Foo - Tom Cruise > Chuck Norris?

TOM CRUIZ > CHUCK NORRIS (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJZARYxgIKA) ?





discuss.. :beer:

TOM CAT > Tom Cruise (http://youtube.com/watch?v=tySJTPJJc1Y) ?





^^ ''Tom Cat are serious cat.. this are serious relijuyn.'' :roflmao:

Tom Stormcrowe > Tom Cruise ?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/Taerom/bikeforums/TomTopGun.jpg

Dr. Phil > GOD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XId08Yk8R2g&NR=1)




W00t! OMG.. :lol: . .Dr. Phil, Udaman. :beer:

Tom Stormcrowe > Tom Cruise ?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a284/Taerom/bikeforums/TomTopGun.jpg



That's some nice photoshop work there Taerom. srsly. :beer: . .But please - remove Tom Cruise's body from Mr. Stormcrowe's face -- LIKE RIGHT NOW!! ..(dood, wtf? :rolleyes: -?)


And pls, remove tom cruise from that equation as well.. The > symbol is really not sufficient to illustrate the disproportionate relationship between the two.


thx

I didn't want it to come to this but...

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-chuck-norris-cat.jpg

TOM CRUIZ > CHUCK NORRIS (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJZARYxgIKA) ?





discuss.. :beer:

How dare you put the two in the same sentence?

How dare you put the two in the same sentence?





dood.. Taerom did the same with TOM STORMCROWE.. and you're choosing to make an issue out of that??






TOM STORMCROWE > Chuck Norris.. (FWIW)





Truth. :beer:




**& btw, it's more of an 'equation' -- representing an inequality with the addition question mark to ascertain it's validity -- than it is a 'sentence' in the truest sense. (imo).

ok, no argument there:D

I went to school with a Chuck Norris.....we beat him up a lot....

My response to this thread (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDKcX0Ji90)

My response to this thread (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDKcX0Ji90)



Wo.. just. .wo. :beer:




pls tell me you're into sciencetolography -? ..that would this make sense to me.

It's nice to see Foo back. :beer:

Yeeeee haaaawwwww!

:)

TOM CRUIZ > CHUCK NORRIS (http://youtube.com/watch?v=AJZARYxgIKA) ?





discuss.. :beer:


Equivalent statement: stepping in beagle poop > stepping in german shepard poop.

Equivalent statement: stepping in beagle poop > stepping in german shepard poop.



I can't believe what you just said..? Nor can I comprehend it.

Chuck will find you.

I can't believe what you just said..? Nor can I comprehend it.

It's really quite simple. In both instances, one is stating a preference for one kind of crap over another kind of crap. But in both instances, in the final analysis, the preferred commodity is still crap.




This reminds me of something I once heard: explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog; it can be done, but the frog tends to die in the process.


Oh, and belated :bday: greetings to you, red house.

It's really quite simple. In both instances, one is stating a preference for one kind of crap over another kind of crap. But in both instances, in the final analysis, the preferred commodity is still crap.


Personally, I believe you're mistaken about this. I think it's not only the 'variety' of crap -- but also the quantity of it that matters. If we take this into consideration, I believe we will find that Tom Cruiz > Chuck Norris x infinity.. actually infinity squared -- and then cubed. Do the calculations - and tell me that I'm wrong -?





This reminds me of something I once heard: explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog; it can be done, but the frog tends to die in the process.


You ever see the singing/dancing frog from the WB cartoons :D -? ..That frog would still be funny -- even after you sliced it open! And no btw, I think your crap analysis is valid and warrants further exploration. I'm very glad we had the opportunity to explore it together. :beer:




(And yeah! thanku for wishing me happy b-day man!) :) :beer:

Personally, I believe you're mistaken about this. I think it's not only the 'variety' of crap -- but also the quantity of it that matters. If we take this into consideration, I believe we will find that Tom Cruiz > Chuck Norris x infinity.. actually infinity squared -- and then cubed. Do the calculations - and tell me that I'm wrong -?




Ah, I see where I misunderstood. While I stand by my analysis of the relative qualitative merits of different kinds of crap, cultural or literal, I completely overlooked the quantitative apsects of your inital comparison.

From that perspective, I have to back you up 100%, red. With all the doodie Tom Krooz has inflicted on the world, he still appears to be full-to-bursting of poop pretty much 24/7, metaphorically speaking (I do not know, nor do I want to know, if that is literally true), and he shows absolutely no signs of exhausting his supply. If he his not #1 in being full of #2 in all of the world, he certainly makes the short list of finalists.

Jerry O'Connell > Tom Cat (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3f716ffebe)
He has the laugh down.

You kidding, Chuck Norris would do away with Tom Crusie with just a blank stare then use him as dental floss.

Might I add Dumbest Thread ever......

i was afraid to post in this thread for fear that Chuck would think i agreed with the op's sentiments.

and then i realized Chuck probably knew the second i clicked on the thread and read it.

please don't round kick me, Chuck.

please.