Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Oleg Tchernyshyov - Intellectual Coward and Crackpot

-
In the thread Measuring Information/ specified complexity, olegt said:
On the basis of what you have said and by using what little I know about information and statistics I am forced to conclude that the information content of a cake is zero. Others in this thread and at AtBC have hinted at this outcome, but here is my simple proof.

Here are my assumptions. First, I assume along with you that the amount of CSI X in a cake is determined by the number of letters in the recipe. I further assume that CSI, like Shannon information and entropy, is an additive quantity. The third and final assumption is that CSI, like entropy, is a function of state: if two cakes are the same in size and taste, they contain the same amount of CSI. It does not matter how they were prepared.

It follows from these assumptions that the amount of CSI in a cake X=0. To see why this is so, note that the amount of CSI in 2 cakes of the same size is X+X because CSI is additive. On the other hand, a recipe for preparing two cakes can be obtained from a recipe for one by appending the single-word sentence Repeat. It follows that the amount of CSI in the second cake X is based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat.

While that already is a pretty minimal amount of information, we can shrink it a bit further. 4 cakes can be made by appending another single-word sentence Repeat. The amount of CSI contained in the two new cakes, 2X, is again based on the number of letters in the sentence Repeat. Thus 2X = X, which means X = 0. Q.E.D.


So even after I told him that his assumptions are faulty, what does olegt do? Presses on regardless!

Oleg, it is the actions not the words. The word "repeat" does nothing but tell you to repeat the actions.

And the actions of the second cake are in addition to the actions of the first cake.

Therefor the information of a cake is additive, despite oleg's spewage.

It is the actions, not the words, which are important:
It is obvious by reading my post on Measuring Information/ specified complexity, that I am talking about reproducing the ACTIONS of the designer(s) in order to get a representation of the information the designer(s) imparted onto/ into their design.


So why am I bringing this up now?

Well olegt is over on Telic Thoughts running his mouth as if he did something to my premise.

olegt is an intellectual coward and crackpot.

87 Comments:

  • At 2:04 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    Joe,

    If it's "the actions, not the words," that count then your original proposal—"write down the procedure without wasting words/ characters and count those bits"— is invalidated. Information content of a cake is determined not by the number of bits in the recipe but by the actions required.

     
  • At 2:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It has always been about the actions, not words, when dealing with something that is not words nor bits to begin with.

    Always.

    "Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."


    I even explained it to you:

    destructing oleg

    IOW oleg thanks for proving that you are a crackpot.

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What part of-

    Data collection and compression. (six sigma DMAIC- define, measure, analyze, improve, control)

    A recipe is nothing more than a capturing of actions. The baker is the artist, the cake is the art.


    don't you understand?

    I know much of this is over your head but perhaps I can help you.

    But I have to know what is wrong.

    So far the problem is your inability to understand what I post.


    The reason for the words is it gives us something to measure.

    Define what it is you are trying to achieve.

    Find a way to measure it- science oleg.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger oleg said…

    So all that bit counting was completely irrelevant to CSI content, right?

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    That is how you figure out if CSI is present oleg.

    CSI = 500 bits or more of specified information.

    The capturing of the actions via words is one way of putting actions into a measurable form.

    Have you ever heard of six sigma?

    When someone wants to implement or improve a process six sigma is a proven method to get 'er done.

     
  • At 12:12 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If it is the actions and not the words, Joe, why are we counting the words?

    If it is all action, as you now say, then the words have zero applicability to CSI.

    Zero.

    None.

    Crackpot.

     
  • At 12:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Of course, you could probably clear all this up by working an example....

    So, how about it? What is the information content of a cake? Pick a cake of your choosing and tell us what the CSI is. It is becoming increasingly apparent that you cannot do this.

     
  • At 1:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If it is the actions and not the words, Joe, why are we counting the words?

    For the reason provided.

    You really need to learn how to read.

    If it is all action, as you now say, then the words have zero applicability to CSI.

    Yes they do for the reasons provided.

    Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

     
  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the information content of a cake?

    All the information required to make it.

    Cakes do not spontaneously arise.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    But you have no idea what the CSI of a cake is, do you? You probably couldn't give us a number within 6 orders of magnitude of the answer, could you?

     
  • At 3:09 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You now say that words are an appropriate manner in which to calculate the CSI of something. But you also maintain that words are not the way to calculate the CSI of a thing. Which is it, Joe?

    You could clear up your stance by working an example. Why don't you do so?

     
  • At 3:14 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If actions are what matters, how does the definition of something matter? Wouldn't we then be calculating the CSI of the action of writing the definition? The definition of a thing is no means of describing the actions of creating a thing.

    For example, anardvark...according to your new (an ever changing) process, one must now describe (define?) the sex act in order to describe (define?) an aardvark.

    This seems completely beyond the realm of possibility. It also seems completely useless as a tool. It would seem that zero things would contain under 500 bits of information in your new process. If this is true, it merely means that there is no demarcation between designed things and undesigned things--because everything is designed.

    To save your process, you must not only give an example of something that is designed you must also give us an example of something that is determined to be undesigned according to CSI analysis.

    Please provide both.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    But you have no idea what the CSI of a cake is, do you?

    What cake?

    Be specific.

     
  • At 3:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You now say that words are an appropriate manner in which to calculate the CSI of something.

    Bits. Words can be converted to bits.

    But you also maintain that words are not the way to calculate the CSI of a thing.

    Obviously you have no idea what I am saying.

     
  • At 3:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If actions are what matters, how does the definition of something matter?

    Context asshole.

    It all depends on the context.

    I have explained this already.

    What we have here is an ignorant clown who thinks its ignorance is meaningful discourse and refutes what I posted.

    Do you wake up every day and say "Let me see if I can be a bigger asshole today than I was yesterday."?

     
  • At 3:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    There is a reason why you are a clown.

    Obviously this stuff is way over your pointy little head....

     
  • At 4:22 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G:

    I am having trouble grasping the concept of an object "containing" information in the way you are using the term.

    For example, using your concept, a blank CD contains information by virtue of the number of letters in the instructions used to manufacture it.

    By my understanding of information a blank CD contains no information at all.

    In other words, I don't see that either a cake or a rock contains information.

    Is my problem a semantic problem? If you said a cake or a rock has the "information equivalent" of the number of letters in the instructions required to make it, then this would make more sense.

     
  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    The information it takes to make a CD is different from the information encoded on it.

    Last I checked CDs do not spontaneously arise- information and agency are required.

    That is my point.

     
  • At 10:11 PM, Blogger Doublee said…

    Joe G:

    That is exactly my point also.

    You agree then that cake does not contain information just as a blank CD does not "contain" informatiion?

     
  • At 11:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    If you can.

     
  • At 11:56 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Okay, Joe. What is the CSI of a blank CD?

    Do actually know what the CSI of anything is? Any single thing, Joe. "What cake" indeed. I told you to pick a cake of your choice. So please choose one and tell us what the CSI is.

     
  • At 11:57 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    SO far you have managed to calculate the CSI of zero objects. While impressive, I don't think that it is impressive in a "get-this-taught-in-school" kind of way. You may want to do a little prep work before submitting CSI calculation to a classroom.

    For example, is the following question appropriate for high school students:

    "What is the CSI of a blank CD?"

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Both contain the information it takes to make them.

    Do you think that information just goes away once the designer is finished with the product?

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the CSI of a blank CD?

    Again that isn't even a valid question.

    With every post all you do is to further expose your ignorance.

    A CD contains all the ionformation it tales to make it.

    So all YOU have to do is do some research to find out what that information is.

     
  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    SO far you have managed to calculate the CSI of zero objects.

    And I have been over and over this clownie.

    So far you have managed to do nothing except badger me with your ignorance.

     
  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    Information flows from artist to art- from designer to design.

    IOW whatever information it takes to make something is contained by it.

     
  • At 9:19 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Doublee,

    Artifact:

    "The causal tie between an artifact and its intended character -- or, strictly speaking, between an artifact and its author's productive intention -- is constituted by an author's actions, that is, by his work on the object."

     
  • At 8:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    For example, is the following question appropriate for high school students:

    "What is the CSI of a blank CD?"


    Absolutely not.

    As I have said- unlike you 13 year olds actually understand what I say.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    As I have said- unlike you 13 year olds actually understand what I say.

    That explains why only those with the mental level of a 13 year old accept ID as valid science.

     
  • At 12:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It explains why only those with a mental level less than a 13 year old do not.

     
  • At 3:08 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Mix ingredients. Bake.

    22*5 = 110 bits?

     
  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What's your point?

    What ingredients?

    How are they mixed?

    Bake at what temperature?

     
  • At 7:53 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    What's your point?

    What ingredients?

    How are they mixed?

    Bake at what temperature?


    I'm just measuring the SI of a cake. That was the minumum I could think of (well, I could actually make it even less, but that's another story).

    If you have alternative calculations, I would be happy to see them.

     
  • At 8:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I'm just measuring the SI of a cake.

    What cake?

     
  • At 9:14 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    What cake?

    The sort that comes in a packet. Why don't you tell me how you would calculate cake-SI and I'll tell you what's wrong with your approach?

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What cake?

    The sort that comes in a packet.

    IOW you are just being an obtuse asshole.
    Why don't you tell me how you would calculate cake-SI and I'll tell you what's wrong with your approach?

    You measure it by figuring out what it takes to get the cake.

     
  • At 1:17 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    IOW you are just being an obtuse asshole.

    No. But I think that Freud would have had something to say about your affinity for calling people assholes ...

    You measure it by figuring out what it takes to get the cake.

    That is precisely what I did. You't even say what is wrong with the approach. You can't even say how one is supposed to do it. You are using an argument from PMS.

     
  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    You have to take into account the information it took to put the ingredients into the packet.

    The cake contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO MAKE IT.

    What part of that are you too stupid to understand?

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    The cake contains ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO MAKE IT.

    What part of that are you too stupid to understand?


    The same part the everyone else but you is able to understand. Why don't you show us instead of arguing from PMS? Your lingonberry weeks must be terrible.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The same part the everyone else but you is able to understand.

    Only you and your ilk appear to be the only people incapable of understanding what I posted.

    Do I really need to show you that it takes specified information in order to make a cake?

    I don't know of anyone who would argue against that...

     
  • At 9:12 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Do I really need to show you that it takes specified information in order to make a cake?

    I don't know of anyone who would argue against that...


    Where did I argue against that? All I want is for you to show us how YOU calculate the SI of a cake. Any cake. But you can't can you? You can call people stupid, but you can't eat buns with your arse (an old saying that really has little relevance here, but I like it).

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All I want is for you to show us how YOU calculate the SI of a cake.

    I MEASURE it.

    And I MEASURE it by figuring out what it takes to bring the cale into existence.

    JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

    Now what part of that don't you understand?

     
  • At 10:26 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    I MEASURE it.

    And I MEASURE it by figuring out what it takes to bring the cale into existence.

    JUST AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS.

    Now what part of that don't you understand?


    So, measure it then. It seems like no-one but you understands how to do that. In fact, your refusal to show how to do such a measurement makes me think that you are simply lying when you say that you know how to. But, go ahead. Show me wrong.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Measuring Information

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Be specific.

    As I have said 13 year olds understand what I posted.

    So I don't have any choice but to think you are the problem.

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Measuring Information

    What part of that don't you understand?

    Be specific.

    As I have said 13 year olds understand what I posted.

    So I don't have any choice but to think you are the problem.


    What I don't understand is how you apply this to measuring the SI of a cake. Considering that I have said so numerous times, I suspect that you fail to read what I write.

    If you are not a liar, I urge you to show such a measurement. It sure would help everyone else. Here is a link to a sponge cake recipe. Show me the SI, please:

    http://www.recipes4cakes.com/sponge_cake/bestsponge_cake.htm

     
  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I don't understand is how you apply this to measuring the SI of a cake.

    It is in the post I linked to.

    Did you read it?

     
  • At 10:29 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Ah, so you HAVE calculated the CSI of a real world object?

    What is it? The object and the CSI value please.

     
  • At 7:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    blipey,

    If you want something from me just tell me when you are in New Hampshire and where you will be staying.

    I will gladly meet you and show you all you need.

     
  • At 7:50 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    It is in the post I linked to.

    Did you read it?


    Yes. I don't understand. Neither do you since you can't apply it to anything. I think you'd better get a fire extinguisher for your undies...

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't think you read it.

    Ya see I applied it to a definition and I explained how to do it with an somethinmg else.

    And as I said 13 year olds understand what I posted so the problem must be you and your ilk.

    I cannot fix stupidity and some things are just to far over people's heads to even try.

     
  • At 8:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW Hawks you need to understand your limitations....

     
  • At 10:04 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    IOW Hawks you need to understand your limitations...

    I do understand them. I've said so numerous times now.

    How about if you tried to understand yours, liar.

     
  • At 10:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So you call me a liar because you are too stupid to understand what I post- got it.

     
  • At 4:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    As for my limitations-

    I understand that I cannot teach the willfully ignorant.

     
  • At 8:58 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    So you call me a liar because you are too stupid to understand what I post- got it.

    No, I called you a liar because you can't measure SI either.

    I understand that I cannot teach the willfully ignorant.

    If you were able to measure the SI of a cake, then you could teach me. I'm ready to learn. You're ready only to lie.

     
  • At 9:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you were able to measure the SI of a cake, then you could teach me.

    No one can teach the willfully ignorant Hawks.

    And seeing that 13 year olds understand how to measure the SI of a cake- thanks to me- the problem is you.

     
  • At 1:06 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    No one can teach the willfully ignorant Hawks.

    But you could always prove that you are not a liar. But then I seriously doubt that that will happen.

    Hypothesis: If Joe knew how to measure the SI of cake he would. Joe hasn't measured the SI of a cake. Conclusion:...

    And seeing that 13 year olds understand how to measure the SI of a cake- thanks to me- the problem is you.

    I have yet to see a 13-year-old do it either. WHy is that?

     
  • At 8:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hawks,

    Have you ever observed a cake spontaneously arise? Yes or No.

    Have you ever heard of a cake spontaneously arising? Yes or No.

    If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it? Yes or No.

    Can you count? Yes or No.

    Can you do simple multiplication? Yes or No.

    Now read the following very carefully-

    A cake contains all the information required to make it.

    If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.

    A recipe is SI and could be CSI.

    Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.

     
  • At 10:53 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    A cake contains all the information required to make it.

    ...

    Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.


    Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?

     
  • At 12:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you are not going to answer my questions then fuck off.

     
  • At 2:40 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    If you are not going to answer my questions then fuck off.

    It's not going to help neither me nor you if I do so. But here we go:

    Have you ever observed a cake spontaneously arise? No.

    Have you ever heard of a cake spontaneously arising? Well, I've read fairy tales, so perhaps. But otherwise no.

    If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it? Possibly. pre-made packets make these things fairly simple.

    Can you count? Yes. Quite far.

    Can you do simple multiplication? Yes. Even in my head.

    As for the last two question, I have one. You seem to get quite annoyed when someone asks you how to CALCULATE rather than MEASURE the SI of a cake. Seems to be me that calculations are required.

    Now back to you and I'll repeat my questions:Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?

    These questions indicate that I don't understand how to calcualte the SI of a cake. Doesn't the milling of flour enter into the SI of the cake? If not, why not?

    The easiest thing would be for you to show me how to do it. Liar.

     
  • At 4:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It's not going to help neither me nor you if I do so.

    If I am going to teach you then I need to know the answers to those questions.

    So it would help me.

    IOW answering those questions would help you.

    If I told someone with no baking nor cooking experience to bake a cake- no other information- do you think that person could do it?

    Possibly. pre-made packets make these things fairly simple.

    Then they would need more information- information about those pre-made packets.

    Does that premade packet where you only mix the water+packet and bake contains less SI than a cake made from scratch? Should one include instructions for how to make flour and baking powder? How to build an oven?

    What is the relevance of your questions?

    Please be specific.

    These questions indicate that I don't understand how to calcualte the SI of a cake.

    Actually they indicate that you are a fucking asshole.

    Is that what you wanted to do?

    The easiest thing would be for you to show me how to do it.

    "Now what do we do when all we have is an object?

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."


    If you need more than that then you are in over your head and need to find something that you can understand- like finger-painting.

     
  • At 4:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now read the following very carefully-

    A cake contains all the information required to make it.

    If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.

    A recipe is SI and could be CSI.

    Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.


    What part of that didn't you understand?

     
  • At 9:34 PM, Blogger Thorton said…

    Now read the following very carefully-

    A cake contains all the information required to make it.

    If you take the recipe you tried to link to earlier- the link didn't work- that cake, at a minimum, contains all that information.

    A recipe is SI and could be CSI.

    Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.

    What part of that didn't you understand?




    English = cake. French = gateau.

    English = flour. French = farine.

    English = eggs. French = oeufs.

    English = oven. French = fourneau.

    In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?

     
  • At 6:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?

    I have already explained that you ignorant fuck.

    IOW once again Thorton thinks his ignorance is meaningful discourse...

     
  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    J: "A recipe is SI and could be CSI.

    Start counting characters and then multiply by 5.

    What part of that didn't you understand?"

    T: "English = cake. French = gateau.

    English = flour. French = farine.

    English = eggs. French = oeufs.

    English = oven. French = fourneau.

    In your example the CSI of the baked object you create is heavily dependent on the language of the recipe. How does ID explain that Joe?"

    J: "I have already explained that you ignorant fuck."


    Of course you didn't explain it you moron. You can't explain it, other than to admit you fucked up. Your dumbass "count the number of characters in the recipe and multiply by 5" is BUSTED!

     
  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes I have explained it- last year as a matter of fact.

    Again your ignorance is not a refutation.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Thorton said…

    You keep telling us you IDiots can calculate the CSI in an object just by examining the object itself.

    Now you say to determine the CSI in a cake you need someone to show you the recipe, and you calculate the CSI from that. Even then, the CSI value you get will be different depending on what language the recipe is written in.

    Thanks for admitting you can't calculate the CSI of an object just from the object itself.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thorton,

    Thank you for continuing to expose your ignorance.

    And yes it is very funny that you think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.

     
  • At 9:07 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."

    Mix packet with water. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 mins. 55*5 bits. Cool.

     
  • At 9:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    One way of figuring out how much information it contains is to figure out how (the simplest way) to make it."

    Mix packet with water. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 mins. 55*5 bits. Cool.

    Cool what?

    Cool that you like to prove that you are an obtuse moron?

    As I said in the original thread and told you directly if you are going to use a packet you have to include all the information- that is all the actions- required to get everything but water into that packet.

    All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.

     
  • At 10:42 AM, Blogger Hawks said…

    All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.

    Inclusing how to mill the flour?

     
  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.

     
  • At 2:58 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    All the information and all the actions you ignorant freak.

    Including sowing the wheat?

     
  • At 4:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now you understand how much agency involvement is required just to get a cake.

    Or maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.

     
  • At 10:58 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Or maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.Or maybe not- you don't appear capable of understanding anything.

    My biggest problem is trying to understand how you could even perform simple everyday chores, such as wiping your own arse. In fact, doubt that you are able to do this. Methinks that either you have a helper or that you have a colostomy bag. The latter option is obviously an ID hypothesis.

     
  • At 7:00 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My biggest problem is trying to understand how you could even perform simple everyday chores, such as wiping your own arse.

    Nice projection.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Nice projection.

    You're too stupid to even come up with your own insults.

     
  • At 5:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You're so stupid that you insult yourself.

     
  • At 5:40 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    What sits in the corner and gets smaller?

    It's Joe shaving himself with a cheesegrater.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What sits in the corner and plays with itself?

    Hawks the sreaming wanker

    and here's one for Freud:

    Who has an Oedipus complex and also suffers from penis envy?

    Hawks the screaming wanker

     
  • At 8:56 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Why does Joe stare at the orange juice?

    It says "concentrate".

     
  • At 10:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fresh squeeezed only in my house.

    Loser.

     
  • At 2:55 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    Don't squeeze it too hard, if you know what I mean...

     
  • At 5:39 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your mother squeezes it for me, if you know what I mean...

     
  • At 6:50 PM, Blogger Hawks said…

    And I'm the one with the Oedipus complex...

    Paging Dr. Freud.

     
  • At 7:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I'm the one with the Oedipus complex...

    Umm YOUR mother squeezing MY oranges.

    I understand she squeezes yours also- that is where Oedipus comes in you moron.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home