Ghost's inability to not be a dyke.

Having never been stung by either, I could not possibly comment from experience. However, the Schmidt Sting Pain Index puts bumblebees and common wasps at 2.0 and European honey bees slightly higher at 2.x.

Do the barbs really make a difference? They're smaller than our nerves can possibly distinguish. I understand that they only get caught in the elastic skin of vertebrates and improve the effectiveness against other bees, which they can sting as many times as they like.

Yes well, the barbs add to the pain a little because they are trying to rip a little thorn like thing out of your finger or whatever repeatedly, and failing, so this tugging gets more frantic. And the schmidt sting pain index isn't very good, especially since everyone appreciates being stung differently. For example I can't feel it when I get stung by one of my bees for more than a minute but being stung by a wasp is far more painful to me, furthermore bumble bees are supposedly more painful at stinging because the chemicals that the stinger puts into you are more potent. So I am aware any way.

You know how they make snake antivenom? The venom is diluted and injected into horses, goats etc until their immune response produces appropriate antibodies. These are extracted from the blood.

It's probably the same thing with you. Get stung often? Doing the same to a person regularly does not appear to keep sufficient antibodies in the blood to effectively handle an actual snakebite, but probably enough for bees.

Enough about bees.

God damn bees!

http://i.imgur.com/0FK98.jpg
the Bee Gees

And yes, these guys should go in Room 102.

DON'T BRING UP BEES AGAIN I BEG PEOPLE

Reguarding the Bee Gees picture, the man on the right reminds me of this person.
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...80_554544a.jpg

Only took me three stings though, I must have a natural immunity. It's not impossible.

Like i already said, dont say stuff ike that; theyre already in! They speak for themselves.

Wow I can't decipher what that means and I've read it five times.

Why not put in sickness though? I mean sure it might remove things like autistics who are savant but it's worth it to remove the whole like cancers and stuff. Hell I could start smoking again without the worry of getting ill. (Yep I managed it, two months not a puff)

Stuff like that are already in, they are obvious.

Even if it's an obvious choice, it's still a valid one. And if someone wishes to discuss this particular thing, they can. You created this thread but you don't own it.

Anyway, I think Autism is considered a disability and not a sickness, and maybe room 102 is very specific.

I wonder what sort of butterfly effect we'd cause if we got rid of sickness forever.

It is.

Well I would throw all disability in there as well, if I could, just because of some of the disabilities of seen, some of them even in my not to estranged family, are really quite terrible, and it's not just losing a leg, (although that's not to suggest that isn't a valid disability), but it's things like the improper growth of the brain and spine, things like that.

I like the one where the heart forms outside the chest, put that one in.

Ugh, that's nasty. It would be fantastic if room 101 was real...but it would be really dangerous.

Room 101 was real!

EDIT: FUCK THIS POST I DIDN'T ENGAGE MY BRAIN AGAIN DIIIIIEE

http://www.oddworldforums.net/attach...1&d=1261317187

If there were no disability everyone would be identical, perfect humans.

Implying disability == deviation.

Wrong.

No, not really, is having a lower IQ than someone else for example a disability?

EDIT: MoxCo not WoF

Only if it's, you know, disabling.

Well then I'd want to get rid of it, if the IQ was like...12.

IQ does not completely define a human being. You could be the nicest, kindest person in the world and still have a low IQ.

Like Lenny.

i have a low IQ.













just throwing that out there.

Yeah, IQ tests are bollocks.

I mean look at me, I have an IQ of 136.

that's high.

fuck you.

IQs are an outmoded system anyway. These days psychologists are much more likely to use the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, which produces percentile scores (i.e. a percentage rank compared to the rest of the population) for verbal skills, working memory, visual perception skills and brain processing speed.


For what it's worth, I scored above average on all of them but the brain processing speed, where I was smack bang in the middle of the population. Which explains a lot about me.

You do say variations of "oh, now I understand" a lot.

I don't follow.

give it a few minutes.

WHAT's THE NAME OF THAT SONG? GUYS I HEAR A SONG.

WHERE THE FUCK IS THAT COMING FROM

FUCK YOU GUYS! DON'T ADD NO INTO IT.

Edit, Oh, 'NO' is in recognise the game.

Then how would you define disabling? Relative to someone superior to you in a certain field you would indeed be disabled at performing at their level.

Lucky bastard. I was told my working memory was significantly lower than the average person's.

I think that there's a distinction made between a physical problem which inhibits development and simple lack of development. It's the difference between a mentally retarded person and just a plain dumb person.

If it inhibits your ability to live a normal average life it is disabling.

The average IQ should be 100, therefore any IQ significantly under that is disabling.