If it's supposed to be unfunny for real, then you should probably do something about "lol im a spirits typing". I nearly pissed myself at that and like every other comment
Your teeth are bad, most of those women are mediocre and a couple of them were sasquatches. Do you really want people to know you f*ck sasquatches!? Well, I probably would, just because who the hell else does. But the point is... POLEND
I like how when people state they dislike what the site has (note that this is "comments" and not "compliments") anyone who has donated money immediately attacks them.
Korf's got it. In any case you end up with 9=8.1 which means your system has infinite solutions, i.e., confirming what Russell has said in the above post. That or it's just wrong.
lol@lowcast, korf41
Because they took my INTERWEB critism so seriously. Funny part is they've been hassling me with arugments about how my opinion doesn't matter, but it obviously got a rise in them.
YOU GUYS AREN'T ARTISTS LOL
cinnamonroffles: Grade 2 has art class. I don't see anyone buying that sh*t for a dollar. Except maybe pedos. I consider the term 'art' to be jargon that the general world has devalued through metaphor. Much like how "literally" and "irony" are much abused and no one really understands their meaning nowadays.
Keep in mind this is all my opinion, as a user I won't mention has his panties bunched (lol), but of course friendly debate is always welcome. Mostly because this page is gayer than Will Wheaton
Brief explanation: The Roccoco is basically the period following the Baroque. The technique used in the paintings of this era is highly refined, yet, restricted to subject matter including empty f*cking living rooms of rich people, anonymous and generally unimportant rich people eating in their dining rooms, and rich people wiping their bums with the faces of the poor. In summary, it was when rich people tried to assure their status by getting paintings made, of inane parts of their lives. i.o.w. = l0se
cimmaonroffles: Classifying these as art is devaluating to true art forms. Some of these do have hard work involved, I agree, but for the most part, cramming images together with zomggalatic music doesn't make art, even if you think it's edgy. I don't think that just because you make something that took you a long time should classify it as art. It has to have merit. That's why I will never consider modern art as valid as the Old Masters, the Barroque, and Mannerism, and also why I have discounted Roccoco.
I agree on the collective-sponsorship thing, but it doesn't help when you band together to help get sh*tty pages notice.
The sites I've seen here are the reason I don't go to artsy film festivals: just because you make confusing, basically contentless sh*t, doesn't make you an artist.
"Well, I wouldn't call this bad. Certainly it's something fresh and new in the wake of septic fadpool chain reaction sites. Teach the sheep-minded a lesson."
I totally disagree. The reason that YTMND is funny is because a stupidly inane and obtusely innocuous subject or phrase is taken and beaten the hell out of. I mean, c'mon, 400 different sites about the phrase "do a barrel roll" as well as the threat of it being in a major motion picture? The ridiculousness IS the hilarity.
I love how someone said something about this site being for creativity. So what's so creative about this? He's just reposting old YTMNDs, and then the authors of them are donating to him. What's so "new" and "creative" about capitalism? Because we all know how many corporate artists make important works. Oh, sorry, this required reading and half a brain.
People keep calling this sh*t 'art.' Just because something is retarded doesn't make it art. IS MATT DAMON ART?
I f*cked up my differential equations test. Does that make it art?
Shipton's recent comments: