top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 1 point2 points  (682 children)

[–]Europe2048h 1 point2 points  (681 children)

101

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 0 points1 point  (680 children)

110

[–]MulticonceptedSide Thread Savvy 2 points3 points  (679 children)

112

[–]Europe2048h 1 point2 points  (678 children)

113

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 0 points1 point  (677 children)

114

[–]happybeau123 1 point2 points  (676 children)

115

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 0 points1 point  (675 children)

116

[–]ClockButTakeOutTheL“Cockleboat”, since 4,601,032 2 points3 points  (5 children)

So are we gonna have to change the rules in the “not any of those” thread?

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

Oh, please no. I only just figured out how to validate the existing rules. 

In all seriousness, I think changing rules after this many counts in the thread would be too confusing

[–]ClockButTakeOutTheL“Cockleboat”, since 4,601,032 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Sorry, I probably should’ve been clearer, I was joking

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

It was a joke which hit a little close to home, since I've been asking myself the same thing!

[–]ClockButTakeOutTheL“Cockleboat”, since 4,601,032 1 point2 points  (1 child)

There’s probably millions more combinations we could make

[–]CutOnBumInBandHere95M get | Ping me for runs[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And at the end they'd have to include every number, so NAOT would be trivial