Thread for Hippos to mock Penn State

Started by PoopyfaceMcGee, February 02, 2006, 09:23:05 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

SunMo

the sacks are bothersome...his lack of pocket presence was one of his biggest problems last year.

i can't wait until they smoke Notre Dame next week.
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

PoopyfaceMcGee

You'll have to wait until Saturday, though.  AIDS.

phillymic2000

Please Please beat the shtein out of ND I hate those bastiches

SunMo

Quote from: FastFreddie on September 02, 2007, 04:40:12 PM
You'll have to wait until Saturday, though.  AIDS.

i know, i have a golf tournament in the morning and then i'm watching the game with a bunch of friends.  it's actually a pretty nice little saturday.
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

SunMo

I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

Seabiscuit36

"For all the civic slurs, for all the unsavory things said of the Philadelphia fans, also say this: They could teach loyalty to a dog. Their capacity for pain is without limit." -Bill Lyons

ice grillin you

i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

MDS

Zero hour, Michael. It's the end of the line. I'm the firstborn. I'm sick of playing second fiddle. I'm always third in line for everything. I'm tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over.

MURP

Notre Dame looked as bad as I have ever seen them last week.  PSU should destroy them.

Cerevant

Quote from: MDS on September 04, 2007, 06:01:09 PM
farg Penn State.

Look, we get the point - you don't like Penn State.  Why don't you go create a "Temple Rules" thread and go talk to yourself.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

MDS

Quote from: Cerevant on September 05, 2007, 09:56:59 AM
Quote from: MDS on September 04, 2007, 06:01:09 PM
farg Penn State.

Look, we get the point - you don't like Penn State.  Why don't you go create a "Temple Rules" thread and go talk to yourself.

You're from Canada.
Zero hour, Michael. It's the end of the line. I'm the firstborn. I'm sick of playing second fiddle. I'm always third in line for everything. I'm tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over.

Cerevant

Quote from: MDS on September 05, 2007, 01:05:18 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on September 05, 2007, 09:56:59 AM
Look, we get the point - you don't like Penn State.  Why don't you go create a "Temple Rules" thread and go talk to yourself.

You're from Canada.
Pay attention, fargwad.  I'm from Pennsylvania.  I have 2 degrees from Penn State.  I live in Canada.
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.

ice grillin you

but youre weighing becoming a canadian citizen...by the transitive property theorum that makes you a canook
i can take a phrase thats rarely heard...flip it....now its a daily word

igy gettin it done like warrick

im the board pharmacist....always one step above yous

MDS

I can't think of a worse combination of residences than State College, PA and Canada. You suck, dude.
Zero hour, Michael. It's the end of the line. I'm the firstborn. I'm sick of playing second fiddle. I'm always third in line for everything. I'm tired of finishing fourth. Being the fifth wheel. There are six things I'm mad about, and I'm taking over.

Cerevant

Yeah, because North Philly is just all that...
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself.