We don't go down there anymore.

+1 Brian Peppers

I almost want to -1 it for Brian Peppers, but eh.

please remove "brian peppers" from the keywords. It kills an otherwise decent site.

+1

Why would he remove Brian Peppers when Brian Peppers' face is part of the site? I logged in just to 5 this because of how utterly stupid you are.

-2

OK, you win. 1d.

do the world's greatest dad guy. or some new pedo. peppers is old and stale. still 5 because i can

-1

See, my monitor at work is set really, really dark and thus, "Brian Peppers' face" was not visible. All I saw was the girl in the light at the top of the image with an otherwise black void set to an appropriately creepy song. Which would have been a far more interesting site than yet another joke among 1000s about an internet cliche for "pedophile." But don't let me stop you from enjoying the same joke you loved back in '05 when you first signed up.

+1

changed to 1 because gr33n showed me the light.

+1

Hey now.. the way I see it, YTMND has a cast of characters, and these characters exist to play their respective roles. For example, Stephanie is YTMND's cute, innocent child, and Brian Peppers is YTMND's pedophile; he merely represents the idea of a pedophile, do you follow? I considered leaving out Mr. Peppers, but I thought it'd be more relevant to YTMND to let him stay. So, your 1-star ratings, in my opinion, would be like saying Family Guy sucks because it has the same stupid fat guy in every episode.

-2

In conclusion, you're both f*cking f*ggots.

-2

Family Guy sucks because it has the same jokes from everywhere else in the universe in every episode. But that's probably why you think it's great. The humor equivalent to eating at Applebee's®: no matter how bad it is, at least it's familiar. Thanks for helping to turn ytmnd into a chain restaurant for washed up suburban realtors and insurance salesmen.

+2

Hey, idiot, don't mistake my analogy as a defense of Family Guy's humor. I happen to keep a certain disdain for Family Guy. Idiot. Besides from that, your own analogy proves you missed my point. Go read a book, f*cking f*ggot.

-3

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on

+1

So, green fellow, you ran out of your own "intelligence" to spew at me? Lolcat's got your tongue? And you never even addressed my first reply, f*cking f*ggot.

I addressed it quite clearly by analogy. You like your ytmnd bland. You've reduced the site to a set of characters, and worse, catch phrase humor. According to your version of ytmnd, everything has a predefined set of behaviors, a script, a prescribed punchline, like the internet equivalent of "Perfect Strangers" or Rob Schneider's Makin' Copy Guy or Goat Boy. Then you made no clear indication that you don't like Family Guy. Rather, you simply made an erroneous assumption as to why I wouldn't like it.

Then you proved you had nothing logical left to say by calling your critics "f*ggots." Because you clearly didn't understand my earlier responses, I decided not to bother with logic and simply let The Onion article do the work. But I guess you didn't get that point either so you called me a f*ggot again, as though the third time might offend me or somehow prove that you're smart. By my count you're 0 for 5 and that doesn't include the sh*tty site that started this mess.

monkeys tossing poo across the internet

I appreciate your impractical ideal for originality, but it seems you're still a bit confused as to what a character is. YOU STAY OUT OF THIS RAFE! Characters are merely vehicles to drive a situation, you see? I'm not sure what the English department at your community college told you, but I'm afraid characters as a literary device are here to stay. Now, it would be a more valid critique for one to say I used Mr. Peppers in a bland situation, but even then, I would argue that my effort was above average.

Now for the off-topic topics.. I do not have to indicate my favor toward the subject of an analogy for it to be effective, and I did not assume anything about you; I made a generic example using a popular TV show. Nothing more, nothing less. It was YOUR inference and imbecilic inability to separate yourself from the situation that led to YOUR confusion, YA DIG? I actually called you both f*cking f*ggots in jest, but since you took the bait, I just couldn't resist persisting, you f*cking f*ggot.

I'm so sorry, Rafe. I shouldn't have snapped at you like that. I'm continuing this is a new comment, by mistake.

Perfect song.

changed to 3 because of peer pressure. SPINETMND

Hey man, I was kidding about that f*ggot thing. I am truly sorry.

-1

sh*t. 2. no, 4. DAMMIT ALL I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ANYMORE

lol 4 because i touched your cold, cold heart. erase that f*cking peppers for a 5 :D

+1

^ ditto. (the second part, that is...doesn't seem like I touched your heart)

wait brian peppers is BLACK?

wat

Also, your tally is a tad off. I made ONE main point in my first reply, and it wasn't even for debate. So 0 for 1 or 0 for 0 would be more correct. However, if we were really keeping score, it would be closer to -120 to -130; there is inherently no winning this debate, but you lose an extra 10 points for borrowing someone else's wit. Not only that, but that article could as easily be applied to you. Besides, I refuse to read the Onion online so long as I am paying to receive it in print. You f*cking f*ggot.

But, here, let me even up the tally by borrowing a little for myself: http://www.xkcd.com/386/ (Ugh, there's almost as much blue on this page as a gr33nsc33n site.)

The fact that you pay to receive the Onion, which is both online and a free weekly in most major cities, just put the exclamation point on the sentence for me. Now I know what I'm dealing with.