Dubstepforum.com

skimpi wrote:that guy is asian lol wtf

somebody should let him know man, cos those legs defo walked on england's mountains green in ancient times.

Yeah, English legs are horrible. I've got the whitest hairy legs ever.So pasty. Regardless of how much I wear shorts they never stop being far too white.

u man never heard of leg day?

Leg day as in at the gym? That's not the problem. It's the pasty white legs that are shiny despite being covered in hair that I have

ahh fair

tbf im talking when i was like 17/18 anyways

i dont really wear shorts now w/e the weather

and just checked my legs... poor

when did this happen

i could almost guarantee that asian guy took a pic w a different pair of shorts on & they had to photoshop some intern's bottom half wearing those in

there is no way his shins match the rest of his body

skimpi wrote:that guy is asian lol wtf

English is a nationality, not a race. We're subliminally conditioned to have shit legs from an early age... it transcends genetics.



Anyone still not wearing shorts needs to seriously evaluate their life. I'm on my balcony with shorts and no shirt. This Is England. Looking down at my criminally exposed knees desperately clawing an extra molecule of Vitamin D from the setting sun makes me want to break into a verse of Jerusalem.

my legs aint so bad from years or cycling and such but yeah still pasty. Only after 3 months of intense sun from travelling did I break the white legs curse.

i'm so white

you could try and start a new leg sleave tat craze

garethom wrote:

wolf89 wrote:Shorts should not stray very far either side of the knee really. I mean just around the general range.

This is a good principle.

slightly above or half way down the knee

is that you in ur avatar?

shorts expression is free

no rules except for never nudes

people have been posting this article and dead beat pot heads are arguing that its all a lie

http://www.policymic.com/articles/87743 ... -look-good

at the very least, wear shorts that go no lower than youyr knees, any lower is lame (theres a very thin line imo tbh iirc)

if you have good legs then the fashion police will let you wear higher up

ehbrums1 wrote:people have been posting this article and dead beat pot heads are arguing that its all a lie

http://www.policymic.com/articles/87743 ... -look-good

Tbh, I agree in terms of the conclusion.
They don't seem to have established the practical implications regarding the abnormalities, so saying that it's bad doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
Also, there should be more study regrding before/after extended use. Article at least doesn't cover that, so I don't think it's a good grounding to make such a claim on the part of the people defending it (assuming nobody has read the orignial study results). It also doesn't describe the changes very specifically, so there's that too.

Also don't think that's an appropriate position to take as an attempt to keep it criminalized, nothing that is legal for recreational use was put to these trial measures and even in knowing the fact that that stuff is bad hasn't led to the criminalization of them. The most you could say is alcohol, but we all know prohibition had nothing to do with the neuroscience behind alcohol consumption.

Plus, we tamper with those parts of the brain all the time through trivial means like eating, drinking, shitting, and having sex. Who knows what our brains would be like without any of that stuff

Yeah, ehbes, saw some pages on facebook that posted that link. Any positive news about weed, smokers are all over it, regardless of source. Any negative, and regardless of where it come from, it's a joke, it's untrue, it's a conspiracy.

weed defenders are hilarious

But did you guys actually read it?
Like yeah, fuck them for disagreeing with the research, but it's the conclusion in that article that's of questionable merit imo.