Glowsquid post statements from wikis that amuses him

http://houseofthedead.wikia.com/wiki/Harry_Harris

[quote author=The Harry fandom ain't giving in your bullshit, Sega]Harry has been so seriously considered to be the Mystery Man that die hard fans of the series have sent emails harassing Sega to reveal him in the next game and actually make him the mystery man if he already isn't. [/quote]
 
http://acecombat.wikia.com/wiki/Ouroboros

[quote author=brb, shitting my pants]Strangely, Ouroboros could be seen also as sponsors in some tennis courts in Namco's game "Roland Garros 2005", like also General Resources, Neucom and UPEO, giving a frightening shadow to the game. [/quote]

http://armoredcore.wikia.com/wiki/Recover_Capsules

I can not stress this part enough: when you get to the capsule, make sure you are ABSOLUTELY still when you press you blade button, or you will destroy the capsule with your blade and fail the mission after going through about half an hour of random clangs and what sounds like a young Japanese boy speaking the same 3 phrases over and over again in a random order.
Click to expand...
 
http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Bubble_Bass

During the time out of business, Spongebob was very shocked and his life was messed up, like what drugs would do to you.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you mess up a Krabby Patty.
 
Speaking of Bubble Bass,
Timeline
•After "Help Wanted"
•Day 1:
•3:57 p.m.: Bubble Bass leaves the Krusty Krab
•7:55 p.m.: SpongeBob goes to bed
•11:40 p.m. SpongeBob sleeps with his head over the bed
•Day 2:
•12:40 a.m.: SpongeBob stands on his second mattress
•8:00 a.m.: SpongeBob wakes up
•Day 3:
•SpongeBob picks up a bun
•Day 4
•Day 5:
•SpongeBob thinks he can't make a Krabby Patty
•3:05 p.m.: SpongeBob gives Bubble Bass a Krabby Patty.



Timecards



none

•It is revealed that Krusty Krab has a "Money Back Guarantee" written on the Galley Grub, only with a literally microscopic font size, probably so they don't notice it and nobody gets their money back, with the exception of Bubble Bass.
•When Bubble Bass is examining the first Krabby Patty SpongeBob serves him and shuffles all the ingredients, each is individually visible. The pickles are, indeed missing.
•When SpongeBob talks to Mr. Krabs, he speaks in improper grammar, then later, he spoke with perfect grammar.
•Bubble Bass is voiced by Dee Bradley Baker but did not get credited for this episode.
•Before SpongeBob makes the second Krabby Patty, he looks at his reflection in the spatula. In all other episodes his spatula has slits, but here it is solid.
•This episode and "Help Wanted" are the only two that show SpongeBob's bed is on the right side of his room.
•Despite the fact the Mr. Krabs is terrible at making Krabby Patties, he actually knows the ingredients and if necessary, has the secret formula.
•In this episode, SpongeBob says the ingredients of the Krabby Patty, although he does not mention the secret ingredient. In "Plankton!," SpongeBob also lists the parts of the patty. One theory behind this is that the secret sauce is an ingredient in the secret patty batter, which makes the patties. This is further supported in Friend or Foe.
•When SpongeBob regains his knowledge of making Krabby Patties, the order of his ingredients is switched around. For example, at the beginning of the episode, he had ketchup and mustard immediately following the patty, but when he unknowingly makes a Krabby Patty correctly in front of Mr. Krabs, the ketchup and mustard are more towards the top.
•It is unknown why Mr. Krabs printed "Money Back Guarantee" in microscopic print on the menu. It is probably because it is illegal to not give refunds, so he wrote it that small so he could keep the money, and avoid being arrested.
•The way SpongeBob messed up the order of ingredients is this: ◦Bun, ketchup, mustard.
◦Bun, mustard, ketchup, lettuce, mustard.
◦Bun, mustard, bun.
◦Bun, mustard, bun, ketchup.
◦Bun, mustard, bun, ketchup, shoe, mustard, pan, bun

•When SpongeBob asks where his house is, Mr. Krabs points north, even though that way leads to the Chum Bucket.
•The line from this episode, "He burnt my shake!", has became a popular Internet meme.
•When SpongeBob is leaving the Krusty Krab after Mr. Krabs shows him the door, he says "Sorry about that, Mr. Krabs. This pickle thing has got my head all messed up." However, his mouth movements don't match up when he says "messed." Instead, SpongeBob was actually supposed to say "screwed up". The original line was most likely removed for being slightly inappropriate, even though Mr. Krabs said "And don't screw this one up." in "Culture Shock."
•When Mr. Krabs says "We got Squidward!" the cash register sound is heard, along with Squidward's hand near the register, but there is no customer. However, it is possible he was trying to steal the money from the register, or he was checking to see how much money was in there.
•This is the first appearance of Bubble Bass. He later appears in "F.U.N.," "Fools in April," and "Plankton's Good Eye." He also appears in the 2008 "Nicktoons" crossover video game, Globs of Doom.
•When Mr. Krabs goes to SpongeBob's house to visit him, the current background music is heard playing reversed or in a different way. Most likely this was to reference SpongeBob's actions after he forgot how to make a Krabby Patty, how he also forgot how to use words in a sentence correctly, and also how his house was "decorated".
•This is the first time SpongeBob calls Mr. Krabs cheap. The next time will be in "Can You Spare a Dime?."
•Glitter appears on the title card. Glitter is also used in the title card for "Sleepy Time" and "Imitation Krabs".
•In Poland version in ending of the episode customer said "Boo! Squidward stink!" instead of "Boo! You stink!"
•The order for SpongeBob while trying to got bed was that he said "Mattress, SpongeBob, Mattress, Sheet, and Pillow, he was close but the real order was Mattress, Mattress, Pillow, SpongeBob, and Sheet.
•In the Latin American version of this episode, SpongeBob mentions "Crab" while preparing the Krabby Patty.

Cultural References
•The 'stare off' between Bubble Bass and SpongeBob is an obvious reference to the 1966 Italian film 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly'.

Errors
•Closed captions misspell "Bubble Bass" as "Bubble Bath".
•When SpongeBob is going back to the Krusty Krab, he is wearing his hat. When he looks into the spatula, it is gone. It reappears in all other scenes.
•When SpongeBob looks into the spatula, the spatula has no holes through it. However in the rest of the scene his spatula does have holes through it.
•When SpongeBob is trying to remember how to get into bed, he says "Mattress, mattress", but he has 3 mattresses.
•When SpongeBob says "I'm right here Bubble Bass", SpongeBob's footsteps can be heard, even though he does not take any steps at all.
•When Suzie says "And there's my car keys!" after SpongeBob shows the bottom of Bubble Bass's tongue, there are no car keys visible.
•When the fish said, "BOO, you stink!" to Squidward, SpongeBob gave 4 cheers instead of 3.
•When SpongeBob says "roar", closed caption says, "right". It was fixed in the DVD version of SpongeBob SquarePants: Sea Stories. The next paragraph is the same thing.
•When Bubble Bass says "Afraid not", captions says "Free".
•After the fish gasp and the whole school of fish is zooming up, at the bottom center-left a fish is sitting at a table.
•When Mr. Krabs first unrolls the blue mat of Krabby Patty ingredients, the ketchup bottle is significantly smaller than the mustard. After the passage of several days, it is equal to the mustard in size.
•When SpongeBob said, "I got it!", the onions were replaced with cheese, and in the next scene the cheese was replaced with onions.
•When Mr. Krabs says "SpongeBob" when he goes to his home, his white undershirt is missing.
•When Bubble Bass says, "You lose" John doesn't have a mouth.
•In this episode, on the Galley Grub, Krabby Patty is incorrectly spelled out as "Krabby Pattie."
•When SpongeBob confronts Bubble Bass at the end of the episode, the Krusty Krab has no tables.
•When Bubble Bass runs from the Krusty Krab at the end of the episode, he is panting. However his mouth is not open.
•SpongeBob says he can't make a Double Krabby Patty with the works, but only one patty is used.
•When SpongeBob says, "Bun down, shoe, mustard, pan, bun, noooo!", captions say, "Bun down, shoe, mustard, pan, oh, no."
 
That "reception" section is something else

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waluigi

Since his debut, Waluigi has received mixed reception from fans and critics alike.
Click to expand...
 
"Black holes are theoretical entities popularized by pseudoscience despite their implausibility and lack of ever being directly observed."

"A black hole is a theoretical prediction of the theory of relativity. It is impossible to prove that a black hole does not exist, and thus it fails the falsifiability requirement of science."
Actually this is not true. first off, the simplest explination of a black hole is an object so dense its escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. This density is known as the schrawtzshield radius (the spelling may be a bit off)This means there is mathematical proof. If this was not the case there would be no black holes Also, if black holes didnt exist we would never see objects being pulled into nothingness, or massive event horizons, which we do in fact see. --BenO 18:05, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Have you really seen these events that you describe? Don't believe everything that liberals tell you, as we've just seen with climategate.
Your point about "mathematical proof" doesn't provide physical proof of anything.--Andy Schlafly 18:40, 12 December 2009 (EST)
this formula rs=2gm/c^2 where: rs is the Schwarzschild radius; G is the gravitational constant; m is the mass of the gravitating object; c is the speed of light in vacuum.
gives clear mathimatical proof of the idea for black holes. if this were not the case and the mathematics did not back it up, the concept of a black hole would be fallsified. There for it is scientific because it is fallsifiable--BenO 19:03, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Ben, maybe you could insert this equation in the article when we're talking about the Schwarzchild solution to Einstein's equations? I think your explanation of the math could significantly help the article there.
Yes, the math proves that black holes are possible, if you accept general relativity (which I do, but Andy doesn't; let's please not talk about that here...). Whether they actually do exist is another question: I think they do; Andy thinks they don't; neither of us has actual proof of one. (Even a recent SciAm article said the observations could be explained otherwise.) I think you're talking about their being mathematically possible, Andy's talking about how we don't have proof one actually exists, and we actually agree on much more than we seem to. --EvanW 19:10, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Actually in science we cannot prove with 100% certainty that anything does not exist, you cannot prove a negative. This opening sentence needs to be rewritten first for that reason, also for the fact that black holes have been indirectly observed via Accretion disks, gas jets, gravity lensing, radiation emissions, and other orbits of other stellar bodies. Also there is no other valid explanation in science for the aforementioned effects of a black hole that we observe. --BMcP 17:00, 1 July 2009 (EST)
No, that's the point- to be scientific, something has to be able to be proven wrong. That is a major part of the scientific method. For example, God is not a scientific concept, because you cannot disprove God. But to be science, one of the criterion is that the idea be able to be disproven.
Falsifiability is not the only criterion for whether something is scientific, so perhaps black holes are not unscientific. But that opening is pretty much accurate. AddisonDM 17:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Black holes are falsifiable as a theory, because the observations generally accepted as caused by black holes could be causes something else, however there is no alternative theory at present to explain the phenomenon. However you cannot prove that a black hole could never exist just as you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist. God is not a scientific theory not because it is impossible to absolutely disprove God (impossible to prove that God could never possibly exist) but because the supernatural cannot be shown to exist through science, which deals only with the natural universe, if you could present a theory God existed in science, that god would no longer be supernatural by definition.
Honestly I don't understand the objection to black holes, there is no conservative reason for it. --BMcP 19:04, 1 July 2009 (EST)
The existence of black holes is not falsifiable. Surely you agree with that. Black holes cannot be observed either. Addison explained the flaw well above, but you seem intent on sticking with your beliefs. Believe what you like, but black holes do not satisfy any sensible definition of science.--Andy Schlafly 20:37, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
The possible existence of anything is not falsifiable, black holes, quarks, gods, even godzilla, only theories are falsifiable, such as the theory that explain what black holes are and how they work. The present theories of black holes are falsifiable, but so far no one has successfully debunked them, or offer an alternate scientific theory for the phenomenon attributed to the effects and properties of black holes. We cannot observe an isolated quark directly, but we accept that theory.
However I cannot change one's mind, that is fine, I made my objections known, I am not going to step on people's toes by attempting to change the page, I just believe it is scientifically incorrect in it's proclamation and could stand to be improved for a better article. I have said what I believe needed to be said and will end my part here, anyone feel free to respond with the last word or contact me privately. --BMcP 21:07, 1 July 2009 (EST)
Thank you for your interest. Note that atoms have actually been observed (in refutation of what you said above, "you cannot prove atoms, or anything, could never exist". I don't think the article will be changed though. Black holes are sort of on the fence between observable, testable physics, and "theoretical" physics, e.g. string theory. There are a million sources where you can get the standard overview of black holes. Why not have a different view here? Wikipedia does not even mention the issue of falsifiability, so we are doing a service to the scientific method by at least bringing it up- even if you think the article's conclusion is wrong. AddisonDM 21:23, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
In addition to Addison's comments, note that some theories are falsifiable (such as Newton's theory of gravity), while other theories are not falsifiable, such as the theory that black holes must exist or string theory. And when a theory is not falsifiable, it is not science. If BMcP proposes an alternative definition of science, then let's hear it, but I doubt he'll do better than Karl Popper in making falsifiability part of the definition.--Andy Schlafly 21:45, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
Guys, this is becoming quite the argument; however, it is unnecessary because the idea that black holes exist is falsifiable. If NASA sends probes out to nearby black holes (which would take a long time, but it's possible), and they all turn out to be ancient Spartans in spaceships or whatever, then scientists will conclude that black holes don't exist and start working on how Spartans came to be in space and why they have accretion disks, etc. So black holes are falsifiable, and this argument is a source of unnecessary tension. BlueMoon 12:55, 8 July 2009 (EDT)
I don't get this non-falsifiable argument. If we see light from a star, then it is not a black hole. Any claim that it is a black hole is then falsified. Black hole theory says that a star becomes a black hole whenever its mass goes inside its Schwarzschild radius, it becomes a black hole. So if we ever find a star that emits light and has its mass inside its Schwarzschild radius, then the theory is falsified. RSchlafly 10:32, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
The problem with that argument is that we live light years away, so what we could be seeing at one moment could be just the beginning before the light is swallowed into the black hole. --ChrisZ 11:01, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
No, we can observe the radius, mass, and light all at the same time. RSchlafly 12:07, 28 July 2009 (EDT)
Should we change the article then, seeing how there's no rebuttal to RSchlafly's post regarding the falsifiability of the black hole theory? ATang 11:03, 6 August 2009 (EDT)
RSchlafly is absolutely right, as far as anything a graduate student could say might "validate" the statements of an actual PhD. But an additional argument: it wouldn't even be necessary to use astronomical observations to invalidate the theory of black holes. A large enough super collider - perhaps the LHC, perhaps a more powerful device - could discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other currently-unknown mechanism, which might offer a potentially infinite resistance to collapse, or, pressure so great at certain densities that an impossibly large amount of matter would be necessary to form a black hole.
I'm not going to remove this material yet, since I see Andy put it there, but I hope Mr. Schlafly will read this page and reconsider. JacobB 14:46, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
There are some untestable statements that are commonly made about black holes. One might even argue that statements about the interior of a black hole are unfalsifiable, because we cannot see the inside. But black hole theory does have a lot of observable consequences, so I think that the article is misleading. RSchlafly 10:12, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
How might one falsify the basic assertion about black holes: that black holes exist such that light cannot escape? Every time one observes light escaping, he simply concludes that it is not a black hole.--Andy Schlafly 11:31, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Mr. Schlafly, you're absolutely right that the general claim, "There are mysterious regions of space from which light cannot escape" is an unverifiable claim. Black holes don't refer to this statement - they refer to the specific statement, "It is possible to concentrate a certain amount of mass, so that the gravity of that mass prevents light from escaping." This could be falsified by experiments in particle accelerators (possibly the LHC, I'm not familiar enough with it to know) which could demonstrate that such concentration of matter is impossible - that degeneracy pressures, currently unknown, prevent such it. This would falsify the claim that black holes exist. JacobB 11:52, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
I have an open mind about this, but fail to see how an inability to generate a black hole using a generator would falsify the existence of black holes in outer space. Most likely those who believe in black holes would simply say that higher and higher energies or densities are needed to generate it in particle accelerators.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
You're right that failure to create a microscopic black hole in a lab wouldn't falsify the idea that they can form. What I'm claiming is that research which aims, not to create microscopic black holes, but to gain more insight into the forces that govern the behavior of sub atomic particles, might unearth evidence that would refute black holes.
Here's how: right now, the theory on black hole formation states that as matter accumulates, first electron degeneracy pressure is overcome (that is, the structure of the matter in question would be not atoms side by side, but atomic nuclei side by side with no electrons in between), then the nuclear degeneracy pressure is overcome, that is, one would not longer have nuclei side by side, but neutrons and protons side by side (a neutron star), and then finally, this neutron degeneracy pressure is overcome and the matter becomes so dense it is contained by its own Schwarzchild radius and becomes a black hole.
It is entirely plausible that a particle accelerator of sufficient power could concentrate matter to overcome the neutron degeneracy pressure only to discover a quark degeneracy pressure, or some other force. It is also possible that this new force would require SO MUCH matter to be overcome, as to be unphysical (for example, it might take more matter than is currently believed to exist to overcome the pressure). If this pressure was to prevent matter from being denser than the Schwarzschild limit, then the claim that black holes exist would be forever disproven and falsified. JacobB 12:43, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
Additional note: As RSchlafly points out, there are many claims about black holes which ARE unfalsifiable, currently - as he points out, claims about the interior of the event horizon are not falsifiable. Similarly, predictions regarding their presence in certain locations are not falsifiable by any means we yet possess. The same criticism could be leveled at my above description of an experiment in nuclear-density matter. JacobB 12:56, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
We cannot determine what is happening in the "interior" (inside the event horizon) but that doesn't make a black hole itself not falsifiable. We are not sure what the interior of a neutron star is at all, but I think everyone here agrees they do exist. Also just because you cannot visually see something (such as a black hole, where light cannot escape from inside the event horizon) doesn't mean it isn't there or falsifiable. Most astronomical study of space is not in the visual spectrum, and there are many ways to determine the existence of a black hole. I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes. Also, as pointed out before, if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) but has not, that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them. For example, if we found an object the same mass of our Sun, and was smaller then its Schwarzschild radius of around 3 km (the Schwarzschild radius for an object of that mass) and it did not collapse into a black hole, then the theory of Black Holes would be proven false. --BMcP 08:14, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
I hate to disagree with BMcP, because we share the same goal here (getting the non-falsifiability statement removed from the article), but there was a lot of bad science in that response and we should have an argument based in facts and truth.
I also must point out, there has been no alternative hypotheses to explain the gravitational effects we presently attribute to black holes.
That's not entirely true. In my previous posts, I mentioned that discovering a sufficiently powerful quark degeneracy pressure could disprove the existence of "black holes." Objects which are prevent from gravitational collapse by quark degeneracy pressure, "quark stars," could explain a good deal of phenomenon currently attributed to black holes could be very adequately explained by such phenomenon - extraordinary x-ray sources, quasars, all these rely on on the affects of a large amount of mass concentrated in a small space, not necessarily a Schwarschild radius. Which brings me to
if we are able to find an object of sufficient mass within the Schwarzschild radius, which normally would continue to collapse into a gravitational singularity (Black Hole) but has not, that would disprove the theory of Black holes right there, or in other words falsify them."
Any object which is completely contained in a Schwarzschild radius is automatically a black hole, regardless of whether or not it has collapsed into a singularity or not. Furthermore, since the gravitation field exterior to the schwarzschild radius would be the same regardless of where the mass inside was a singularity or not, so there would be no way to tell.
I still think the best argument for falsifiability is the experiment I presented earlier into quark degeneracy pressure. JacobB 12:18, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
I was not aware of a hypothesis that offers a possibility of quark degeneracy pressure that would be powerful enough to resist the effects of gravity even if the mass would normally be large enough to collapse into a black hole. I agree if such pressure existed it would disprove our current theories of black hole formation.
You are right, it doesn't have to be a singularity, although that is what current theories suggest happens, that gravity continues to collapse the matter inside the event horizon to the point of a singularity.[1] However that does not have to be true for the mass to collapse within the Schwarzschild radius to be a black hole, just that their is sufficient gravity to force particles within the horizon to be deformed in their path so they cannot leave. It is just theorized at the center of a black hole is the singularity[2]. That being said, it expected that a theory of quantum gravity will feature black holes without singularities.[3] [4]. It isn't important either way, what is important is the question, are black holes falsifiable? I think you and others have already offered examples of yes. --BMcP 13:23, 12 August 2009 (EDT)
 
Shoutmon said:
best new conservative words is also cute. the sheer number of "words" on the list that have nothing to do with conservatism is amazing. it's full of things like "a.m.", "harmless error", and "pejorative". they typically have some bizarre justification for the supposed conservatism of these words, like "worldview" being explaned as "a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system". other times they don't even bother explaining how their words are conservative, as with "vet", whose only comment is "a verb meaning to screen for flaws"

when you combine it with new liberal terms it gets even funnier. apparently "atheist" is a liberal term, but "atheistic" is conservative
Click to expand...

anything on conservapedia is complete bullcrap though

this ascafly guy (better known as assfly) is a crackheard

Worse yet, their administration is terrible

RationalWiki does a good job mocking them

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia
 
Stuff like conservapedia is actually poisonous. It's one thing to believe in a different political spectrum, it's another thing to totally distort facts and make up lies the way conservapedia is doing
 
Shoutmon said:
its aschlafly, actually. he's the son of phyllis schlafly, the noted female hater of all women

believe me, i know more than enough about conservapedia already. it's horrifying to think that that man has been entrusted with the education of children
Click to expand...
I especially don't like how the wiki is indoctrinating children and polarizes bigots' beliefs about evil liberals and atheists (I admit, I'm both, liberal by U.S. definition). Heck, I'd probably be banned the moment I sign up there (not that I want to) just because my username has liberal implications ("lefty"). It makes me sad how atheists are viewed here, even less trustworthy than Muslims.
 
Maᴙio said:
It makes me sad how atheists are viewed here, even less trustworthy than Muslims.
Click to expand...

Not that Muslims are untrustworthy in the first place. Right?
 
Baby Luigi said:
Maᴙio said:
It makes me sad how atheists are viewed here, even less trustworthy than Muslims.
Click to expand...

Not that Muslims are untrustworthy in the first place. Right?
Click to expand...
I know, but based on recent events and fairly common fears, you'd think more Americans consider Muslims to be less trustworthy than atheists... but they aren't.
 
wow i looked up rational wiki and i totally didn't hate everything i saw

i need to get my conservatism back up, guys

i'm slippin
 
could be troll but

0HgHBLH.png
 
"Think twice about using Bob-ombs in airport tracks!"

This concludes this TVTropes Public Service Announcement.
 
Maᴙio said:
Baby Luigi said:
Maᴙio said:
It makes me sad how atheists are viewed here, even less trustworthy than Muslims.
Click to expand...

Not that Muslims are untrustworthy in the first place. Right?
Click to expand...
I know, but based on recent events and fairly common fears, you'd think more Americans consider Muslims to be less trustworthy than atheists... but they aren't.
Click to expand...
Look, I know next to nothing about the US or the way its people interact with each other, but it seems like you're generalizing. As a general consensus, all Muslims being considered more highly than all Atheists seems rather odd. You'd think that there would be at least a few people who'd be able to rationally judge someone regardless of what their religious belief is, nor make any broad statements that are used to describe the entire religion, no?
 
Time Turner said:
Maᴙio said:
Baby Luigi said:
Maᴙio said:
It makes me sad how atheists are viewed here, even less trustworthy than Muslims.
Click to expand...

Not that Muslims are untrustworthy in the first place. Right?
Click to expand...
I know, but based on recent events and fairly common fears, you'd think more Americans consider Muslims to be less trustworthy than atheists... but they aren't.
Click to expand...
Look, I know next to nothing about the US or the way its people interact with each other, but it seems like you're generalizing. As a general consensus, all Muslims being considered more highly than all Atheists seems rather odd. You'd think that there would be at least a few people who'd be able to rationally judge someone regardless of what their religious belief is, nor make any broad statements that are used to describe the entire religion, no?
Click to expand...
I am generalizing. I took it from this poll.

Doctor Walter Bishop said:
wow i looked up rational wiki and i totally didn't hate everything i saw

i need to get my conservatism back up, guys

i'm slippin
Click to expand...
Don't get into a political debate.

You were THIS close, man.
 
http://gfaqssb.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Luigi_Being_Squirted_In_The_Eye_By_A_Blooper_While_Riding_a_Biddybuggy

what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
 
Baby Luigi said:
http://gfaqssb.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Luigi_Being_Squirted_In_The_Eye_By_A_Blooper_While_Riding_a_Biddybuggy

what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Click to expand...
Poor tyke got assassinated :'(

At least it's in the category "Why The Hell Did I Make This"
 
Baby Luigi said:
http://gfaqssb.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Luigi_Being_Squirted_In_The_Eye_By_A_Blooper_While_Riding_a_Biddybuggy

what the fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
Click to expand...
Young Luigi Being Squirted In The Eye By A Blooper While Riding a Biddybuggy broke ground early in the gaming world in the game Pong, his initial appearance. Originally players were under the impression that Young Luigi Being Squirted In The Eye By A Blooper While Riding a Biddybuggy was a female, as even the instruction manual states this. However, completing Pong under a month revealed Young Luigi Being Squirted In The Eye By A Blooper While Riding a Biddybuggy to be a young athletic child and squid and babby car.
Click to expand...
 
http://imgur.com/Od5kp
 
http://poohadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Revenge_of_the_Deceptitrains

Revenge_of_the_Deceptitrains.jpg


Revenge of the Deceptitrains is the last movie in Brian Griffin's Adventures Chronicles.
Click to expand...

I really don't know.
 
The Team Rocket Motto Song said:
Jessie: (spoken) Greetings, Littlefoot, whale trainer, and dinosaur pipsqueaks, and you bunch of twerps.

Ash: What?!

Kyle and Cartman: What?!

Kenny: (muffled) What?

Genie: (drops his jaw shockingly)

Donald: WHAT?!

Zazu: WHAT?!

Littlefoot: You again!

James: (spoken) Pump it up to the max.

Jessie and James: (sung) You know us as Team Rocket and we fight for what is wrong. We're tired of our motto, so we thought we try a song.

Jessie: Jessie

James: James

Jessie and James: The speed of light, prepare to fight!

Meowth: Meowth! That's right!

James: I am the handsome one.

Jessie: I'm the gorgeous one.

Jessie and James: Looking good, there's lots of fun, we get some things wrong, but we keep rolling along.

Jessie, James, and Meowth: We're gonna capture Littlefoot, we hope to do it soon, and when we do, we'll be the new stars of this...cartoon!
Click to expand...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tread_Marks

Dawwwww! said:
You are in control of an artificially intelligent tank, that along with its fellow AI tanks, has decided to abandon its human masters and just go have some fun.
Click to expand...

(As opposed to a naturally intelligent tank, I presume?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Command_%28video_game%29

Plot

In some unknown time in the future, armies of tanks battle for supremacy as the Ultra War rages between the two dominant races in the New World.
Click to expand...
 
Villains Wiki - The Beldam said:
The Beldam (aka: The Other Mother) is the main antagonist of the novel Coraline and its film adaptation. She lives in the Other World, where she waits for children to come find her. She pretends to be just a button-eyed version of the child's mom. She sends out dolls to watch the children and get to know them and their neighbors. Then she makes ragdoll like copies of them called the "Others". It's all a trap, so she can sew buttons over their eyes and eat their lives. One girl, Coraline, escapes, saves her three previous victims and her parents, throws a cat at her face, and destroys her hand.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back