kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

scott wrote:

kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

[x] being an internet dork, but calling other people "internet dorks"

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

[x] being an internet dork, but calling other people "internet dorks"

[x]having your internet dorkiness pointed out to you by the greatest internet dork

scott wrote:

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

[x] being an internet dork, but calling other people "internet dorks"

[x]having your internet dorkiness pointed out to you by the greatest internet dork

[x] being a stupid dumb-face poo head.

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

[x] being an internet dork, but calling other people "internet dorks"

[x]having your internet dorkiness pointed out to you by the greatest internet dork

[x] being a stupid dumb-face poo head.

[x] enjoying irony

scott wrote:

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

itchy mcgoo wrote:

scott wrote:

kerble wrote:[x] being made into a verb by internet dorks.

[x] being an internet dork, but calling other people "internet dorks"

[x]having your internet dorkiness pointed out to you by the greatest internet dork

[x] being a stupid dumb-face poo head.

[x] enjoying irony

[x] ironic stupid-face buttsucker

BadComrade wrote:

Jeremy wrote:committing a badcomrade: a) attempting to kerble someone and linking to a previous thread discussing the same topic, but not the first thread to discuss a topic or b) attempting to kerble a topic and it not being precisely the same thing

To the best of my recollection, Kerble doesn't always site -every- previous thread on a topic, and when he lists a singular example, I don't think it's always the "first instance" anyway. If that's the case, then I'm exempt from being "in error" there.

You linked to a "song on your birthday" site; the same site which had already been linked to in a "what was #1 on your 18th birthday", which I linked to.

So by your logic, it'd be fine to "allow" about 63 more "What was the #1 song on your _ birthday" threads, starting from age 2 (skipping the 18th, obviously), and stopping at 65, assuming that no one on here is over the age of 65.

Yeah, uh... sorry I "kerbled" you there buddy. Didn't realize you'd get all pissy and make a thread out of it. Sorry.