‹‹ برگشت به Off-topic
  • 1
  • 2
مطلع حق بیمه برای مخفی کردن تمام تبلیغات
پست ها: 55   بازدید شده توسط: 42 users

پست اصلی

ارسال شده توسط clovis1122, 10.11.2014 - 08:58
Since someone serious need them, I will clarify how to have a right use of probabilities.

I find that in AW, at least in the forums, we have a lack of clarification when expressing a casuality. Feel free to post and judge this as much as you want, since there is not any clear date about how much % the probabilities mean.

Terminology that express a probability.

First of all, there is no word for describe an exact 100%.

"~" mean "average", an extimation between all the values that are choosen.

"Perfect" mean 100% rounded up from ~99.99%. Is the terminology that we have more near (but not) 100%. Source: School's degree.

"Impossible" mean ~98%, since nothing is impossible in this life. Source: Logic.

"Excelent" mean ~90%. Source: School's degree.

"Very good" mean ~85%. Source: School's degree.

"Good" mean ~80%. Source: School's degree.

"Enough" mean ~70%. Source: School's degree.

" Usual, likely, common" mean ~60%. Source: My match book of 6th.**

"Half of the times" mean ~50%. Source: My match book of 6th**

"Not usual, Not likely, not common" mean ~40%. Source: logic.*

"Strange" mean ~10%. Source: Unknow ***

" Rare" mean about ~5%. Source: Unknow ***

"Never, no chance, not happening" mean 0%, rounded up from 0.00~1%. Is the terminology that we have more near ( but not) 0%. Source: Diccionary.


"Lower than" mean that one value have less % than another value. Two or more values are needen. Source: diccionary.

"More/higher than" mean that one value have more % than another value. Two or more values are needen. Source: diccionary.

" Most" mean than one chase have more % than another chase. Only 1 value is needen, the other values are obvious. Source: Diccionary.

"Generally" is a terminology based on probabilities. When it is not specified, it mean the same as usual.

* = If usual mean 60%, Not usual can, but not guaranteed, to mean 40%.

** = I saw them in my book of 6th grade. I cannot get the source, so feel free to trust it or no.

*** = I saw them somewhere, but I dont remember when. Feel free to trust or not.

How probabilities works?

When a number is express in %, his max capacity is 100% unless specified. Taking the argument:

"only ~5% of the people that get a gunshot to the head survive"

Source: "The American Association of Neurological Surgeons." AANS. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2014."

It have 3 means:

The ~5% mean that there is a max capacity of 100%.
The ~5% mean ~ 5 / 100. Using the theory of proportions, it is 0.05 of 1.
The ~5% mean " For every 100 people, only an average of 5 people will survive".

When to use probability?

You should use them when you are stating somenthing, clarificating the factors which can greatly alterate the data, and pointing the existance of those who have a small impact.

Example of bad usage:

1)The someone: High ranks away beat lowranks.
clarification: This is not true if the high rank have a poor development, or is another person playing in his account.

2) The someone: High rank away beat low rank unless the high rank have poor development (noob).
Clarification: The high rank can have a good development, but the low rank can be outstanding too.

3) The someone: High rank away beat low rank unless the high rank is a noob or the lowrank have a better development.
Clarification: The lowrank can have equal development but better pick, and therefore, advantage.

4) The someone: A profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob or the low rank have a better development.
Clarificaition: The high rank can disconect, or have an emergency, or any other accident that can alterate his normal development ( i.e: sick, killed, disturbed, mentally alterated).

5) The someone: A profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have a better development or the high rank have any kind of problem that can alterate his common gameplay.
Clarification: The low rank can posess a bug which makes his units unbeatable.

6.A) The someone: In a normal gameplay, a profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have better development, the high rank have any kind of problem that alterate his gameplay.
Clarification: What does normal mean? People can have different standart about the word. This is therefore, a dead end, and the start of another infinite probability funtion.

6.B) The someone: a profesional high rank as turkey will away beat a low rank as cyprus unless the high rank is a noob, the low rank have better development, the high rank have any kind of problem that alterate his gameplay, or the low rank have access to a bug which potencially alterate the results of the battle mechanics.
Clarification: A moderator can kick you from the game.

Future clarification:

Servers can disconect. You can miss your moves. Game can crash. You can have electrical problems. ect...

Therefore, is necesary, for avoid this kind of infinite discussions, to express the existance of possibilities. A correct statement would be:

Even though we cannot calculate how exact those factors can represent a great or minimal instance in the results, the correct is to leave "emply space", or % of probability that are not used but can be filled up by the minimal casualties.

7) Conclusion: A profesional high rank as turkey is likely to beat a low rank as cyprus. (Is likely = ~60%)
15.11.2014 - 00:43
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 14.11.2014 at 17:12

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 14.11.2014 at 11:44

''Is impossible for 1+1=3''

So you think there is a 98 percent of chance for that to happen?


Well they say it was impossible until someone's back in the 600's in India discovered ( or just tried, since it was away there) to divide between zero.

Since there is no number, it was impossible - Until someone's started to joke and divide between zero. He didn't divided 4 / 0, but found a way to make 1 = 2 by dividing between AB, where AB equals to zero.

And yeah, just because this some years later scientific put the arbitrary rule " You cannot divide between zero". Yeah it is possible, but since you can get a lot of results, they just prohibited it for whole match.

Why arbitrary? Because you can prove 1 = 2 when dividing between zero, while following all the non arbitrary mathematical rules.

But yeah, arguing that divide between zero makes no sense, they made it as a rule.

Why I say is impossible? Because it was, until eventually someone's falls in the ~2% probability and found a way to proves it. And yeah a rule was made for prevent this possibility, but nothing guarantee us that there is not another way for find the same result.

More information about the fallacy: https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.html

( The own page clarify that it was because divide between zero makes no sense and not a rule someones put off. LOL!!!!!!)

-------------------------------------

So you are saying everybody exaggerate when they use the word "impossible" ? Then why the word exist ? Because nothing is impossible in this life.

And of course, answer us why the dictionary have one definition for "Impossible" as "Extremely hard" ?

Is not only one dictionary, but MANY ones. Are you implying the big majority of people which believes in this definition is wrong? Or maybe there is a big casualty than all the dictionary I've search for are wrong?

Or maybe you want to say that the word "impossible" is like the logic: All the type of logic are rational, a logic that is not rational is irrational. A logic classified as irrational need a rational process, and it becomes logic again.

In other words, all that is impossible cannot be done. Something that is possible is not impossible. Something that has been classified as impossible but intermediately after being proven wrong turn into possible, losing the "impossible" classification?

Well, the difference is that logic is a way of think, while impossible is a way of see.
So it's possible for 1+1=3? How? That's what you are saying. And it is impossible to divide by zero. You are spouting nonsense. Btw broken link
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:26
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 00:43

So it's possible for 1+1=3? How? That's what you are saying. And it is impossible to divide by zero. You are spouting nonsense. Btw broken link


Yes, And the link is not broken.



As I was pointed, 2% not only mean you have his probability from 100 try, but also, from 100 people, there are 2 which will fail into the chance.

From 100 people soothed at the head, ~5 of them will survive.

If you are soothed in the head, you have 5% chance of survive.

And yeah, I am still waiting for you to answer: Is the whole world wrong when using the word "impossible" ?????????????????????

(Just ignoring tunder's reply for avoid feeding up the trolls. Just one saying everybody else is wrong. 99.9999~9% of world population vs 0.0000~1% of world population. Congratulation! Now you fit in the category of "I am god, so I can go against the humanity".)
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:32
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 06:26

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 00:43

So it's possible for 1+1=3? How? That's what you are saying. And it is impossible to divide by zero. You are spouting nonsense. Btw broken link


Yes, And the link is not broken.



As I was pointed, 2% not only mean you have his probability from 100 try, but also, from 100 people, there are 2 which will fail into the chance.

From 100 people soothed at the head, ~5 of them will survive.

If you are soothed in the head, you have 5% chance of survive.

And yeah, I am still waiting for you to answer: Is the whole world wrong when using the word "impossible" ?????????????????????

(Just ignoring tunder's reply for avoid feeding up the trolls. Just one saying everybody else is wrong. 99.9999~9% of world population vs 0.0000~1% of world population. Congratulation! Now you fit in the category of "I am god, so I can go against the humanity".)
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/guess8.html

Your English sucks so badly that you don't know that the website is supposed to prove the proof wrong. Step 8 has a fallacy.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:38
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:32

Your English sucks so badly that you don't know that the website is supposed to prove the proof wrong. Step 8 has a fallacy.


Reason of fallacy? Yeah, the same one I said: You cannot divide between zero.

Learn 2 read.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:44
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 06:38

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:32

Your English sucks so badly that you don't know that the website is supposed to prove the proof wrong. Step 8 has a fallacy.


Reason of fallacy? Yeah, the same one I said: You cannot divide between zero.

Learn 2 read.
Which means 1=/=2
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:49
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:44

Which means 1=/=2


Sure, but back in 650th this was possible.

Because exactly someones discovered the possibility. And because this, the division between zero was categorized as no-sense.

And you cannot guarantee us that in the future nobody else will find another possibility, can you?

Therefore, you are wrong when saying impossible at 100% .
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 06:52
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 06:49

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:44

Which means 1=/=2


Sure, but back in 650th this was possible.

Because exactly someones discovered the possibility. And because this, the division between zero was categorized as no-sense.

And you cannot guarantee us that in the future nobody else will find another possibility, can you?

Therefore, you are wrong when saying impossible at 100% .
650th? 650 bc you mean?

And in math it is impossible for equations, expressions and inequalities to change. ever. Saying 1 cookie is in fact 2 cookies is wrong.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 07:03
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:52


650th? 650 bc you mean?

And in math it is impossible for equations, expressions and inequalities to change. ever. Saying 1 cookie is in fact 2 cookies is wrong.


Yeah, my bad. I was mean to 650 b.c.

What about i (imaginary number) ? This number was made because the impossibility of get an exponent for a real number.

Yeah, another impossibility made truth.

Is there something impossible for the math in his own area? Nice categorization. Just some years ago all we knew about i (imaginary number) was:


i^2 = -1


And from this conclusion comes i^1, i^10000, etc.

BUT GUESS WHAT: JUST SOME YEARS AGO, WE DISCOVERED HOW TO GET i^i !!!!! How if this number was put arbitrary for avoid breaking the mathematical rules? Well search it for google. And for your own surprise, IT IS A REAL NUMBER!!!!

This is how something impossible break's off. Now if you follow that possibility, it will be possible.

Now returning: I didn't really understand your comparison. We are talking about their argument for classify division between zero as absurd, aren't we? You cannot simply say 1 does not equal to 2. Even though it sounds retard, the method for earn this result is still there. Yet I didn't see this addressed in your reply.

Still waiting as well for you to say: All the dictionary in the world are wrong for classify one of the definitions of impossible as "extremely hard" ?
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 07:09
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 07:03

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 06:52


650th? 650 bc you mean?

And in math it is impossible for equations, expressions and inequalities to change. ever. Saying 1 cookie is in fact 2 cookies is wrong.


Yeah, my bad. I was mean to 650 b.c.

What about i (imaginary number) ? This number was made because the impossibility of get an exponent for a real number.

Yeah, another impossibility made truth.

Is there something impossible for the math in his own area? Nice categorization. Just some years ago all we knew about i (imaginary number) was:


i^2 = -1


And from this conclusion comes i^1, i^10000, etc.

BUT GUESS WHAT: JUST SOME YEARS AGO, WE DISCOVERED HOW TO GET i^i !!!!! How if this number was put arbitrary for avoid breaking the mathematical rules? Well search it for google. And for your own surprise, IT IS A REAL NUMBER!!!!

This is how something impossible break's off. Now if you follow that possibility, it will be possible.

Now returning: I didn't really understand your comparison. We are talking about their argument for classify division between zero as absurd, aren't we? You cannot simply say 1 does not equal to 2. Even though it sounds retard, the method for earn this result is still there. Yet I didn't see this addressed in your reply.

Still waiting as well for you to say: All the dictionary in the world are wrong for classify one of the definitions of impossible as "extremely hard" ?
But it's a fucking imaginary number. It doesn't exist. And I never said that i^i is impossible, I only said that 1 = 2 will never happen.

You posted a link that supported me, shows your intelligence or that you're a troll.

The fact that people never knew that i^i is a real number meant they were wrong. Saying otherwise is like saying the world was flat until somone in history made it round.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 07:10
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 07:09

But it's a fucking imaginary number. It doesn't exist. And I never said that i^i is impossible, I only said that 1 = 2 will never happen.

You posted a link that supported me, shows your intelligence or that you're a troll.

The fact that people never knew that i^i is a real number meant they were wrong. Saying otherwise is like saying the world was flat until somone in history made it round.


bla so this reply and the fact that you had ignored my claim about the dictionary only gives me this conclusion:

The whole world is wrong.

Is this what you are trying to say?

(Just a clarification so you avoid scarecrowing it next time: I never say you say i^i is impossible, what I said is that the people from the past though it was impossible, since the number does not exist after all.....)
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 07:25
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 07:10

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 07:09

But it's a fucking imaginary number. It doesn't exist. And I never said that i^i is impossible, I only said that 1 = 2 will never happen.

You posted a link that supported me, shows your intelligence or that you're a troll.

The fact that people never knew that i^i is a real number meant they were wrong. Saying otherwise is like saying the world was flat until somone in history made it round.


bla so this reply and the fact that you had ignored my claim about the dictionary only gives me this conclusion:

The whole world is wrong.

Is this what you are trying to say?

(Just a clarification so you avoid scarecrowing it next time: I never say you say i^i is impossible, what I said is that the people from the past though it was impossible, since the number does not exist after all.....)
You ignored me and tunder's counter to the doctionary argument, so it's not scarewcrowing. Also you proved nothing, as my counter destroyed everything you said.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 07:41
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 07:25

You ignored me and tunder's counter to the doctionary argument, so it's not scarewcrowing. Also you proved nothing, as my counter destroyed everything you said.


Please answer:

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 07:10

The whole world is wrong.

Is this what you are trying to say?


My definition of wrong is mean to the majority of it, not 100%.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 08:44
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 07:41

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 07:25

You ignored me and tunder's counter to the doctionary argument, so it's not scarewcrowing. Also you proved nothing, as my counter destroyed everything you said.


Please answer:

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 07:10

The whole world is wrong.

Is this what you are trying to say?


My definition of wrong is mean to the majority of it, not 100%.
No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 09:00
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 09:22
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Thats a charged question, and a fallacy.

You are ignoring the fact that the main definition of impossible is something that will never or can't happen.
Other definitions are there, because people misused the word impossible so much, that:
impossible = improbable. become acceptable.
But improbable =/= impossible

In other words, the meaning of the word changed over time, due to people confusing the word impossible with improbable (either due to exaggeration, ignorance, or because it sounds better).

Impossible may mean improbable
Improbable can't mean impossible
But: literary impossible =/= improbable

This is like the word gay meaning happy, and being hijacked over time to become a slur.

Non-native speakers have trouble with this, so i don't expect you to understand.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 09:24
Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 09:31
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.







Found a better pic
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 09:57
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:14
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 09:57

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot


Is that a yes or not?
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:19
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:14

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 09:57

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot


Is that a yes or not?
Read what tunder said
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:19
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:14

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 09:57

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot


Is that a yes or not?
Read what tunder said
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:21
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 10:19

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:14

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 09:57

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot


Is that a yes or not?
Read what tunder said


He say the whole world is wrong and misuse the word "impossible".

Now, What is your reply? Do you think the whole world is wrong too?
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:23
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:21

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 10:19

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:14

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 09:57

نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:24

Ignoring tunder's word manipulation.

Black Shark, please answer yes or not.


نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 09:00

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 08:44

No I'm not saying that. And I doubt Tunder does.


Several dictionaries catalogate one of the definition of the word "Impossible" as "Extremely hard". And the dictionaries are accepted by the major part of the world's population.

Is the whole world wrong, for accept this definition? Answer yes or no.

Tunder hit right at the spot


Is that a yes or not?
Read what tunder said


He say the whole world is wrong and misuse the word "impossible".

Now, What is your reply? Do you think the whole world is wrong too?
Yeah, a lot of people exaggerate or use the word incorrectly.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:28
نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 10:23

Yeah, a lot of people exaggerate or use the word incorrectly.


Good then. Everybody choose how to fail I guess.

GL with that logic.
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
15.11.2014 - 10:29
Black Shark
اکانت حذف شد
نوشتع شده توسط clovis1122, 15.11.2014 at 10:28

نوشتع شده توسط Guest, 15.11.2014 at 10:23

Yeah, a lot of people exaggerate or use the word incorrectly.


Good then. Everybody choose how to fail I guess.

GL with that logic.
Says the person who thinks that 1=2
بارگیری...
بارگیری...
  • 1
  • 2
atWar
About Us
Contact

حریم خصوصی | شرایط و قوانین | بنرها | Partners

Copyright © 2024 atWar. All rights reserved.

به ما بپیوندید در
گسترش این کلمه