http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

harry wrote:
http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

It looks like you dont know how to write a web page, harry.

No surprises there, then

--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT)
harry wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

or maybe non-decipherable image?
--
Davey.

Davey wrote:

wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1
What does the panel think about this unknown make?

or maybe non-decipherable image?

Nah, just shagged MIME types on the server

"Content-Type: text/plain"

Tineye found the same image on other servers

http://www.tribine.lv/upload/16005/i...prikoli-19.jpg

Andy Burns wrote:
Davey wrote:

wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1
What does the panel think about this unknown make?

or maybe non-decipherable image?

Nah, just shagged MIME types on the server

because someone renamed a .jpg to a .nothing probably.


"Content-Type: text/plain"

Tineye found the same image on other servers

http://www.tribine.lv/upload/16005/i...prikoli-19.jpg


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

#%$""!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;%.DICH7=;ÿÛ?C


****ing rare, indeed.

On May 28, 1:36*am, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

# %$" "!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;%.DICH7=;ÿÛ?C

****ing rare, indeed.

The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.

harry wrote:
On May 28, 1:36 am, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

# %$" "!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;%.DICH7=;ÿÛ?C

****ing rare, indeed.

The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.

You don't say? I'm amazed no one spotted that.

Tim

harry wrote:
On May 28, 1:36 am, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:23:58 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://images.stupidvideos.com/image...523_m730_____1

What does the panel think about this unknown make?

# %$" "!&+7/&)4)!"0A149;%.DICH7=;ÿÛ?C

****ing rare, indeed.

The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.

You don't say? I'm amazed no one spotted that.

Tim

Never, I thought it was a car painted in semi invisibility paint.

Mike

On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.

As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.

As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

well it exists as a layer of paint IN FRONT OF the van..

But this isn't alt.metaphsyics is it?


--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.
As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

well it exists as a layer of paint IN FRONT OF the van..

But this isn't alt.metaphsyics is it?


Can we be sure it isn't a van built onto the back of a painting?

Tim

In message
-sep
tember.org, Tim writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.
As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

well it exists as a layer of paint IN FRONT OF the van..

But this isn't alt.metaphsyics is it?


Can we be sure it isn't a van built onto the back of a painting?

Tim
A Van Gogh perhaps?
--
hugh

On Wed, 30 May 2012 20:52:50 +0100
hugh ] wrote:

In message
-sep
tember.org, Tim writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.
As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

well it exists as a layer of paint IN FRONT OF the van..

But this isn't alt.metaphsyics is it?


Can we be sure it isn't a van built onto the back of a painting?

Tim
A Van Gogh perhaps?

That sounds even better in American.
--
Davey.

In message
-sep
tember.org, Tim writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 22:06:01 -0700, harry wrote:
The car is actually painted on to the van behind it.
As the car doesn't exist, the van can't be behind it, can it?

well it exists as a layer of paint IN FRONT OF the van..

But this isn't alt.metaphsyics is it?


Can we be sure it isn't a van built onto the back of a painting?

I rather think its a collective hallucination


--
geoff