Wednesday, May 2, 2012

I’m not calling you a slut…

previous post: Dad Wins

RELATED POSTS:


26 Comments

  1. Posters picture is of his gross stomach. Therefore I must conclude this is fake.

  2. Lame and self-submitted.

  3. If this gay cunts sole intention is to get on lamey, why not wait 5 mins before taking the screen shot?
    He looks like more of a wanker now than the guy giving the ab shot in his pic.

  4. Probably in the fear that the guy with the ab shot would delete his comment ?

  5. OP doesn’t realize that 6 packs require sit ups, not eating disorders. You can’t be 75 lbs and think your abs are the shiz.

    What are odds commenter isn’t that close to either the poster or the owner of the wall? Not that his comment was clever or funny in anyway but even if he deleted his own comment to avoid others from learning how gay he is, he’ll lose two friends from the notifications.

  6. O boy…

  7. slicingupeyeballs

    But what if most of those google searches are for her vagina…?
    Pretty sure most of my browsing history involves looking at flange…

  8. Waaaay too much effort and time put into that.

  9. beatusmongous

    Flaming vagina? Sounds like an interesting drink…

  10. i hate it when lamebook removes the names altogether. i prefer to pesonalise my foamy-mouthed abuse.
    So I’m going to assume ab-boy’s name is…Tyler. And he is terrified of vagina. And he is quite a tragic cunt.
    And the other tedious fucker is obviously a Kevin who hasn’t been allowed anywhere near a vagina since birth.

  11. I saw this in the dictionary under: Tedious.

  12. Couple of vaginas right there.

  13. How loud is seven exclamation points?

  14. that’d be the ‘roids talkin’, man.

  15. Gross.

  16. Flaming Vagina? Sounds like an STD to me…

  17. 7 exclamation points? IT’S THIS LOUD!

  18. I’ve used too many exclamation point before. I usually do it when I know what I am about to type is not that funny, but maybe if it’s read the way I type it, it will be.

  19. Dawn of the Dan

    What will RealityCheck have to say about this one?

  20. As a mathmatician I feel duty bound to point out that, having found the number of searches on Google per year, you don’t need to know the life expectancy of a woman to work out the number of searches per second. That is an additional unecessary calculation step.

    It’s like saying 2×3+1-1=6.

  21. hah! sorry pete, can you spell your profession?
    oh that’s right maths is obviously your strength, not spelling!

  22. mr mathematician, without the life expectancy of a woman how would this pedant calculate the number of times said woman would have sex in her lifetime?

  23. deafeningsilenz

    I am not sure about calculating the frequency of sexual encounters, but if you were interested in her bowel movements I think you would have to use log rhythms.

  24. you don’t need to calculate the amount of times this woman will have sex in her lifetime if you then go back to the amount of times per year you gave at the beginning of the explanation.

    The only reason why you would need to know the woman’s life expectancy would be in order to calculate the amount of time she would be sexually active, maybe. in any case, Peter is correct.

  25. And not one of those times will she have sex with you.

  26. i like how he provides the number of encounters per year — the amazing thing is, if you multiply a number by 81.73 and then divide the product by 81.73, you get the same number.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Edge Ad Code: EDGE_Lamebook.com