The film opens with a discussion about pre-crime going national.
So why not just arrange to meet Agatha's mother outside of DC and kill her there? Job done.
Additional, how could it go national when the pre-cogs had a limited range of 200 miles (because... Well just because they did).
Were there more pre-cogs?
Very good point about killing outside of DC. The director of PreCrime should have been the first person to think of that, also.
shareIt's not a very good question at all. In fact, I think it's a stupid question.
And it's been asked before a number of times. See this thread:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/board/thread/247345148
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile
Of course it's good question. You're presumably too much of a cretin to see it. Let me help your gentle mind.
1) All he needs to do is have her killed outside the range.
2) How does pre-crime go national?
No, it isn't. And for the record, I'm not referring to the "How does pre-crime go national?" question. That is actually a good question - I don't dispute that. There isn't an answer either, unfortunately. It's not explained in the film so we can only speculate.
But, as was referenced in the thread in the last post, killing her (or having her killed) outside the range would have meant a full-on murder enquiry. That would be a huge risk to Burgess - just as it would for anyone who decides to commit murder.
However, killing Ann Lively the way he did by taking advantage of the system that he runs gave him absolute control.
It's a shame you couldn't see the bigger picture. :)
Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoilers!Spoile
Durp.
No it wouldn't because Burgess wasn't doing the killing. That's the point. He would hire a drifter to do it so the drifter getting caught would be exactly the same as what he planned in the film except he (Burgess) would be utterly untouchable.
And before you say... but the drifter might have confessed that Burgess put him up to it... Well that applied in the movie too. The drifter was arrested by pre-crime and could have told the authorities that he was paid to do it by Burgess.
Let me simplify it for you:
Tell Anne to meet in some place outside the radius. Hire a drifter to kill her once she arrives. Drifter goes to prison (and hope the drifter doesn't drop you in it).
Or (what the film does)
Create a massively elaborate scenario where you pay a drifter to kill Ann then when he's captured by pre-crime officers, you recreate the murder with the exact same location and physically kill her yourself (and still hope the drifter doesn't drop you in it).
I mean seriously.
And before you say... but the drifter might have confessed that Burgess put him up to it... Well that applied in the movie too. The drifter was arrested by pre-crime and could have told the authorities that he was paid to do it by Burgess.Which authorities? Burgess was the authorities. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, John Doe was a bum and a drug addict. Burgess might have promised him a lifelong ecstatic rush while in prison when he does exactly as told (and never exposes anything about the pre-meditated plot). In other words, getting incarcerated and provided with free drugs for life, without ever having to worry anymore about how to get through the day, might have been exactly John Doe's goal.
Why not just kill Agatha's mother outside of DCWhy would Burgess consider that? His actual plan, where he had complete control over every single detail (or at least he thought so), was almost perfect, nobody even knew that Anne Lively was dead (as far as people knew, the attack on her life had been prevented), and Burgess would have never been found out if it wasn't for an "unfortunate" collision of circumstances eight years later...
Which authorities? Burgess was the authorities. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, John Doe was a bum and a drug addict. Burgess might have promised him a lifelong ecstatic rush while in prison when he does exactly as told (and never exposes anything about the pre-meditated plot). In other words, getting incarcerated and provided with free drugs for life, without ever having to worry anymore about how to get through the day, might have been exactly John Doe's goal.
Pre-crime didn't take testimonies from their captured "suspects"; that was not their job. The "suspects" weren't even really "suspects" anymore: the previsions were considered sufficient evidence to catch and sentence those pre-murderers immediately, without any subsequent trial, hearing, or whatever. In other words, they were considered automatically guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. Furthermore, as soon as they were halo'ed, they were numb compliant zombies; there was pretty much no opportunity for them to resist their sentence by making their voice heard.
Why would Burgess consider that? His actual plan, where he had complete control over every single detail (or at least he thought so), was almost perfect, nobody even knew that Anne Lively was dead (as far as people knew, the attack on her life had been prevented), and Burgess would have never been found out if it wasn't for an "unfortunate" collision of circumstances eight years later...
Yeah, that's called gibberish, pal. If Burgess is the only authority then why not just kill Anne and tell the pre-crime staff to ignore it. Clearly, his power and reach was limited.Burgess may not have been the only authority; but he was pretty much the highest (local) authority. And he did (ab)use the possibilities within his power and reach (limited or not) in order to get away with murder - twice.
And, if the "authorities" didn't care about your confession/evidence/motvation then all you would have to do to get away with murder would be... Hire a hit man.No smart hitman would take that job because they'll know that they will be caught and incarcerated for life even before they have finished the job. The dumb hitmen who do take the assignment will simply end up in Containment before killing the target. Essentially, the Pre-Crime system works. No matter how many murders you plot and how many (smart or dumb) hitmen you hire, the murder success rate will be practically zero. Why should the "authorities" put in the effort (time, money) to go after the masterminds if they already succeeded in preventing every murder by simply catching the perpetrators?
The hit man is arrested but apparently (according to you) isn't questioned. Yeah, you're dumb.It is shown in the freaking movie! And you're calling me "dumb"?
If that were true, pre-crime would simply create a society where all attempted murders would be committed by drifters and people who were willing to take the fall for money.... and people who'd lose their composure in the heat of the moment. Yes, that's exactly the dystopia that the movie depicted; did you even watch the movie with your eyes open?
Yeah, I'm gonna repeat it because apparently there's a lot of dumb people here.You haven't watched a lot of movies, have you? What could happen is that your hired drifter simply screws up, and the crime doesn't go as planned at all. Watch for examples: Dial M For Murder, or A Perfect Murder. You, mister mastermind, are miles away, and won't know about any of the details of how your little plan went wrong, until the FBI comes knocking at your door and you become their mouse to toy with. Does that sound like a risk you would be willing to take? Another unwanted scenario is that drifter runs out of money after having spent it all on hookers/drugs, and repeatedly comes back to blackmail you into giving him more. What are you going to do, hire another drifter to kill the first drifter, again outside DC?
Option 1: Pay drifter to meet Anne outside DC and kill her. Job done. Drifter might confess you put him up to it (and that's if he's even caught).
Option 2: Pay drifter to kill Anne but then get caught by pre-crime and then recreate the murder with same location and murder her yourself (drifter might confess you put him up to it).Drifter is not going to confess because you devised those haloes that turn the arrested into numb dazed zombies.
The first option has NO downside except the drifter accusing you. Second option (the one seen) has the same downside (drifter accusing you) PLUS Agatha SEEING it was you and setting off a chain of events that lead straight to your door.Apparently you still don't understand that, in order for a unanimous prevision to occur that has your name on it, Pre-Crime has to catch the fall-guy first; because if fall-guy isn't arrested in time, the target still gets killed and your objective has still been met, without any reason for the precogs to predict you as being a perpetrator. Moreover, since you're the head of Pre-Crime (and the local police forces), you can see to it that fall-guy is arrested and silenced forever, you can instruct your staff to ignore any "echos" that might come in after fall-guy's arrest, and you can make any possible "minority reports" disappear; and should Anne Lively's corpse still pop up (even though you knew where and how you disposed of it thoroughly), you can manipulate the investigation to your bidding.
What reason would the authorities have for an interrogation/to what purpose would they interrogate the drifter?
You haven't watched a lot of movies, have you? What could happen is that your hired drifter simply screws up, and the crime doesn't go as planned at all. Watch for examples: Dial M For Murder, or A Perfect Murder. You, mister mastermind, are miles away, and won't know about any of the details of how your little plan went wrong, until the FBI comes knocking at your door and you become their mouse to toy with. Does that sound like a risk you would be willing to take? Another unwanted scenario is that drifter runs out of money after having spent it all on hookers/drugs, and repeatedly comes back to blackmail you into giving him more. What are you going to do, hire another drifter to kill the first drifter, again outside DC?
Drifter is not going to confess because you devised those haloes that turn the arrested into numb dazed zombies.
Apparently you still don't understand that, in order for a unanimous prevision to occur that has your name on it, Pre-Crime has to catch the fall-guy first; because if fall-guy isn't arrested in time, the target still gets killed and your objective has still been met, without any reason for the precogs to predict you as being a perpetrator.
Because what idiot would commit a murder in a city where pre-crime exists? They would all quickly learn to do it OUTSIDE the city so eventually any premeditated murders that took place inside the city would instantly set off alarm bells and be viewed as hugely suspicious by the authorities. If they know they're going to be caught, why would they still do it... unless something more is going on. Basic policing.1. John Doe's case happened in the early days of Pre-Crime.
A straw man since the exact same problem applies if you hire the drifter to do it inside DC. Remember dingus, the pre-cogs don't see screw-ups they only see successful murders. If your drifter screws up... no-one sees it.Which means that Burgess has a means to know in advance (long before the actual crime) if his method will be successful or not. As long as no John Doe prevision occurs, Burgess can choose to stay away from Anne Lively. The John Doe prevision is Burgess' cue to proceed with the plan or not.
And again, that applies to murders outside DC. Why would those arrested for murder in pre-crime DC receive different treatment to murderers outside DC?No, any arrestees outside DC don't get the halo treatment. The halo treatment was specific to Pre-Crime and pre-visioned future murderers. Arrestees outside DC are suspects, they are not guilty until they're proven guilty in a trial. They get a chance to make their voice heard and deliver their version of the story, because the truth is still unknown and has to be uncovered/established in a court of law.
The pre-cogs would see Burgess killing Anne and he would be arrested BEFORE he even hires the drifter.No, the Pre-Crime system doesn't work that way. Where in the movie is that ever alluded to?
The second option is playing with fire because it's Agatha's mother and provides her with an incentive that could come back to bite him on the arse. The first option however (outside DC) removes that from the equation entirely and your drifter still doesn't talk (even if they screw up).Criminals play with fire either way. Fact is, Burgess thought he had everything in control as long as he kept everything in his control. He thought that he was the one managing things, and also that he would be giving away control if he involved people from outside his jurisdiction.
1. John Doe's case happened in the early days of Pre-Crime.
2. Just because something is forbidden by law and just because there exists a quite foolproof way to battle the crime doesn't automatically mean there don't exist criminals who would still try it. The main point is: why would the (smug, complacent, dystopian) "authorities" put in the extra hassle (time, money) of investigating stuff when they already have pretty much the guarantee to prevent any serious crime automatically via the (relatively cheap) precog system?
What "alarm bells" are you speaking of? The only alarm bells that mattered to that dystopian justice system were the precog alerts when another prevision comes in. Did anyone at Pre-Crime listen to John Anderton when a brown wooden ball with his name was rolling? No, nobody did.
Which means that Burgess has a means to know in advance (long before the actual crime) if his method will be successful or not. As long as no John Doe prevision occurs, Burgess can choose to stay away from Anne Lively. The John Doe prevision is Burgess' cue to proceed with the plan or not.
And what the heck are you talking about "the exact same problem applies [...] inside DC"? Burgess' plan involved the drifter getting caught. That means the drifter is put in Containment and can't come back and blackmail Burgess endlessly.
No, the Pre-Crime system doesn't work that way. Where in the movie is that ever alluded to?
And we saw in the movie that human determination can alter the pre-visioned future. (This is the concept that Anderton demonstrated with the hand catching the falling ball.)
This means that the threat from the drifter comes first, logically.
Criminals play with fire either way. Fact is, Burgess thought he had everything in control as long as he kept everything in his control. He thought that he was the one managing things, and also that he would be giving away control if he involved people from outside his jurisdiction.
Furthermore, outside DC there's no guarantee whatsoever that the drifter won't talk.
It's not a very good question at all. In fact, I think it's a stupid question.
And it's been asked before a number of times. See this thread:
Not to mention, the ensuing conversation which had good points on both sides, means that it was an excellent question.
shareThe main problem with doing the murder outside of DC is there wouldn't be a movie.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
"How could precrime go national."
Well when Anderton goes to talk to Dr. Hineman she tells them that the trio were all children of neuron addicts.
Assuming that the drug has some sort of effect on the brain of developing fetus' when the mother takes it during pregnancy, they basically have a recipe to 'manufacture'as many precogs as they need wherever they need.
Great question. It's been pretty funny watching people defend this to the death when it's clear the only answer is there wouldn't be a movie. They never addressed it during the film, so it's obvious that it was meant to simply be ignored.
Killing her outside of DC gave him all kinds of options without any precrime interference.
Great question. It's been pretty funny watching people defend this to the death when it's clear the only answer is there wouldn't be a movie. They never addressed it during the film, so it's obvious that it was meant to simply be ignored.If Lamar had killed Anne Lively outside DC, then the same petty IMDb users would have come up with the complaint "Why didn't Lamar kill her inside DC, where he had control over the police force?"
Killing her outside of DC gave him all kinds of options without any precrime interference.
1) Because then there's no movie.
2) It couldn't go national.
But we're supposed to ignore both of these things for entertainment purposes.
Spielberg should have done more to address them though (even if he didnt offer very convincing explanations).
“ EcAuSe tHeREs nO mOOvIE”
I’m sick of these intellectually lazy replies from people with no imagination.
The logical reason was Agatha’s mother was too smart to leave the DC area and the protection of the precogs.
Yeah, you're really dumb. She literally agrees to meet in the woods such was her immense desperation to get her daughter back.
Under those circumstances, you could have told her that Agatha was in Lapland and she would have gone there.
Christ, you're a fucking idiot.
Yes… the woods near DC, in the precog zone.
You’re finally starting to understand,fuckwit
She's hysterical enough to meet anywhere, you astonishing cretin.
The fanboys for this horseshit film are adorable!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Probably the way Cruise runs that gets you so excited.
If she woulda met him anywhere she woulda left DC. Except she didn’t, because Lamar couldn’t lure her away. You’d see how your point has a dead end? Ergo, it’s not a point.
Check your homoerotic fantasies at the door bud
He couldn't lure her away because otherwise the film doesn't happen,you retard. LOL. That's the whole point. You can't actually be this dumb.
Now tell me what it is about his running that gets you so excited.
Wow you must be some kind of genius. You’re saying the story wouldn’t happen without the inciting incident of the plot occurring in the first place?
I guess if TE Lawrence never went to Egypt then the entire plot of “Lawerence of Arabia” would’ve never happened either! That’s iNcReDiBlE
And if the Death Star plans were never stolen, then Star Wars wouldn’t have happened either!! Tell us some more pearls of wisdom from whatever college you’re teaching at
Now you're being silly.
Here's an image to make you feel better.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-26-2014/RnCQmF.gif
Congrats buddy, you finally lost the argument 👏 👏 👏 👏 Not everything has to be spelled out for DUMB CUNTS like yourself. You don’t understand how storytelling or plot works, you utter mong. Doubt you ever attended an English class, let alone graduated high school.
Keep on suppressing your homoerotic fantasies, ya closet-case. Not clicking on your ghey pron link either, faget
I’m just gonna repeat this again for your feeble-minded pea-brain to finally grasp. LAMAR COULDN’T LURE ANN LIVELY OUT OF DC SO HE HAD TO KILL HER HIMSELF
Do you finally understand this extremely simple concept, you utter fuckwit? Reply if you don’t and you’re retarded.
Wow, so triggered.
No dear, Lamar couldn't lure Ann Lively's mother out of DC. It was literally impossible. No way he could do it. Nope. Just no way at all. Not a chance. It's beyond reason that he could. Anyway, here's the movie...
Now calm down and enjoy these images.
https://media4.giphy.com/media/VoPz8gWRGeIcZlr2EE/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952hzc39ecm5u4a3ifwy3zkl1bmqmgkbrfv0ctgztmx&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Well glad you agree. And your interpretation makes no sense anyway, why would Anne Lively agree to meet Agatha outside DC when they LIVED in DC?
shareExactly, it's crazy. Imagine getting her to meet outside of DC where the precogs couldn't see her murder. That would be mad!! Definitely couldn't happen. No sirree. It defies credibility.
Which is lucky. Because otherwise the film couldn't happen.
No retardo, it’s not a plot hole. She obviously only agreed with Lamar to meet in a safe space, aka Washington DC.
You lost the argument now. Bye bye bitch-made
I know right? There's no way you could ever get her out of DC. Totally impossible.
I will now subscribe to your newsletter. You seem to have some truly hot takes.
retardo, it’s not a plot hole. She obviously only agreed with Lamar to meet in a safe space, aka Washington
shareI thought you said you were leaving?
Did the massive plot hole get you so upset that you came back?
Perfectly understandable.
Such was it's gaping canyon-like size.
Not a plot hole
shareStill here? Have the pools of tears been sufficiently wrung?
Why would such a plot hole engender such an emotional outburst?
Have you tried picturing Cruise running naked? Might act as a necessary salve.
You are becoming increasingly mad and upset that I’ve proven your alleged “plot hole” wrong. I’m currently basking in the glory of my victorious triumph, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Just know that the next Mission Impossible will enjoy massive box office success as well, hahahahaha!
LOL, you said "bye-bye" four posts ago.
I now own you like a bitch. And your women (who are of no use to you for aforementioned reasons).
Now about that plot hole...
Thanks for bumping my post, bitch 😎
shareFive posts ago. LOL
I own you. Now embrace the plot hole juices. Embrace them!!
I’m too happy from all these bumps to mah thread 😎
shareThe thread started by Painbow?
The copium is strong.
By the way, when you said "bye bye" six posts ago, did you anticipate the moist warmth of being my eternal bitch? LOL
Thanks for the bump bitchmade 😎 ya ready to lose this flame war and embarrass yourself? 🤣
shareHa ha ha you thought you started this thread. Ha ha ha ha
You absolute utter simpleton.
Ha ha ha ha
Get outta mah thread if you’re just gonna troll
How do you know I’m not Painbow, asswipe?
Ha Ha ha ha ha
This is too beautiful.
How many posts since you said goodbye? I've lost count.
You mad bro? 😎
shareHa ha ha ha ha ha still posting after saying "bye by" like some flouncing retard.
I'm loving your thread by the way. So glad you started it.
https://i.imgflip.com/2flt2v.gif
You gonna bark all day lil doggie, or are you gonna bite?
shareYou get how dumb you made yourself look, though, right? I mean... please tell me that you at least get that.
"Bye bye, I'm leaving. This is my thread." Etc.
Surely some part of you acknowledges your immense mid-wittery here.
No?
Then let us continue...
😁
In case you’re illiterate, which you clearly are, you’ll notice I never said I’m leaving chump. I said you can leave my thread. Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. Your “gotcha” is a hilarious fail
shareHA HA HA So much coping and seething.
You made an idiot of yourself then tripled down. Then quadrupled.
How are you not embarrassed by how badly you've been owned? How?
I demand answers...
You cannot face the fact you dropped the ball on that attempted insult and only to have it thrown back in your face. You are now scrambling to avoid losing face. I laugh at your feeble-mindedness, dance for me more Jester!
shareLOL, you made a fool of yourself and, for reasons passing understanding,have chosen to continue doing so. Which is fine by me. You are a cretin. And I am loving every minute of the inevitable narrowing of boxes into infinity. You magnificent dumb fuck 🤣🤣🤣
shareNice meltie. You are the current fool that pleases the court, dance and fling some more feces, monkey! 🐒 💩
shareHa ha ha ha, imagine being this thoroughly owned but trying to pretend, through the gushing of tears I would assume, that it's all just a dream. Ha ha ha ha ha
You poor little sausage.
You are forever my bitch. Until the end of time.
And remember, this movie has a massive plot hole.😁 It's HUGE!!! Big enough to fit your Tom Cruise fantasies inside 🤣🤣🤣
Nice Meltie again, with more weird, latent homoeroticism from you. What compels you to bring up such gay thoughts? Closet case much?
shareWhy you so upset? What is it about this film's major plot hole that upsets you this much? It can't just be the thought of Tom Cruise running.
Does Tom Cruise running really have that much power?
Talk to me, kid. Let it all out.
You’re the one obsessed with cruise rubbing in tight pants.
shareWhen you first realised you were my bitch, was it upsetting or strangely liberating?
Also, what other movies with massive plot holes and gay running do you like?
Thanks for the bump, bitch 😎
shareOn the upside , there are advantages to being my bitch, many wonderful benefits indeed.
But first and foremost, what is it about this massive plot hole that upsets you so much? You still haven't said (though we have our suspicions about Tom's running, don't we). But what is it exactly?
Keep dancing. Together we can solve this.
Haha you’re such a cutey pie when you argue
shareLet it all out. Express yourself. Tell me why the plot hole is so upsetting.
When did the Tom Cruise fantasies first begin? Why did you say bye bye then not actually leave? Why did you claim this was your thread? Talk to me buddy, let it all out. We can solve this. I believe in you. Sure, you're not very bright, but we can do this. I'm here for you.
Answer me honestly now, kid, are you seriously ready to lose this flame war after months of back and forth with nothing to show for it?
sharePoor lamb, let it all out. Give vent to those frustrations. It's not easy being a world class simpleton but you've turned it into an artform. I'm impressed.
Tell me more about how you're leaving this thread, flouncing off with a dramatic "bye bye." About how this is your thread that I'm bumping because you're a bona fide genius. Tell me more. I respect your intelligence immensely. I really do. I enjoy watching you dance and dance, like a retarded boy who refuses to let go of his favourite Lego.
But most of all tell me about the plot hole that ruined your life. To be fair, it was a big one.
No dummy, you’re the one leaving this thread. You just haven’t realized it yet 🤣
shareWhy would I leave? I have a performing monkey that dances on command. And remember, this is your thread -- YOUR thread. Don't let them tell you otherwise. Now keep dancing for me while I watch Die Hard (another film with a plot hole). You love those.
And while you dance please wear something festive. Something that jingles. There's a good lad.
We’re too busy laughing at you over at FILMBOARDS, incel
shareAnd a merry Christmas to you. I'm curious, what first made you realise you were my bitch? Was it the claim that you were leaving (but never actually did) with a dramatic (some might say flouncing) "bye bye"? Or was it the claim that this was your thread (in an equally girlish and rather hysterical fashion)?
Now that you're here, dancing like a good monkey, talk to me about the massive plot hole in this film. I'm convinced that will resolve the issue. Just let it all out. No one is judging you.
Every reply you just embarrass yourself further and become more cringe.
shareU mad bro? All I did was point out that you said you were leaving like some kind of hysterical simpleton but then refused to leave, instead opting for the (entirely superior) choice of relentlessly dancing for me like the world's most retarded monkey-boy. I approve of your decision wholeheartedly. It was the right call. This was always your destiny.
I am merely here to provide you with a solid beat. Now dance!
Thanks for the bump bro 😎
Ready to lose another flame war? 🤣
Poor lamb, so desperate not to be embarrassed by such overt stupidity. I understand your pain. I am here for you. You didn't see the plot hole but that doesn't make you a monster. You claimed to be leaving the thread after I butthurt you with immense gusto but that was merely hubris. You claimed this was your thread (no doubt due to being so befuddled by the fact that I so savagely owned you). I understand your pain, I feel it. Let it all out. Speak to me Goose. Speak to me. No one is judging you for reaching your intellectual limit. No one.
I will always support the special needs community (even when they relentlessly make a clown of themselves). You are not to blame. It's not your fault.
lol you mad bro? Poor baby 😭
Thanks for another bump btw 😎
Another bump for your thread. Aww, bless your cotton socks. Have you put any more thought into why you declared you were leaving with the histrionic"bye-bye" but never actually left? It can't just be a simple matter of low intelligence. There must be something more to it. Are you willing to explore your feelings? No Judgement.
And this assertion that this is you thread. Is that related to your immense stupidity or is it something else? You appear to have doubled down and claim I'm bumping your thread despite the obvious demonstration of your blatant retardation. Why is this? What's it all about? Did father touch you in a bad place? Did your embarrassment at being exposed as a world class cretin trigger some kind of painful memory associated with childhood? What happened?
Together we can solve this. We can discover the root of your staggering idiocy. And best of all (though improbable) we might even penetrate your self awareness sufficiently for you to grasp that I own you. Every last delectable inch of you. You are my dancing queen!!
I honestly feel bad, you’re writing this novel in each reply and I’m barely even reading it. You must not realize you’re wasting your time and energy in a flame war you can never possibly win. Kinda cute, but sad as well.
Btw, thanks for another bump 😎
A new year, a new opportunity to recognise your low intelligence. 2025 is the year you can do it. We have faith in you. Now remember, being owned is not the embarrassing part (if only), being owned but being thoroughly ignorant that you've been owned... is. You claimed you were leaving the thread but remained and we laughed. You claimed this was your thread and we laughed. You claimed you weren't dancing for me like a special needs boy with a disturbing erection which, brought on by memories of your mother, has been twanging to and fro for many days now.
We cannot stop you from being owned. But we can stop you from being self-owned. Please reach out to a family member or friend. Speak to someone. This is getting embarrassing. Your tiny brain clearly isn't equipped to grasp its own stupidity. I implore you. You are going to burn the carpet with all that monkey dancing.
Who wouldn't want to go to nationals?!
share