Jump to content
IGNORED

'livechat Thread'


WTFiGO!?!

Recommended Posts

Guest MaloneFM

May I just recommend Sir Colby Tit as a fluffer? Having had a vast experience at MaloneFM in 'ad breaks'. Keeps ol Rog 'on the air' so to speak.

The phrase that pays on MaloneFM this week.

What a tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DrFaustus

Welcome along Doc.

So tell me, have you fitted the word mellifuous in yet today?

Yep.

As I just sucked on Katy's neck and the silky fluid oozed down my gullet, I said 'hmm meliflously smoothe honey'

Turdbucket is another good word, but not in the same context. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MaloneFM

Remember kids 'parp' is not only big AND clever..you can use 'toot' as well.

What about spunktrench? Its a real word. In my head anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DrFaustus

What about spunktrench? Its a real word. In my head anyways.

Not as good as a word my mate once used to describe a 'lesbian' (i.e a woman who wasn't interested in him),

Flangefiddler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DrFaustus

Good word's old timers.

The mod's tend to get funny if we use ruder word's than parp and toot.

It result's in smacked bottoms all round.

Oi!!!! Malone might be old, my (mental) age is 21.

My partner calls me a 'Filthbox' which is quite endearing, as is 'cumshot'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok chimpanzees, did you know they have 99 % the same DNA as us??

And did you also know that we share 1% of our DNA with dafodills

(sorry I was on a school science trip yesterday with kiddie I look after, can you tell??)

Dolly my lovely, would it be terribly impertinent of me if I was to suggest that your 1% dafodill was between your ears?

:me?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dolly my lovely, would it be terribly impertinent of me if I was to suggest that your 1% dafodill was between your ears?

:me?:

Yes it would be my dear, Ive got nine GCSE's and a BTEC (oh and a manual handling certificate which sounds rather ruder than it is) so I would be offended. I'm only repeating primary school due to my job and not cos they made me. :@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would be my dear, Ive got nine GCSE's and a BTEC (oh and a manual handling certificate which sounds rather ruder than it is) so I would be offended. I'm only repeating primary school due to my job and not cos they made me. :@

Blimey, I'm glad I checked first. That was a close shave.

Nuff respect due to you and the BTEC crew.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it would be my dear, Ive got nine GCSE's and a BTEC (oh and a manual handling certificate which sounds rather ruder than it is) so I would be offended. I'm only repeating primary school due to my job and not cos they made me. :@

Nine GCSE's................. wow......... did you pass any of them Dolly :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok chimpanzees, did you know they have 99 % the same DNA as us??

And did you also know that we share 1% of our DNA with dafodills

(sorry I was on a school science trip yesterday with kiddie I look after, can you tell??)

On the other hand................

It appears that only about 1.5% of the human genome consists of genes, which code for proteins. These genes are clustered in small regions that contain sizable amounts of non-coding DNA (frequently referred to as junk DNA) between the clusters. The function of these non-coding regions is only now being determined. These findings indicate that even if all of the human genes were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA still could be 98.5 percent similar if the junk DNA of humans and chimpanzees were identical.

Because DNA is a linear array of those four bases A,G,C, and only four possibilities exist at any specific point in a DNA sequence. The laws of chance tell us that two random sequences from species that have no ancestry in common will match at about one in every four sites. Thus even two unrelated DNA sequences will be 25 percent identical, not 0 percent identical.

Therefore a human and any earthly DNA-based life form must be at least 25% identical. Would it be correct, then, to state that daffodils are one-quarter human? The idea that a flower is one-quarter human is neither profound nor enlightening; it is outlandishly ridiculous! There is hardly any biological comparison that could be conducted that would make daffodils human except perhaps DNA.

------------------

Interesting stuff indeed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...