I want to complain about !


Off-Topic Discussions

Scarab Sages

Like that time <redacted> went ahead and <redacted> all over the <redacted>, even though we told him it could make him go <redacted>. But did he listen? Oh no!!

Anyway, if you also think <redacted> should have <redacted> before <redacted> all over the <redacted>, then sound off and let us know!

Scarab Sages

What the hell? I had <redacted> in the thread title, but it didn't show up!

TETER?!?!?


While I agree in principle, I would like to point out that <redacted>.

Scarab Sages

Yes, but <redacted> always hated <redacted>, ever since they were <redacted>. That kind of <redacted> doesn't just <redacted>.

Scarab Sages

All right, time to go <redacted> the <redacted> in the <redacted>. Then I've got to <redacted> the <redacted> before it <redacted> again.

Damn, I <redacted> this <redacted>.


All of this <redacted> stuff about <redacted> is making me <redacted>. You wouldn't like me when I'm <redacted>.


[Redacted]! [Redacted] this [redacted].

Incidentally, the reason it didn't show up in the title was because < and > make the forum think it's HTML and thus it tries to process... which since that's not a legitimate HTML code, nothing shows up.

Liberty's Edge

<Redacted> html!

Scarab Sages

Whoa! I didn't know that <redacted> was able to <redacted> in the <redacted>.

Scarab Sages

Mmmmm......<redacted>.


All <redacted> and no <redacted> makes <redacted> a <redacted> <redacted>.

Scarab Sages

Hmm.....sometimes <redacted> is full of little <redacted>.


<redacted>?

The Exchange

No one was to know about <Redacted>


<redacted>. Definitely <redacted>.

Scarab Sages

Crimson Jester wrote:
No one was to know about <Redacted>

That's what <redacted> wants you to think.


Hey guys, did you read that paper about how Redacting Too Much Leads to Impotence, Hair Loss, and Glowing Intestines?

Pretty <redacted>, if you ask me.

Scarab Sages

But that could just be a <redacted> by <redacted> to lull us into a false sense of security in preparation for <redacted>.


Psh, you are just being <redacted>.


I hereby invoke Rule 34 on <redacted>.

Shadow Lodge

<redacted>

The Exchange

Urizen wrote:
I hereby invoke Rule 34 on <redacted>.

That's like King Kong meeting Godzilla and deciding to get it was mating season. Or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd going off on their honeymoon.

The Exchange

Crimson Jester wrote:
Urizen wrote:
I hereby invoke Rule 34 on <redacted>.
That's like King Kong meeting Godzilla and deciding to get it was mating season. Or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd going off on their honeymoon.

That's <redacted>. Seriously.


Tirq wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
Urizen wrote:
I hereby invoke Rule 34 on <redacted>.
That's like King Kong meeting Godzilla and deciding to get it was mating season. Or Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd going off on their honeymoon.
That's <redacted>. Seriously.

I concur. [Redacted] that [redacted] off the [redacted].

Scarab Sages

Well, I <redacted> the <redacted> always <redacted> in the <redacted> really means <redacted> and <redacted> never <redacted> over by <redacted>.

So, <redacted>?

The Exchange

Well, you could <redacted> the <redacted>, but I prefer to <redacted> the <redacted> with a <redacted> while <redacted> and <redacted>. Now, <redacted> the <redacted> makes Orthos <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>.

And you, too, Aberzombie.


[Redacted] all this [redacted], man. Just [redacted].

Scarab Sages

But, what about <redacted>? Wouldn't that mean that <redacted> is <redacted> to the <redacted>?


Yeah but nobody cares about [redacted].


You <redacted>!!! How the <redacted> can you say that <redacted> is only <redacted>? You know full well that <redacted> is complete and utter <redacted>!


No need for that kind of [redacted] in this [redacted], [redacted] the [redacted] [redacted] already.


I'll put a <redacted> in your <redacted> so you can <redacted> while you <redacted>.

Silver Crusade

Last time I <redacted>, I got <redacted> all over my <redacted>.


You might want to have a [redacted] look at that.


<......>


That's not [redacted], Frank.

The Exchange

Yeah, Frank. It's not as <redacted> as you <redacted> it is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

No one escapes the <redacted> <redacted>! Especially not <redacted> and her little <redacted> too!


[redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted] [redacted]


[Corrupted]!

Scarab Sages

Well, s@+$! <Redacted> is <redacted> on the <redacted>! How the hell did that happen?

Scarab Sages

Damnit! Why does <redacted> have to be a <redacted> and <redacted> in the <redacted>?

Liberty's Edge

Wow, calm the <redacted> down, man.

Scarab Sages

Are you sure that's <redacted>? As I recall, <redacted> gets pretty <redacted> when we try to calm it down.


[Redaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacted]!

Scarab Sages

Well, <redacted> won the <redacted> with an impressive <redacted>. But, seriously, did <redacted> think that <redacted> would really <redacted>. I mean, come on! <redacted> is far more pretty than <redacted>.


All this talk of [redacted] makes me [redacted]. Just wish sometimes that [redacted] wasn't so [redacted] and we could all just [redacted] and get on with our lives.

Scarab Sages

I agree. But <redacted> can get crazy when it comes to <redacted>. Who knew that the level of <redacted> in the <redacted> could cause penguins to <redacted> the way they do.


You people are [redacted].


Yeah. You get used to it though. Or you go [redacted], one of the two.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / I want to complain about ! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
Deep 6 FaWtL
Good New Stories
Did you know...?
Ramblin' Man