<ol>
<li>the hot girls were hottter, the ugly girls were way uglier. <—what i saw </li>
</ol>
<p>-istoleyournose</p>
<p>At Exeter there were lots more ugly girls, but both schools had some hot ones</p>
<p>Well… I’m hot enough to score the hot girls, so for me Exeter>Andover in terms of pleasing females.</p>
<p>Yeah, but then you see them dancing for the Lionettes. And your opinion of them sours immediately. SLAM all the way =)</p>
<p>Aaand I can’t believe we’re scoring schools based on the hotness of the girls. Really.</p>
<p>*** mate?</p>
<p>A>E. Just look at some of the Andover website pictures. There are sme hot girls!</p>
<p>We’re bored, what else can we do. Andover = GW Bush… We can score however we want. They are both great…</p>
<p>Tom, you can back me up on this!</p>
<p>Exeter = Dan Brown. Don’t care what you say, but the Da Vinci code was Bull****</p>
<p>Buuut yeah, Bush takes the cake… What an embarrassment… Whatever. The same embarrassment is felt by Yale and Harvard Business School, too…</p>
<p>True, true… The day bush got elected my dad “Jesus… not like anyone’s jaw is gonna drop with Harvard on the resume anymore!”. Dan Brown’s books were OK. Davinci was good, the rest… well…</p>
<p>It’s all down to opinion, but I felt like the whole book was just pitching itself to be turned into a movie. It was annoying. And then the movie came out.</p>
<p>My favorite line? “You are the last living descendent of Jesus Christ.”</p>
<p>I laughed. Loudly.</p>
<p>I was entertained, nothing I would read again. It was not literature, but it was not meant to be literature. Like a more advanced version of Twilight. Except twilight sucks ass. </p>
<p>Sorry to say, but I’m the last living descendent of Vishnu. So I win.</p>
<p>Welllll I’m the last living descendent of the flying spaghetti monster. Suck it.</p>
<p>You read richard dawkins? Spagetti monster=his idea</p>
<p>Exactly. If I weren’t an Atheist I’d worship Richard Dawkins as God (in the words of my favorite facebook group).</p>
<p>Agreed (10 char)</p>
<p>I am pretty much an atheist also, but are you a Primacy of Existence guy or primacy of consciousness?</p>
<p>Primacy of Existence. Most everything is very ‘concrete’ to me. In my philosophical opinion, our environments function independently from our own consciousness. You?</p>
<p>Ditto. Me and my friend had a huge argument over this. His point was: Fine, evolution is the way to go, however conservation of mass says nothing can be created or destroyed. Who the hell put the first iota on this earth? The first quark? </p>
<p>I told him that it has always been here… time is a line (not a ray, or a segment), infinite both ways.</p>
<p>What I think is funny is that creationists just contradict themselves in their testimonies on the creation of the universe. As clich</p>
<p>There is no way to prove god, or disprove god, and as such, it is NOT science. Yet the palins of the world kid themselves thinking they have made a new scientific discovery.</p>
<p>The “science” of creation is a load of bull. If you visit fundamentalist Christian websites and read their explanations of the creation of the earth, they’re… well, they’re laughable. To anyone with even a middle school education in scientific principles, they’re just ridiculous.</p>