and doesn't.
#54 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
"clearly says". . .

Wait, so are people like you the reason that movies need to spell out the plot in big capital letters, having characters state and re-state the obvious in the fear that the audience might forget what's going on because it's not clearly stated throughout the film?

Because, before just now, I thought that was a byproduct of bad writing. I didn't realize there were people so dense that they would angrily demand a clear statement of intent from the writer due to a personal inability to interpret and deduce. I am really, truly sorry for your disability.

P.S. - The OP already confirmed it was a faux pas.
#55 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
Fine, Op confirmed, but if he hadn't, there is no way you could've proven it. Do the world a favor and never become a lawyer. Because in the court of law, we don't rely on "implications." You need fucking hard solid facts.
#56 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
I've done fabulous self-representing thus far (2 for 2 isn't bad), but that's neither here nor there. While you present yet another logical fallacy, Mr. Lawyer, I'll take my leave and allow you to wallow in the cesspool of your stupidity.
User avatar
#109 - scilla (03/12/2013) [-]
Here's a 3rd point, he wouldn't still refer to her as 'she' if he found out that she was not really a 'she'.
#60 - jazzytheferret (03/12/2013) [-]
Oh my...I hope no one gets hurt here.
#43 - Nevermind, now I realize you were answering my question. But h…  [+] (9 replies) 03/12/2013 on Green Text Worthwhile Read -4
#45 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
The person who said it was faux pas was 'Scilla', not me.
Since he posted the content, let's assume he knows what he is talking about.

Better question though; why do I (or anyone) need to prove it? The text itself implies it was a slip up on OP's part, not that she actually has a penis. If you're assuming otherwise, then you're inserting your own fantasies into the work, which is perfectly fine; it's whatever makes you happy, I guess.
#48 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
Neither does it imply anywhere that she did not in fact have a penis.
#51 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
Are you seriously trying to debate this?

If you want to have fantasies about fucking a shemale from McDonalds, that's your gig. But don't try to insist that because you lack basic reading comprehension skills, then your fantasies must be imposed upon reality.
#52 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
You are so incredibly pathetic at analysing data. Point me to one place in the whole text is clearly says she was a female without a dick. How can you firmly say that the anon is not into shemales? Do you know him personally? No. You're just basing it off of probability, that he probably isn't into shemales. But you're a fucktard who can't admit to what evidence shows and doesn't.
#54 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
"clearly says". . .

Wait, so are people like you the reason that movies need to spell out the plot in big capital letters, having characters state and re-state the obvious in the fear that the audience might forget what's going on because it's not clearly stated throughout the film?

Because, before just now, I thought that was a byproduct of bad writing. I didn't realize there were people so dense that they would angrily demand a clear statement of intent from the writer due to a personal inability to interpret and deduce. I am really, truly sorry for your disability.

P.S. - The OP already confirmed it was a faux pas.
#55 - shazain (03/12/2013) [-]
Fine, Op confirmed, but if he hadn't, there is no way you could've proven it. Do the world a favor and never become a lawyer. Because in the court of law, we don't rely on "implications." You need fucking hard solid facts.
#56 - meowthre (03/12/2013) [-]
I've done fabulous self-representing thus far (2 for 2 isn't bad), but that's neither here nor there. While you present yet another logical fallacy, Mr. Lawyer, I'll take my leave and allow you to wallow in the cesspool of your stupidity.
User avatar
#109 - scilla (03/12/2013) [-]
Here's a 3rd point, he wouldn't still refer to her as 'she' if he found out that she was not really a 'she'.
#60 - jazzytheferret (03/12/2013) [-]
Oh my...I hope no one gets hurt here.