|
|
#31
03-17-2007, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] fluffpop isn't the problem. The problem is all the retards on here who can't handle themselves when they find out they're having some sort of interaction with a woman. OMFGBOOBIEZ!!!!!! Get over it. [/ QUOTE ] i think what people are saying is, fluffpop knows what kind of attention she'll get by doing certain things and she does them anyway. yes people are immature but when she does things like making her avatar a hi-res cleavage shot (not so much the current one) it seems like she's inviting a certain kind of attention. [/ QUOTE ] Who cares? More fluffboobs please. 
|
|
#33
03-17-2007, 02:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
[ QUOTE ]
fluffpop isn't the problem. The problem is all the retards on here who can't handle themselves when they find out they're having some sort of interaction with a woman. OMFGBOOBIEZ!!!!!! Get over it. [/ QUOTE ] Also true. I would be able to ignore her and her incoherent posts if it weren't for every guy in here fixating on her.
|
|
#34
03-17-2007, 12:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Does anyone else get the impression that fluffpop is a huge attention whore? [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. She's not even that hot. Half her posts are borderline retarded and the other half are blatant attention whoring. With every post she gets less and less attractive. Unlike FFK, who is constantly spouting awesome posts and getting more attractive with each one. [ QUOTE ] So some dude magnifies a tiny tiny portion of her avatar and makes a post about it...and she's an attention whore. I think you might be stupid. [/ QUOTE ] Her post in this thread isn't attention whorish. As a general rule she does come off as one. [/ QUOTE ] Idiot.
|
|
#35
03-17-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
[ QUOTE ]
Q: What is good on a 22 year old and bad on a 42 year old? A:  PS - anyone recognize this? [/ QUOTE ] I have read every single post in this thread. I have absolutely no idea what a single post in this thread means, honestly.
|
|
#36
03-17-2007, 01:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
Rushmore,
OP is a zoomed in shot of fluffpops old avatar on her boob. Summary of the thread is that a bunch of internet nerds are angry because fluffpop wont return their PM's, so they start ripping on her instead. Personally I think the entire thread is in bad taste, starting with zooming in on a poster's boob.
|
|
#37
03-17-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
this is creepy
|
|
#39
03-17-2007, 01:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
I don't know the person this is a pic of, and it doesn't really matter. But actually zooming in on some chick's pic to show her boob is pretty lame and frankly kinda stalker-like. If the chick wants to post pics of her in a bikini or something showing herself off then ogle away, but to zoom in on her boob from a normal pic is weird, go talk to a chick in real life,
seeing boobs in real life > zooming in on internet pics
|
|
#40
03-17-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Good God (semi-NSFW, but not really)
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone else get the impression that fluffpop is a huge attention whore? I mean, the only female who is worse than her on here is alishmali. I'd say Tenn and FFK are alright, octopi can be a bit of an attention whore at times but she's ok, but fluffpop is a bit over the top for me. *gets ready for flames* [/ QUOTE ] While I disagree, I think the more important thing to point out is that your post sounds like somebody transcribed an eavesdropped conversation between a couple of seventh grade girls.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
