The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 38    Average: 2.9/5]
67 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 29797
Rating: 2.9
Category: Funny
Date: 10/24/11 09:00 PM

67 Responses to Literal Halloween Costume Of The Year [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of Juicy_Juice
    Juicy_Juice Female 13-17
    328 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm
    Link: Literal Halloween Costume Of The Year - Psychology majors will appreciate this.
  2. Profile photo of dude21862004
    dude21862004 Male 18-29
    768 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    13-17 year old talking about college majors, lol.
  3. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:26 pm
    Psychology majors will appreciate this.
    I hope so, because I sure don`t.
  4. Profile photo of jmccaul1
    jmccaul1 Male 18-29
    27 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm
    So...?
  5. Profile photo of reidcook1000
    reidcook1000 Male 18-29
    381 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:31 pm
    Everyone else will be very very confused.
  6. Profile photo of Klamz
    Klamz Male 18-29
    689 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:31 pm
    To be fair, psychology is kind of a joke.
  7. Profile photo of Mantistador
    Mantistador Male 18-29
    2200 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    HA HA HA HA! i dont get it... but even if i did i doubt it would be even remotely funny
  8. Profile photo of BlankTom
    BlankTom Male 30-39
    1674 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:42 pm
    i can`t believe know one got it. It`s obviously a freuduan slip. you can tell because when you right click on it and go to properties it says freuduanslip.jpg
  9. Profile photo of LuckyDave
    LuckyDave Male 18-29
    675 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 9:44 pm
    Haha! Its a Freudian slip! XD
  10. Profile photo of Solvent
    Solvent Male 18-29
    2842 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 10:10 pm
    How the drat am I supposed to know this was a freudian slip costume?
  11. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36697 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Freud was a pervert who invented a whole new branch of psychology to prove why he wasn`t crazy when he was really a loon.
  12. Profile photo of crudson
    crudson Male 18-29
    589 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 10:22 pm
    I wonder if it says "cocaine" anywhere on it.
  13. Profile photo of asianchamp
    asianchamp Male 18-29
    414 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 11:08 pm
    I just noticed the A, nothing else.
  14. Profile photo of ladyObored
    ladyObored Female 18-29
    408 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 11:53 pm
    oh! Ha!
  15. Profile photo of MattPrince
    MattPrince Male 40-49
    2220 posts
    October 24, 2011 at 11:56 pm
    It`s a freudian nip!
  16. Profile photo of randomxnp
    randomxnp Male 30-39
    1293 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 3:54 am
    Errrmmmm... what does that have to do with Halloween? Halloween is when ghosts and witches are abroad. Halloween costumes have a theme of horror or the supernatural. Trust Americans to completely misunderstand the idea of a themed fancy-dress.
  17. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 4:09 am
    not denial... we`ll wait and see
  18. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 5:03 am
    Gerry1of1
    "Freud was a pervert who invented a whole new branch of psychology to prove why he wasn`t crazy when he was really a loon."

    Holy crap, Gerry! I`ve been saying this for years. It`s nice to hear someone else has the same opinion.

    There were some great ideas in there, but most of it was nuts. I`ve always assumed the guy had issues he was hiding and came to the conclusion that if he had those hidden issues, then everyone must have those hidden issues. A greater error has never been made.
  19. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 5:22 am
    Yeah... that slip is kinda lame... considering that most of the ideas on the slip are not Freuds. She should remove it immediately.
  20. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5449 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 5:23 am
    @Klamz -- To be fair, you are kind of a joke.
  21. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5097 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 5:45 am
    elkingo: In part he`s right, Freudian psychoanalysis is a load of "It is so because I say it is". That`s not to say we haven`t come a long way since though.
  22. Profile photo of hjkfduia89
    hjkfduia89 Male 13-17
    1 post
    October 25, 2011 at 5:49 am
    ++++ http://www.plzzshop.com ++++++++++

    Best online store

    Best quality, Best reputation , Best services

    ---**** NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 ---**** NFL Jersey $ 35

    ---**** NBA Jersey $ 34 ---**** MLB Jersey $ 35

    ---**** Jordan Six Ring_m $36 ---**** Air Yeezy_m $ 45

    ---**** T-Shirt_m $ 25 ---**** Jacket_m $ 36

    ---**** Hoody_m $ 50 ---**** Manicure Set $ 20

    ---**** handbag $37 ---**** ugg boot $43 ---****

    ---**** sunglass $16 ---**** bult $17 ---****

    ++++ http://www.plzzshop.com ++++++++++
  23. Profile photo of osirisascend
    osirisascend Male 40-49
    3045 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 6:01 am
    @ Gerry1of1 & patchouly: Seriously... Freud had major issues with sex and his mother, which he tried to pass off on the rest of us.
  24. Profile photo of lostinkorea
    lostinkorea Female 30-39
    3727 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 6:07 am
    Hahahaha....I got it. Yes, I admit I did major in psychology my 1st two years of college! And Freud was NOT a freak, he was a genius! You all just don`t "get it". ;p
  25. Profile photo of Ozmose
    Ozmose Male 30-39
    448 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 6:30 am
    @lostinkorea
    Freud was a hack, Jung is where it`s at baby.
  26. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 6:57 am
    Literal fail. Those are defense mechanisms, not Freudian slips. But hey, as long as they don`t try to pass psychology off as science I could care less what Freud thought.
  27. Profile photo of Ches47
    Ches47 Male 18-29
    302 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 7:03 am
    @ozmose they are both jokes
  28. Profile photo of icklevamp
    icklevamp Female 18-29
    375 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 7:17 am
    Patchgrabber it`s not that those words are freudian slips, it`s that the words are freudian and written on a slip. Therefore she is wearing a freudian slip.
  29. Profile photo of PsychGeek
    PsychGeek Female 18-29
    1798 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 7:20 am
    @Patchgrabber:

    I was a psychology major in college. it IS a science. kthanks.
  30. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 7:47 am
    It is a science but there is a lot of yet uncharted waters as it were, the human mind isn`t a simple thing. Unfortunately there are loads of crackpots making a mockery of the field.
  31. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 9:08 am
    @PsychGeek: I got a minor in psych, and no, it is not a science. The only sub-discipline of psych that is close to science is neuropsych, and that is just a bastard child of biochemistry and psychology. Psychology relies on qualitative data for most of its research, and their methods fail at basic rigor.
  32. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 9:42 am
    Wow at the comments.
    1) If you don`t think Psychology is a science, you obviously know nothing about Psychology, or nothing about Science.
    2) I am in the field of Psychology, obtaining my doctorate. It`s a science by definition.
    3) No, it doesn`t rely primarily on "qualitative" data at all. If you think so, you haven`t done any psychology research whatsoever.
    4) Freud wasn`t that stupid. He didn`t have "issues with his mother." He was a biologist, primarily. He applied what he observed and knew about evolution to the development of the human psyche. His thoughts were interesting and notable *for its time*. No, we know now that he was wrong, but it`s hardly fair to say he was a crackpot from the beginning knowing as little as everyone did. Besides, his MODEL is still useful. His interpretations and theory.. that`s another story.
  33. Profile photo of captkava
    captkava Male 40-49
    257 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 10:03 am
    took me a bit too long to get this, but i`ve had a hard day.
    .......... problem?
  34. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 10:13 am
    1) If you don`t think Psychology is a science, you obviously know nothing about Psychology, or nothing about Science.

    Not a cogent argument.

    2) It`s a science by definition.

    Again, not an argument.

    3) No, it doesn`t rely primarily on "qualitative" data at all. If you think so, you haven`t done any psychology research whatsoever.

    Ok, I`ll bite. What quantitative data do they use? And if you say statistics I`m going to facepalm.
  35. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 11:13 am
    @Patchgrabber,
    1) Wasn`t really meant to be an argument. If you know what science truly is and the history of it, you would agree that Psychology (since ~1930) is a science. Psychology is the systematic study of human thought and behavior, and adheres to scientific principles such as empiricism and objectivity.
    2)See above. Behaviorism and empirical movements pushed Psychology into the domain of a true science. Behaviorism could not adequately explain observations, so cognition was brought in.
    3) Qualitative data is descriptive data. Quantitative data is measured data. Psychology is almost completely quantitative. In fact, many people wish there was MORE qualitative data purely for the development of new theory. In my research, for instance, I measure rxn time, the final decision (nominal data), emotionality of information viewed, recall accuracy, recognition accuracy, Likert scale ratings, future time perspective, and others.
  36. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 11:16 am
    Also, one can quantify qualitative data, so long as there is a sound statistical method underlying the method used.
  37. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 12:26 pm
    Psychology purports to adhere to empiricism and objectivity, but multiple studies have pointed out bias whereby 91.5-97% of psychology/psychiatry studies support initial hypotheses. Uses of surveys and questionnaires is not objective, it is subjective. Also, *facepalm*, statistical significance does not mean that the data are important in practice. I can measure anything and compare the raw data. I can use multiple different post hoc tests until I find one that supports my data, but just because there is statistical significance does not mean anything in and of itself. Also, psychological research does not address and potentially falsify the core theories that define the field, which is the case with REAL science. A scientifically valid statistical result does not make psychology itself scientific. At best psychology is a soft science as are all social sciences, but I think that is pushing it.
  38. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25420 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm
    I get it... just dont find it as amusing as some things
  39. Profile photo of Kassandra
    Kassandra Female 18-29
    34 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 12:46 pm
    Hell, I`ve studied psychology and even I`m not convinced its a science.
  40. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 12:58 pm
    @Patchgrabber,
    If that statistic is true, I assure you it`s not because of bias. Studies undergo peer review to point out as much experimenter bias as possible. If anything, that statistic suggests that it`s hard to publish null results, which is true.
    And what the heck are you talking about? We *primarily* work off of theory and put it to the test. I work off of a theory in my research and have found a population or domain in which it does not seem to apply.
    The very fact that Psychologists must infer cognitive processes through behavioral observation and testing means that Psychology is largely based on the testing of theory.
    No one said we just blindly run raw data through analysis in search of significance. A good psychologist outlines what they expect to find, given the hypothesis, and will run the analyses accordingly. If significance is not found, that is still interesting, and is thus reported. If it is found, then it is reported. This is no different.
  41. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:01 pm
    Our most notable Psychologists have had their theories disproven, and it`s advanced the field by leaps and bounds.

    The most obvious to me is Hull`s drive theory. That was a major force in the field of learning for a long time. Throughout decades, it was tested, and eventually thought incomplete. Better theories replaced it and the process continued.

    Also, self-report scales vary in their subjectivity. Statistically, it does not matter. Plus, the scales are, again, put through peer-review to ensure that it`s unbiased. Many self-report scales are *meant* to be subjective, but are quantified and analyzed. The results are as meaningful as they are intended to be.

    Regardless, most Psychological research is not self-report based anyway. It`s often computerized behavioral assessment. It`s nearly always measured in terms of behavior and responses.
    Again, you don`t seem to have any clue about Psychological research or its history.
  42. Profile photo of WesleyV78
    WesleyV78 Male 30-39
    143 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:36 pm
    A Freudian Slip. Love it!
  43. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Studies:
    Sterling, Theodore D. (March 1959). "Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance—or vice versa". Journal of the American Statistical Association 54 (285): 30–34. doi:10.2307/2282137. Retrieved 10 April 2011
    Fanelli, Daniele (2010). Enrico Scalas. ed. "`Positive` Results Increase Down the Hierarchy of the Sciences". PLoS ONE 5 (4): e10068. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010068. PMC 2850928. PMID 20383332. Retrieved 10 April 2011

    I find it amusing you cite Hull`s theory, since he was one of the strongest believers that psychology be a science. It`s not that hard to invalidate some made up equation that purportedly explains animal behaviour. It also brings up another point, that psychology does not honour the null hypothesis. Hull made up his "theory" and it was accepted as true for decades until people tried to prove it. That`s not how science works.
  44. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    Science does not assume something to be true before it can be tested and verified. Take the recent report that scientists have made neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. We don`t implicitly assume that it`s true, because it is being tested and verified BEFORE it`s put into practice. I think it`s you who doesn`t understand what science actually is or the rules that govern it. if any idea can become clinical practice without a preliminary scientific evaluation for efficacy and safety, then psychological research can have no effect on clinical practice.
  45. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:55 pm
    @Patchgrabber,
    The theory was proposed from his own research. The equation was more conceptual then it was literal, first of all. Second, it was well supported with a large number of studies. It wasn`t until many years later that researchers finally found results that no longer supported Hull`s theory. He proposed the theory after a large amount of observation. The theory was put to the test for nearly two decades. It was supported for the vast majority of studies. The studies that emerged which disconfirmed the theory shook the learning world, because Hull`s theory was so SUPPORTED by research previously. He revised his theory a number of times in light of research, but eventually it lost to other perspectives.
    Psychology *does* honor the null hypothesis btw.
    Psychology *doesn`t* assume a theory to be true without testing. Where in the world did you receive your minor? Seriously though. Psych research follows the same basic method as any other science.
  46. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm
    And like I said before, neuropsych, cognitive etc. are really just biology with some EE for good measure. Psychology itself is not science, merely applied statistics, and what passes for theory may be more just descriptive taxonomy and schematics.
  47. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 2:00 pm
    Well I`m sensing this conversation is going nowhere. You make some valid points but neither of us will be swayed. Agree to disagree.
  48. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    @Patchgrabber,
    I really don`t "agree to disagree" in this case, because you are spouting off nonsense about Psychology.
    I`m not sure where you learned about psychology or how credible that program is, but I have my doubts about it.
    To say Psychology is "really just biology" is basically the most reductionist statement you could make. Biology is a factor, for sure, but is not "all Psychology can and should be."
    Clinicians *do* use empirically verified interventions and models. Most of these models incorporate a biological-psychological-sociological structure to conceptualize the problem and create a solution.
    Biology is really 1/3 of the equation (figuratively speaking).
    Neuroscientists explore the biology of the mind. Cognitive-behavioralists explore learning and other functions on a non-biological level. Developmental Psychologists explore how cognition changes across the lifetime. Human factors Psychologists explore the best way t
  49. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    ..to shape the environment to our needs. Social Psychologist explore how people influence others, how people relate to others, and how people think about others. There are so many more fields, and they all abide by scientific principles and methods.
    It`s not "just biology," even if that is the mechanism through which cognition operates. There are other factors that are just as important to explore.
  50. Profile photo of LuckyDave
    LuckyDave Male 18-29
    675 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 2:20 pm
  51. Profile photo of Zeegrr60
    Zeegrr60 Male 40-49
    2106 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Psychiatry is a scam.
  52. Profile photo of strangedays
    strangedays Female 18-29
    39 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 4:09 pm
    @hwkiller and patchgrabber:
    Psychology is a social science. While technically called a science, it`s about as scientific as political science and economics. It`s not the same as the physical sciences, which includes biology, chemistry, and physics. When people say "science", they typically mean a physical science. So while psychology may technically be called a science, it`s not the same kind of science as what most people consider science.
  53. Profile photo of number43
    number43 Male 70 & Over
    759 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 4:16 pm
    hwkiller,

    Your psych 100 prof isn`t checking I-A-B. There are no extra credits to be gained here. Move along.
  54. Profile photo of PinkRhoid
    PinkRhoid Male 18-29
    1239 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 5:51 pm
    number43,

    Your ceiminal justice 100 prof isn`t policing I-A-B. There are no extra credits to be gained here. Move along.
  55. Profile photo of hwkiller
    hwkiller Male 18-29
    490 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm
    @number43
    I`m pursuing a doctorate in a field of Psychology. Your condescension toward me means little. This isn`t so much a personal battle or "extra credit" as it is dispelling myths about Psychology. I was trained in one of the top undergraduate Psychology programs in the nation among leaders in the field. It bugs me when people haven`t a clue what they`re talking about, and then they disparage the subject.
    Also, I agree that it`s a social science. That being said, it doesn`t fail at "basic rigor". Unfortunately, there *are* loads of undergraduate Psychology programs that are essentially "cake majors" for people who haven`t a clue what else to do. Generally these people do not properly understand the science of psychology, and do not participate in it. They learn the history and the findings without understanding the processes leading to it. It gives Psychology a bad reputation. An unfortunate truth.
  56. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32844 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    @hwkiller: your slip is showing...

    (see: it relates to the picture, also to Bugs Bunny, eh?)
  57. Profile photo of niceguy191
    niceguy191 Male 18-29
    169 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 8:58 pm
    I still don`t get it... Isn`t the slip the white thing UNDER what she`s wearing?
  58. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    *sigh*
    "they all abide by scientific principles and methods."

    Well no, not all branches of psychology strive to emulate scientific method. Hull`s theory was based on faulty methodology. Instead of scientific research being done, to create the basis of clinical therapy, the converse has most frequently been done, "experts" create new therapies/theories in their practices based upon their own assumptions and biases and then write articles on the matter to then be tested by others in the sub-fields of psychology. Anyone else see a logical falacy in this? It`s easy to "confirm" such fait accompli studies when they are introduced to the community as valid, if not assumed true... and the same procedures and set of environmental conditions used to test said therapies are followed and produce similar or the same results. The study being done after the fact to "verify" the clinical practice could be called a scientific study, but the basis of
  59. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 9:28 pm
    ...the study is anything but. Many fields of psychology can legitimately claim to conduct and base their practices on scientific studies, but that says nothing on the basis of these scientific studies. Scientific studies alone do not constitute a science.

    If there aren`t clear core theories that form the basis of the field and sub-disciplines, scientific studies aren`t being properly conducted and null hypothesis being honored, it then is impossible for the field itself to change and evolve based upon future research.

    That is, even if you did scientifically sound research, it`s potential to change the field overall is low to nil, since all the prior issues and standards of practice by those in the field must first be addressed, and revolutionized. It`s important to note that the scientific studies must be based off of a sound scientific inquiry and method to start with.
  60. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm
    ...Otherwise, you`re stuck using inductive logic, which does not necessarily require each prior statement or assertion to prove successive statements true. That is, you don`t have to procedurally prove each assertion true to make further assertions based on prior assertions. Karl Popper proposed that falsifiability is a solution to problems of inductive logic.

    An example is, you observe a swan that is white. You then propose that all swans are white. You have not proven that every observable swan is white, and possibly never could. You simply conjecture that due your singular observation, all possible observations in the same set will yield similar results. This kind of faulty logic is what will make you fail your chemistry and physics lab courses, but are done on a daily basis in most sub fields of psychology.
  61. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    October 25, 2011 at 10:01 pm
    Also, the sub-fields such as neuropsychology and others focus their studies on things so specific that they aren`t truthfully studying behavior or mental processes anymore, but biochemistry and physiology for the most part, and making inferences on how these biochemical and physiological processes influence mental processes and behavior of individuals. I.E., they aren`t talking about `psychology` anymore, for the most part.
  62. Profile photo of xCYBERDYNEx
    xCYBERDYNEx Male 18-29
    4903 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 12:07 am
    @patchgrabber, way the f*ck tl;dr
  63. Profile photo of sunday_scour
    sunday_scour Male 18-29
    283 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 1:48 am
    Here`s my two cents (free, don`t worry, I don`t mind): The scientific method is observation, theory regarding observation, test of the theory, revision/abandonment/confirmation of the theory, and back to step 1. So long as there is structured observation, theories about the observation that can be tested and good interpretation of the data (i.e. not biased) it`s science. While many aspescts of the brain and thought are subjective, there are objective ways of at least determining the practical implications and observable signs to measure. The trick is finding the right ones, ones that can be measured, like the pain scale. We can`t measure pain, but we can keep track of its effects on significantly large experimental groups. While one person may fudge the test, most will be honest that will show in the data. Not every experiment or scientist gets this right, but to disparage a peer reviwed theory/experiment simply because of its area of study seems rash. That`s more than 2cents. ;)
  64. Profile photo of sunday_scour
    sunday_scour Male 18-29
    283 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 2:02 am
    WAIT A MINUTE! Did I just get trolled by patchgrabber`s ignorance? or was that ignorace genuine...hmmm...oh well. The next best thing to being right is successful argumentation; can`t argue with that...to each his own reality...science`s main goal is to alleviate ignorance, so whatever really is most true always shines through (<-- See what I did there? ;) ) and maybe ol` patch is right after all...the truth is not always comfortable or pleasant to its discoverers...

    Fin.
  65. Profile photo of jaymeister
    jaymeister Male 30-39
    39 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 5:30 am
    @sunday_scour
    Nah you just trolled yourself.......:)
  66. Profile photo of sunday_scour
    sunday_scour Male 18-29
    283 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 12:25 pm
    that`s worst of all...
  67. Profile photo of Crabes
    Crabes Male 30-39
    1285 posts
    October 26, 2011 at 9:19 pm
    science is not perfect. someone can be in a state of mind and you will fit it in the group you think he should be. Without an honest conversation someone can be misjudged.

Leave a Reply