Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Oatmeal)   The Oatmeal wins the entire farking internet   (theoatmeal.com ) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

30638 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2012 at 8:24 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



227 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-10 09:15:50 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: Yes it is his own money he had lying around in the bank. He said on a previous blog post that he wasn't going to take a pic of the actual charity money since Carreon was being a major douchebag about it.


Ah, gotcha. Looks like I got all grouchy for no good reason
 
2012-07-10 09:16:24 AM  
Wonder if that douche lawyer will take this in stride or is Oatmeal is gonna just cause a new shiat storm.
 
2012-07-10 09:19:16 AM  
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
First World Problem?
 
2012-07-10 09:43:07 AM  

shivashakti: mantidor: yeah I still don't get it, there was a lawsuit, it was dropped, and this guy gets to act like a douche, ironically calling some other guy a douche?

Well at least charity will get some money, hopefully a decent one.

Here...there's a Wikipedia entry for the incident: Link


Oh, man...it gets better. This lawyer's more fully spun than a meth head with a CB radio.
 
2012-07-10 11:11:41 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Marcus Aurelius: The My Little Pony Killer: You're welcome for that headline, Subby.

I bet it was a Brony.

Those meddling bronies. Always with the meddling.


College Humor has you covered
 
2012-07-10 12:03:58 PM  
I know what I'd do with that money.
www.dailyrumpypumpy.com
 
2012-07-10 12:44:03 PM  

Baloo Uriza: shivashakti: mantidor: yeah I still don't get it, there was a lawsuit, it was dropped, and this guy gets to act like a douche, ironically calling some other guy a douche?

Well at least charity will get some money, hopefully a decent one.

Here...there's a Wikipedia entry for the incident: Link

Oh, man...it gets better. This lawyer's more fully spun than a meth head with a CB radio.


Carreon seems to be the very definition of a cocksicle that doesn't know when to stop digging. I can't imagine he'll still be a lawyer when this is all said and done with, and from last week forward it will just be him shooting himself in the foot over and over and over.
 
2012-07-10 01:00:51 PM  

MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]


2/5 of two chicks?
 
2012-07-10 01:09:13 PM  

Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?


That's not even a whole chick!
 
2012-07-10 01:17:24 PM  

vodka: I wonder what the tax is on that. He damn well better account for it before donating it away. There are IRS limits and such plus I'm not sure about the rules of collecting it in the first place.


There are all kinds of issues, actually. He might claim that these payments to him are nontaxable gifts, though I doubt that wins the day if he had to make a specific promise to get the money. A better argument in his favor would be that he's really serving as a conduit for the funds, meaning he neither recognizes income nor is entitled to the deduction (and the donors are entitled to the deductions for their respective amounts, although their lack of acknowledgments from the charities will be a problem). Or perhaps the IRS can just agree not to be douchebags about it despite the technical merits, they way they have done with baseball fans who catch valuable home run balls and then give them back.
 
2012-07-10 02:36:05 PM  
Know the backstory

That is ****ing awesome

Hats off

/shoulda made a middle finger out of the money, too
 
2012-07-10 02:38:51 PM  

tgambitg: Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?

That's not even a whole chick!


That and they don't have proper representation.
 
2012-07-10 03:01:50 PM  

Super Chronic: Or perhaps the IRS can just agree not to be douchebags about it


WAT?
 
2012-07-10 03:06:00 PM  

tgambitg: Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?

That's not even a whole chick!


Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?


I'd just get the 2/5ths that mattered...Legs, midsection, arms, and talk-box arn't needed.
 
2012-07-10 03:39:26 PM  

MythDragon: tgambitg: Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?

That's not even a whole chick!

Lor M. Ipsum: MythDragon: I know what I'd do with that money.
[www.dailyrumpypumpy.com image 640x337]

2/5 of two chicks?

I'd just get the 2/5ths that mattered...Legs, midsection, arms, and talk-box arn't needed.


Would a ceiling fan be involved?
 
2012-07-10 03:44:01 PM  

Flab: Super Chronic: Or perhaps the IRS can just agree not to be douchebags about it

WAT?


www.multifamilyinvestor.com

I said PERHAPS THE IRS CAN JUST AGREE NOT TO BE DOUCHEBAGS ABOUT IT!

But as I continued to say, what I had in mind was the position they had taken with baseball fans who caught valuable home run balls and given them back. Technically, the IRS had a strong case that any such fan had (1) income when he caught the ball and (2) a gift (triggering gift tax) when he gave the ball back. That would be a really sucky result for someone who was unselfish and was never enriched. But during the 1998 home run chase, the IRS issued a memo stating that they wouldn't look at it that way. I kind of see it the same way here: this guy gets a whole bunch of money that he never intended to keep, and wants to do the right thing, so maybe the IRS just backs off, notwithstanding the technical merits of the case.
 
2012-07-10 03:53:19 PM  

Ishkur: Okay, so a site I've never heard before, raised money for a charity that's not specified, withdrew it in cash and used it to spell things and take pictures to send to, and rub it in the face of, a rival? ....is that the gist?

That's all it takes to win the internet?


This is what I feel like when people start gossiping about their cubicle neighbors or the people down the street. So welcome to being an Aspie. :p

/But luckily, just like when I ask questions, figuring out the backstory takes out the pants-on-head-retarded level of it and makes it at least mildly interesting.
//In this case, actually fairly funny, too.
 
2012-07-10 05:15:35 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: You're welcome for that headline, Subby.


Honestly pure coincidence but I'll buy you a couple of beers next time you're in the SF area. But if you're really bent, I'm sure you can start a fundraiser on IndieGoGo and rack up some cash, apparently it works!

Also, a Brony?! How dare you sir! PISTOLS AT DAWN.

/subby
 
2012-07-10 05:45:30 PM  

Super Chronic: Flab: Super Chronic: Or perhaps the IRS can just agree not to be douchebags about it

WAT?

[www.multifamilyinvestor.com image 300x192]

I said PERHAPS THE IRS CAN JUST AGREE NOT TO BE DOUCHEBAGS ABOUT IT!

But as I continued to say, what I had in mind was the position they had taken with baseball fans who caught valuable home run balls and given them back. Technically, the IRS had a strong case that any such fan had (1) income when he caught the ball and (2) a gift (triggering gift tax) when he gave the ball back. That would be a really sucky result for someone who was unselfish and was never enriched. But during the 1998 home run chase, the IRS issued a memo stating that they wouldn't look at it that way. I kind of see it the same way here: this guy gets a whole bunch of money that he never intended to keep, and wants to do the right thing, so maybe the IRS just backs off, notwithstanding the technical merits of the case.


I'm pretty sure we went over the whole tax situation with indiegogo stuff back when that old bullied bus monitor woman got a shiatload raised for her to going on a vacation, and it was determined that such stuff is not taxable income even if you keep it all yourself, let alone decide to give it all away to charity... It's basically a whole lot of relatively small individual gifts, which all fall below the threshold for gift tax (which would be payable by the giver, not the receiver)... Think of it this way: you have a really, really, really big family, and they all give you $20 each for your birthday; the fact that you end up with a million bucks doesn't matter, and no one gets taxed over it...

/Not an accountant or tax lawyer, though, so don't rely on me...
 
2012-07-10 06:03:16 PM  

RobSeace: Super Chronic: Flab: Super Chronic: Or perhaps the IRS can just agree not to be douchebags about it

WAT?

[www.multifamilyinvestor.com image 300x192]

I said PERHAPS THE IRS CAN JUST AGREE NOT TO BE DOUCHEBAGS ABOUT IT!

But as I continued to say, what I had in mind was the position they had taken with baseball fans who caught valuable home run balls and given them back. Technically, the IRS had a strong case that any such fan had (1) income when he caught the ball and (2) a gift (triggering gift tax) when he gave the ball back. That would be a really sucky result for someone who was unselfish and was never enriched. But during the 1998 home run chase, the IRS issued a memo stating that they wouldn't look at it that way. I kind of see it the same way here: this guy gets a whole bunch of money that he never intended to keep, and wants to do the right thing, so maybe the IRS just backs off, notwithstanding the technical merits of the case.

I'm pretty sure we went over the whole tax situation with indiegogo stuff back when that old bullied bus monitor woman got a shiatload raised for her to going on a vacation, and it was determined that such stuff is not taxable income even if you keep it all yourself, let alone decide to give it all away to charity... It's basically a whole lot of relatively small individual gifts, which all fall below the threshold for gift tax (which would be payable by the giver, not the receiver)... Think of it this way: you have a really, really, really big family, and they all give you $20 each for your birthday; the fact that you end up with a million bucks doesn't matter, and no one gets taxed over it...

/Not an accountant or tax lawyer, though, so don't rely on me...


The potential distinction here -- emphasis on "potential," I'm not sure -- is that this was induced by a specific promise (namely, a promise to give it to charity), which makes it less like a birthday gift or a random gift to a bullied old lady, and more like a quid pro quo (albeit a selfless quid pro quo). But I like your interpretation, and if there are two ways of looking at it, I would hope that the IRS errs on the side of non-douchebaggery.

/tax lawyer
//can't say I've seen this situation before, though
 
2012-07-10 10:02:23 PM  
Surely the Oatmeal isn't going to stop with Carreon and Funnyjunk. Who's their next target?

Jonathan Lee Riches?

Steve Gibson and Righthaven LLC?

Joanne Yoon?

Or...from desertgeek's link: much of what is posted there is other people's work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution.

Can you think of a place that fits that description? Begins with an F, ends with a K? Not Funnyjunk?
 
2012-07-11 01:16:29 AM  

Lor M. Ipsum: That's awesome and all, but I don't like how he's treating those philanthropic funds.

Lots of people know he has that money. He's carrying around more than $200,000 in a duffle bag and arranging it in cute positions in his home. That seems awfully irresponsible. If it was his money, that'd be one thing, but it's not. I hope he had a posse of armed guards while he was pulling these shenanigans.


It actually is his own money. Thanks to the lawsuit, the funds are locked up and he can't touch them. He took out his own money for the picture.

In a related note, I'm apparently in the wrong industry.
 
2012-07-11 01:42:27 AM  

ohknaks: It actually is his own money. Thanks to the lawsuit, the funds are locked up and he can't touch them. He took out his own money for the picture.


You mean, the lawsuit that was dropped before he went to the bank to withdraw that $200,000+ to photograph and give to charity?
 
2012-07-11 09:00:41 AM  

MBooda: Or...from desertgeek's link: much of what is posted there is other people's work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution.

Can you think of a place that fits that description? Begins with an F, ends with a K? Not Funnyjunk?


Are you trying to imply that Fark does anything similar? Because, it doesn't... Fark simply links to articles on other web sites... The site gets full credit, not only by virtue of having to go there to read the article, but also by being named as the source of the link here on Fark... If Fark instead copied articles in full, scrubbed any mention of the original source, and then posted them here in full, claiming to have written the articles themselves, then you'd have a point...
 
2012-07-11 09:39:02 AM  

ohknaks: It actually is his own money. Thanks to the lawsuit, the funds are locked up and he can't touch them. He took out his own money for the picture.

In a related note, I'm apparently in the wrong industry.


Yep, I stand corrected.

Er, wait, this is Fark?

*clears throat, tightens tinfoil hat*

Clearly, this disreputable terrorist is just using his money from other smear campaigns in which he has wreaked havoc and pissed on the names of reputable, honest domains, such as FunnyJunk
 
2012-07-11 11:37:36 AM  

RobSeace: MBooda: Or...from desertgeek's link: much of what is posted there is other people's work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution.

Can you think of a place that fits that description? Begins with an F, ends with a K? Not Funnyjunk?

Are you trying to imply that Fark does anything similar? Because, it doesn't... Fark simply links to articles on other web sites... The site gets full credit, not only by virtue of having to go there to read the article, but also by being named as the source of the link here on Fark... If Fark instead copied articles in full, scrubbed any mention of the original source, and then posted them here in full, claiming to have written the articles themselves, then you'd have a point...


Ah then, provided The Oatmeal recognizes the hairs you split, we can all sleep easily.
 
2012-07-11 12:21:42 PM  

MBooda: RobSeace: MBooda: Or...from desertgeek's link: much of what is posted there is other people's work, scraped and slapped up without permission or attribution.

Can you think of a place that fits that description? Begins with an F, ends with a K? Not Funnyjunk?

Are you trying to imply that Fark does anything similar? Because, it doesn't... Fark simply links to articles on other web sites... The site gets full credit, not only by virtue of having to go there to read the article, but also by being named as the source of the link here on Fark... If Fark instead copied articles in full, scrubbed any mention of the original source, and then posted them here in full, claiming to have written the articles themselves, then you'd have a point...

Ah then, provided The Oatmeal recognizes the hairs you split, we can all sleep easily.


Hairs? That's not a hair, that's a farking full-body wig!

Seriously, what Fark does is like the complete opposite of what FJ does... They literally steal content, rebrand as their own, and provide absolutely no recognition of where it really came from... Fark goes out of their way to credit the original source, and in fact links directly to them, driving their traffic up for them! Any site would love to be linked to on Fark... No one would love to have their content stolen and plagerized on FJ...

Also, you seem to be mistakenly implying that Oatmeal was the agressor here, taking down FJ, when in fact reality is the complete opposite... FJ threated Oatmeal, who told them to fark off... FJ's batshiat insane lawyer took offense to being told to fark off, and sued Oatmeal on his own... Then, finally, he dropped the case... So, what exactly is it you seem to be worried that Oatmeal might do to Fark? Unless Drew decides to baselessly threaten them for some reason, there's probably not much to worry about... I'm unclear what grievances either side would have against the other, in the first place... But, even if the same situation played out, the worst-case scenario seems to be charities making a couple hundred grand, so why should anyone be worried about that happening again, anyway?
 
Displayed 27 of 227 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report