Dooood (8810) 19 SFW Posts | 545 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2009-02-23 02:47:42 Comment Karma: 545 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from Dooood

Comment on Red Bike (2012-05-23 17:31:07)
Uh, sorry, wrong logo. Porsche. Thanks, though.
Comment on Red Bike (2012-05-23 04:28:38)
Okay, I'll bite. What, exactly, is this? Interesting logos on the forks and the rear axle, is this legit? Is there a model number, and/or price? Not that I could currently afford it, but I'd really like to know. Also, what's that square doohickey by the back wheel that really doesn't look like it belongs there, and appears to have velcro or something, and possibly a camera at the top? Both tineye and google images failed me on this one.
Comment on naked showers (2012-05-22 01:24:51)
Why, yes. Yes, I do.
Comment on Frog mouthful (2012-05-17 02:49:55)
Perhaps you're too cutting-edge, and the reference hasn't trickled down to MCS from Reddit (and then imgur, where I saw what you're referring to) quick enough that the majority of people here will have seen it and know what you're referencing. So, perhaps you should be less cutting-edge?
Comment on southern ponies (2012-05-14 15:27:06)
Gawd I hate the ponies. That being said, this particular pony pic phails even harder, because whichever pony is being depicted as Kenny should have its hood pulled tightly up over the snout, so all we can see is the eyes. Duh.
Comment on factory floor (2012-05-14 15:14:07)
So, I guess the main difference between what they're calling a "cinemagraph" (or is it "cinematagraph"? Too lazy to go look it up.) and just a "gif" is that you choose part of it to move, while the rest of it stays still, right? OK, fine, that works in some instances, but when there's portions of the picture where it is clearly SUPPOSED to be in motion, in order to make sense with the portion that IS in motion, why choose that part to be still? It just doesn't work, and makes it look st00pid, IMO. Clearly, the portions of this machine that we can see between yellow columns #1 and #2, as well as between columns #2 and #3 are supposed to be moving as well as the part that IS moving. Why choose to make it look st00pid?
Comment on future car (2012-05-11 22:34:14)
You like big boots and you cannot lie?
Comment on dog-boss (2012-05-11 15:18:13)
I guess he'd be barking out orders, then?
Comment on kinect vs log (2012-05-09 01:32:03)
Well, that escalated quickly.
Comment on Girlfriend test (2012-05-08 18:06:24)
Well, apparently I'd make a lousy girlfriend. 1) I lack a vagina 2) I could make educated guesses on most of those pairs, but don't have any real confidence I'd get them all right. You know, all things considered, I guess I'm fine with not having a good shot at being a good girlfriend.
Comment on Presidential Story time (2012-05-08 04:05:38)
Apparently my humor was too subtle for you. The point was that he had such an expressive look on his face "just" reading the author's name, implying that when he REALLY got farther into the story, he'd blow the figurative doors off the anon's "pop" in the post I was replying to. It was just a joke. Apparently a more subtle one than I thought.
Comment on Presidential Story time (2012-05-07 14:45:26)
Except that he's making that face as he reads the author's name.
Comment on 400 dollars a week (2012-05-07 01:23:18)
I think you didn't look at the image long enough to understand the point. What the image seems to be trying to convey (albeit in a confusing way) is the perception a kid would have if you offered him a salary of $400 a week, that he'd be imagining he could buy a huge house and have fancy cars, whereas an adult would supposedly think they'd only be able to afford a lowly hovel at the same wage. Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense, as the alternative interpretation (which you seem to have chosen) is that "kids" and "adults" get charged different amounts of rent based solely on that distinction. tl;dr- $400 /wk is not the cost of pictured items, but the perception of what can be purchased by 2 different groups of people on a given wage.
Comment on oh dear god (2012-05-06 05:15:31)
Yeah, I agree, there's times when (intentionally or not) misspelling the post title isn't as heinous as others, but when it detracts from the humor in the post itself, it is really kind of a bummer. This is one of those times where it lessened the humor because it was "Dear" instead of the (obviously intended) "Deer". It would have gotten an actual "lol" out of me, had the title not thrown me for a mental loop as I tried to comprehend why it wasn't spelled the way it was obviously intended. As it was, I started to find it humorous, then my brain did that "wait a minute" hitch, and the lulz were stalled, never to be fully realized.
Comment on BOOP (2012-05-01 17:21:20)
How many distinct expressions you think that big guy has? I'm guessing about one.