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.

(Some Guy)   CNN says it's way too early to say if LGBT volunteer's carrying Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon into conservative group's headquarters is politically motivated   (jammiewf.com) divider line 368
    More: Fail, Family Research Council, CNN, LGBT, Research Council, deadly weapon, volunteers  
•       •       •

6491 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 01:14:33 PM

Mr.Tangent: Dimensio: Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

I believe that was the American Family Association.


I think that was the one. Or one of the many hate groups with "Family" somewhere in their name.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:55 PM

LabGrrl: Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.


Mr.Tangent is correct. AFA-not AFC. At this point we should just call them something something alleged family something.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:02 PM

Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.


Prove your dissembling? Prove that the fundies who...well, fund efforts to criminalize homosexuality happen to hate homosexuals? Prove what?

Hiding behind literal definitions in spite of the spirit and intention of the words is dissembling. There, proven.

I don't need to prove the other, because we see it here on Fark every day. Hell, I see it in my In Box every morning when my fundie relatives wake up. Take your pick from any number of threads and sources. Do you want me to prove the Sun is hot or that the sky is blue?
 
2012-08-16 01:15:11 PM

meanmutton: CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks

Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


Timothy McVeigh.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:49 PM

BigNumber12: Ker_Thwap: You're right, burn in hell is just silly. Hell is a figment of the imagination. It's like saying I hope you get impaled by a unicorn in our space.


I thought that international treaties prevented our claiming any of it for ourselves?! If that's not true,

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!


Hee hee. Sadly, I typo'd outer space. But let's go with your interpretation, it's more fun.
 
2012-08-16 01:15:53 PM

JustGetItRight: Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.

he's just crazy. Our various disagreements are not affected. Abortion's wrongfulness is not alleviated when some monster bombs a clinic. Gabby Giffords doesn't become right about politics when some monster shoots her. The Gay marriage movement shouldn't be ashamed of some nutjob.

This should be obvious, and I hope the right doesn't make hay out of this psycho. But I also hope the left doesn't make hay when it has the chance. It's annoying as hell.

You're wasting your breath. Neither side of the political spectrum can grasp the concept that crazy people do crazy things.


It kinda pisses me off that even something as simplistic as the left-right political spectrum has been simplified even more so that it's not even a spectrum anymore, just two sides.
 
2012-08-16 01:16:14 PM

LabGrrl: That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids


i1105.photobucket.com
fark the AFA!
 
2012-08-16 01:16:59 PM

LasersHurt: Yes, the LGBT community is so well known for their angry, hateful rhetoric inciting violence. duh.


You did not go to a small northeastern liberal arts college, did you. I didn't think so.
 
2012-08-16 01:17:56 PM

IvanTheSilent:

Timothy McVeigh.

They'll say McVeigh wasn't really a conservative. (No, really, I've seen it.)

I've also seen them say Eric Rudolph didn't claim to be a Christian.

...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?
 
2012-08-16 01:18:42 PM
LabGrrl: Dimensio:
Did not the Family Research Council also explicitly advocate kidnapping children raised by same-sex couples?

That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids.


I cannot even be within close proximity of children without experiencing severe anxiety. Prolonged exposure may potentially cause me to experience a nervous breakdown. Any fear that I am a danger to children for any reason is unfounded and irrational, however I have always observed opponents of civil liberties for non-heterosexuals to be irrational and dishonest.

Perhaps the organization has confused pedophobia with pedophilia.
 
2012-08-16 01:19:29 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: LasersHurt: ... They actually say that they do not support equal rights for homosexuals. That's not a subtle inference.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about....

It's easier to sell "I support traditional marriage" than it is to convince people to deny basic rights to a class of people just because you disagree with them. Just because groups like FRC don't say it in exactly those words doesn't mean that they don't explicitly oppose gay marriage.


This is a conversation between LasersHurt and I that you probably haven't read all of, or else you'd know that wasn't my point. Even if it were, I think it's fair to say that at least some gay marriage opponents aren't just opponents of gay marriage, but also actual proponents of what they think of as real marriage. Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization, but in fact has always done far more to promote good parenting and to strengthen what it considers real marriages than it has to oppose gay marriage. The same is true of WinShape, the Chik-fil-a charity. Dan Cathy's comment that he was concerned that God was going to punish America or whatever for what it's done to marriage, have been widely interpreted as a knock against gay marriage specifically, but if you listen to what he says in the two or three minutes leading up to it, it's pretty clear that he's talking about deteriorating attitudes about marriage in general, which in his mind includes, but is not limited to, growing acceptance of gay marriage. If you're interested, I can send you a few links to things written by gay marriage opponents which make it clear that they believe that gay marriage is mostly a symptom of rotten cultural attitudes about marriage, and that we can't afford to limit our focus only to it. I honestly don't know that much about the FRC, so I can't say for certain that they really don't mean only that they oppose gay marriage when they talk about traditional marriage (or, indeed, whether they use the term "traditional marriage"), but I do know that advocacy of "traditional marriage" is not simply opposition to "gay marriage" in many other cases.
 
2012-08-16 01:19:29 PM

Mr.Tangent: LabGrrl: That was the AFC. FRC is the one who said the gays are going to rape your kids

[i1105.photobucket.com image 435x244]
fark the AFA!


They used to be the Family Americia Association. Splitters!
 
2012-08-16 01:19:32 PM

Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.


So... how should I vote?
 
2012-08-16 01:23:34 PM
Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.
 
2012-08-16 01:29:44 PM

Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...


Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.
 
2012-08-16 01:30:36 PM

LabGrrl: ...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?


Apples and oranges! How can you compare the children of Christ to evil Muslins?
 
2012-08-16 01:31:02 PM
BigNumber12 SmartestFunniest 2012-08-16 01:19:32 PM


Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.

So... how should I vote?
 



Don't vote. Stay home and jerk off. At least something will be accomplished.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:00 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that


So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.
 
2012-08-16 01:33:59 PM

Voiceofreason01: Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that


www.toplessrobot.com

What a biatch.
 
2012-08-16 01:37:06 PM

Mr.Tangent: LabGrrl: ...Can I Guiliani the thread and point out that you don't get much more pro-god, anti-gay and right wing than the 9-11 hijackers?

Apples and oranges! How can you compare the children of Christ to evil Muslins?


I can never tell the difference between Christians and Muslins and the Juice. One plays football, right?
 
2012-08-16 01:38:08 PM

BigNumber12: Ker_Thwap: I'm not trying to debate the issue at hand. I'm just pointing out that both sides use hateful speech.

So... how should I vote?


Darts? I tend to vote based on a huge pile of factors. I very rarely let a single issue decide for me. So often the person being elected doesn't even have it in their power to greatly influence that single issue that they're campaigning on. If a politician fixates on any one issue, I just assume they're trying to rock the naive vote. I still mock my liberal friends who elected Obama with the understanding he'd end all war and give them each a bunny.
I also mock conservative friends just to be fair.
 
2012-08-16 01:38:30 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.


Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."
 
2012-08-16 01:39:21 PM

Ker_Thwap: Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.


Funny. I never said you said any of those things. Notice the names next to the quotes? It's an illustration of what the LGBT community has said and the FRC has said, more or less. Not you.

(What you just did is strawman: misrepresent what I was saying and attack that misrepresentation.)

If you'd re-read, I illustrate from where the hatespeech emanates. I know it's comfy to call yourself a moderate so you can appear above it all, or seem like the level-headed one and can we all just calm down cuz I understand both sides and you're just talking past each other-- but at some point, even moderates have to call a spade a spade.

The FRC is a farking shiatnozzle of hate that pretties its steaming bigotry-covered felch plate of self-righteousness up with biblical garnish.

Care for a slice?
 
2012-08-16 01:39:32 PM

BigNumber12: vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:

1) Correct use of an apostrophe
2) Outing a number of wannabe grammar Nazis who should probably brush up before attempting to cast stones

Really? Well I guess the apostrophe in "it's" is correct. Please explain how the apostrophe in "volunteer's" is used correctly.


Possession. The carrying belongs to the volunteer.

Point #3 under "Double nature of the gerund"


OK I'll concede that it's probably grammatically correct, but wouldn't it be more clear if the "'s" was dropped completely? "...LGBT volunteer carrying..."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

/But not wrong in spirit.
//No probably just wrong.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:07 PM

meanmutton: CommieTaoist: So it's only relevant to point out links when someone idiot on the left does it yet how dare anyone mention such links when the idiot is a tea bagger, right?

/your blog sucks

Can you please point out when there was a politically motivated attack perpetuated by someone who was politically active in conservative politics?


Sure, since you asked... Link

Incidentally, this took me 30 seconds on google - between that and the time it takes to read the article, you could become a somewhat more informed citizen in under ten minutes. Might be worth your time.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:11 PM

dukwbutter: fluffy2097: dukwbutter: Actually, you know nothing about guns and almost all 9mm's are "automatics". This means "semi-automatic". One trigger pull = 1 round fired = "automatic". The more you know, libtards.

lol.

I'm not even a gun person and I know you are wrong.

A manual gun has to be cocked each time you want to pull the trigger. A pump shotgun would be an example of this. Another example would be a bolt action rifle.

A semi-automatic gun ejects the spent shell casing and loads another round into the chamber, as well as cocking the weapon, allowing a shot to be fired every single time you pull the trigger without the shooter having to do anything else. Example, a 1911. a Glock 9mm, Desert Eagle

A fully automatic weapon is basically the same as an semi-automatic weapon but is designed to allow the weapon to cycle and fire rounds as long as the trigger is pulled. Since this is generally wasteful due to recoil pushing you off target, Automatic weapons frequently have a selector allowing you to use them in Semi automatic fire, fully automatic, and possibly a 3 round burst. Example: M16.

Fully automatic weapons are really hard to get ahold of legally unless you want to join the army and use an M16. Need a lot of permits and permission slips.

Some semi-automatic weapons can be modified to fire fully automatically, but it's highly illegal. I imagine a lot of semi-automatic weapons aren't able to withstand that kind of force without breaking down too

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Fully automatic weapons are very easy to get, proving you have no idea what you're talking about. All you need is a class III firearms permit. People do, in fact, routinely refer to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics", and, if you knew anything about guns (aside from what you read on the intertubes), then you'd know this.


And now a bit of education...

1. No one uses the term "manual gun" though I know what you are getting at...weapons that require the user to do something to load another round into the chamber. This includes pump action, lever action, bolt action. Rate of fire on such weapons can be nearly but not quite as fast as a semi-auto.

2. Revolvers can be single action or double action. They are almost exclusive handguns, but in the past they could also be shotguns or rifles. In a single-action revolver, the hammer is manually cocked, usually with the thumb of the firing or supporting hand. This action advances the cylinder to the next round and locks the cylinder in place with the chamber aligned with the barrel. The trigger, when pulled, releases the hammer, which fires the round in the chamber. To fire again, the hammer must be manually cocked again. Single action revolvers could be modified so that they could be "fanned out", firing rapidly, but not as rapidly as a semi-auto. In double-action, the stroke of the trigger pull generates three actions: (1) the hammer is pulled back to the cocked position (2) while the cylinder is being indexed to the next round, and then (3) the hammer is released to strike the firing pin. Thus double action means that a cocking action separate from the trigger pull is unnecessary; and every trigger pull will result in a complete cycle. Double action revolvers can be modified to be "fanned out" like a single action revolver, but they are already effectively semi-automatic.

3. A semi-automatic firearms fires a round with each pull of the trigger--that is also its effective rate of fire. An AR-15 is not capable of firing at the same effective rate of fire as an Army M-16A3, contrary to media reports. Semiautomatic rifles made to resemble the AK-47 are not a true AK-47s, contrary to Barrack Obama. They may or may not have a detachable magazine. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles can be semi-automatic.

4. Selective fire weapons can be fired on semiautomatic or automatic. Once primed, an automatic weapon will continue to expel spent rounds, chamber fresh rounds, and fire so long as the trigger is held down. Because of the recoil involved with selective fire weapons, they usually appear only as rifles, carbines, or submachine guns (essentially carbine-like weapons that fire pistol ammo used for close combat). Armies around the world issued selective fire weapons to their combat troops starting in World War II, though they were available before that time (the Thompson submachine gun being the most famous). Many army now issue selective fire weapons that fire semiautomatic or in burst mode. Burst mode automatically fires a fixed amount of ammunition so long as the trigger is held down. All selective fire weapons are magazine fed or less commonly, belt fed. US law prevents the ownership of selective fire weapons except to those who have special (and very expensive) permits.

5. Automatic weapons are weapons that are used primarily for firing in automatic mode, though some are actually selective fire weapons. They are usually operated by a crew that consists of a gunner and an ammo bearer who helps reload the weapon. Some machine guns require larger crews as the loading process and maintenance of the weapons is fairly labor intensive. Automatic weapons are with a few exceptions found exclusively in the hands of military units. Yes, it is possible for a civilian in the US to purchase a .50 cal machine gun, a typical crew-served automatic weapon. Expect to have a "working relationship" with the local BATF office--by that I mean bend over, spread cheeks, it makes the microscope go in easier. It is not easy to obtain one, they are very expensive, forget getting brand new, and only dedicated collectors even try.

6. Referring to semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns as "automatics" - I've heard the term used for semi-auto pistols, but never for rifles or shotguns.

7. "Machine gun" - A heavy, crew served automatic fire weapon. By popular lore and Hollywood, any military style weapon capable of automatic fire or giving the appearance of being capable of automatic fire.

8. "Street sweepers" - These are shotguns that are selective fire weapons. Illegal in the US for a civilian to own one. Actually shotguns are subject to other restrictions as well, such as barrel length, that rifles are not.
 
2012-08-16 01:42:14 PM
Oh, Ker-thwap, I never said you supported the FRC, either.
 
2012-08-16 01:43:23 PM

vogonity: BigNumber12: vogonity: BigNumber12: Subby gets major points for:
."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

FIlterpnwd. Nice.

 
2012-08-16 01:44:13 PM

Ker_Thwap: I very rarely let a single issue decide for me.



That's pretty farking unAmerican of you. If your favorite party, your favorite issue, and the candidate with the greatest "feel-good" factor don't align for you, just stay home and play video games on Election Day.
 
2012-08-16 01:44:35 PM

Rostin: So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.


The assertion that Dan Cathy is only worried about the integrity of marriage in general when he's giving considerable sums of money to organizations that explicitly and solely oppose gay marriage seems to be a little disengenous to me.

/also: why would you think that people giving money to an organization that exists to end legal barriers to abortion have a problem with people getting abortions?
 
2012-08-16 01:46:30 PM

Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.

Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."


So they're not bigots, they just want to limit the rights of people they don't agree with? I don't see how that's better.
 
2012-08-16 01:47:14 PM

jodaveki: Ker_Thwap: Again Jodeveki,

Let's not build a straw man and put words in my mouth. I never said I supported one side of the other. You are arguing with yourself.

Someone said they were offended by the hate speech of "burn in hell." I pointed out that both sides often have said nasty things, both left and right. I did not specify FRC or the LGBT. That was all you. I'm a moderate, I have no horse in this race. Stop trying to make it seem like I'm supporting the FRC, it's tacky.

Funny. I never said you said any of those things. Notice the names next to the quotes? It's an illustration of what the LGBT community has said and the FRC has said, more or less. Not you.

(What you just did is strawman: misrepresent what I was saying and attack that misrepresentation.)

If you'd re-read, I illustrate from where the hatespeech emanates. I know it's comfy to call yourself a moderate so you can appear above it all, or seem like the level-headed one and can we all just calm down cuz I understand both sides and you're just talking past each other-- but at some point, even moderates have to call a spade a spade.

The FRC is a farking shiatnozzle of hate that pretties its steaming bigotry-covered felch plate of self-righteousness up with biblical garnish.

Care for a slice?


As it turns out I have some really solid opinions, on the FRC. I just haven't shared them with you. I'm mostly just anti-hypocrite. As I stated in my very Boobies in this thread. I get cut off by impatient aholes with both Jesus Fish and Coexist bumper stickers.

Time for the semi productive portion of my day, I'm off, take care!
 
2012-08-16 01:47:30 PM

Kuroshin: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Prove your dissembling?


Yes, that.

Stop trying to be clever and tell me specifically what you think I said that was dissembling and intellectually dishonest, and why you think so. I'm not interested in trying to guess what you meant based on the poorly constructed rhetorical questions and vague accusations you make in your response.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:11 PM

Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Focus on the Family is only known by many people as an "anti-gay" organization...

Focus on the Family has made explicitly anti-gay and anti-gay marriage comments and Dan Cathy donates money to groups(like the National Organization for Marriage) that explicitly oppose gay marriage. You're being pretty dishonest in your interpretation here.

Read more carefully. I didn't say that Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy haven't opposed gay marriage. I just said that their advocacy of "traditional" marriage isn't limited to or identical to that opposition. In other words, their claimed support for "traditional" marriage isn't just careful marketing. They actually do support marriage, and they appear to view their opposition to gay marriage in that light, rather than as being simply "anti-gay."

So they're not bigots, they just want to limit the rights of people they don't agree with? I don't see how that's better.


You are either trolling, incapable of coherent thought, or too lazy to read what was said before you entered the conversation. Whichever it is, you are welcome to have the last word, if you want it.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:18 PM

Rostin: Voiceofreason01: Rostin: Kuroshin: That right there? That's a prime example of dissembling. Kudos on your intellectual dishonesty.

Prove it.

Cathy has given millions of dollars to organizations that explicitly oppose Gay marriage....so there is that

So? If that demonstrates that Cathy opposes equal rights for gay people or (worse yet) that he hates or irrationally fears gay people, then it also shows that it's fair to call donors to NARAL accomplices in the murder of babies. My point, which I think you perhaps missed if you read only the latest comment in the conversation that LasersHurt and I have been having, is that calling Dan Cathy a "bigot," etc, is not intended to convey objective, neutral information, but to dehumanize him by ignoring his real motivations and beliefs in favor of different ones that are intended to stir up animosity toward him.


As an outside observer, I get what your saying. You're making sense - these groups stand for a lot more than "anti-gay".

Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.

/sorry, couldn't resist.
 
2012-08-16 01:50:44 PM
How the heck does "Boobies" turn into Boobies? Is Fark just screwing with me?

Now I'm really off, really, maybe.
 
2012-08-16 01:53:55 PM

Mikey1969: BuckTurgidson: Mikey1969:Edward Rooney Dean of Students: Dimensio: Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

Weird...Whar button? WHAR?!

This has got to be a browser of cookies issue. I had some problems with the quote button working yesterday, but I am having no problems now. Maybe something related to people's AdBlock or privacy settings, who knows? Personally, the new change is working perfectly for me.

There's also something b0rken in the user preferences page, seeing "print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_reload_on_post'); print_boolean_pref(viewer = context.viewer, objfield_name = 'pref_html_tool') %] " in a few places.

That's working fine for me also. Weird... Sorry guys, wish I could pass on my 'magic secret' on this, I think I just got lucky, that's all.


Seems to be fixed now. One of the broken parts was the checkbox for Show HTML assistant tool and Reply buttons when posting comments (requires Javascript), which could help explain what was going on.
 
2012-08-16 01:54:59 PM
hey guys, is this thread where i share my outrage about Chic-Fil-A's hate chicken? or about how violent the anti-gay bigots are?

no? just gunna have a thread about figuring out the difference between automatic and semi-automatic guns?? and how to locate the quote button?

has anyone complained about the quality of the blog being linked, who cares if it's true or not? let's stay on topic here!
 
2012-08-16 01:54:59 PM

vogonity: OK I'll concede that it's probably grammatically correct, but wouldn't it be more clear if the "'s" was dropped completely? "...LGBT volunteer carrying..."

But I have to admit that this is my Boobiesrophe Nazi that is probably at least technically wrong.

/But not wrong in spirit.
//No probably just wrong.



English is a biatch of a language. I don't envy those who have to learn it as a second.
 
2012-08-16 01:59:01 PM

Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.



See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.
 
2012-08-16 02:00:27 PM

Ker_Thwap: How the heck does "Boobies" turn into Boobies? Is Fark just screwing with me?

Now I'm really off, really, maybe.


I'm thinking fark is censoring the words Boobies here? If you look at other popular news forums, they are filled with commenters rushing out and declaring "Boobies", even when they're not the Boobies. Generally, forums filled with people rushing out to declare "Boobies" are dominated by idiots and not worth your time. So, Drew has made it so that anyone who says "Boobies" on fark is really saying: Boobies. I guess the fark filter is just overly sensitive and makes Boobies apprear as Boobies no matter where those words appear in the thread and/or message.

/boobies
 
2012-08-16 02:01:38 PM

meanmutton: Roughing The Snapper: The volunteer's what?

The volunteer is carrying.

Contractions, how the fark do they work? Oh, this will tell you! Contractions (Grammar) - English


No, in this case, the meaning of the sentence is "the carrying of the Chick-Fil-a bag and automatic weapon by the volunteer". Perfectly correct English.
 
2012-08-16 02:04:46 PM

BigNumber12: Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.


See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.


For the record, my iPhone did that. Blame Apple; I know how to. Odds fly - er, lets try this again iPhone.

I know hoe to correctly pluralize and use possessives. I can even use "there, their, and they're" correctly! (and I usually do)

/still have a little trouble with who and whom though
 
2012-08-16 02:06:15 PM

Elegy: BigNumber12: Elegy: Course, the Nazi's stood for a lot more than "anti-Jew" too.


See, vogonity: most people are still stuck on simple rules of pluralization.

For the record, my iPhone did that. Blame Apple; I know how to. Odds fly - er, lets try this again iPhone.

I know hoe to correctly pluralize and use possessives. I can even use "there, their, and they're" correctly! (and I usually do)

/still have a little trouble with who and whom though


facepalm.jpg

/imma go work now, k?
//sometimes I suck at life
 
2012-08-16 02:08:46 PM

Biness: nutbags are nutbags. Was it politically motivated? yep. so right wing has nuts. left wing has nuts. the only real constant is that CNN sucks and must serve their high overlord, liberals


This is the response when a leftie does something bad. When a rightie does something bad suddenly it is THESE PEOPLE ARE ONLY ON ONE SIDE HERPA DURRRRR
 
2012-08-16 02:11:14 PM

Dimensio: Englebert Slaptyback: Dimensio

I am still attempting to locate the "quote" button.


Seriously?

It's that little square button next to the date. The button has quotation marks on it for some reason.


[members.iglou.com image 659x170]

Evidently I am of below average intelligence. Perhaps you could highlight the specific location of the "little square button next to the date".

 

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-16 02:11:33 PM

Arcanum: I'm pretty conservative. Most here would think I'm very conservative.

It's annoying as all hell when some nutjob is associated with a conservative movement.

It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say this nutjob is associated with the gay marriage movement.


So when he goes to volunteer there they turn him away for being crazy, right? No? They let him stay? Then he is part of the movement.

Has the LGTBLMNOP hate group denounced him yet?
 
2012-08-16 02:11:35 PM

Highroller48: Fish in a Barrel: Highroller48: I can't agree here. The term has become bastardized by misuse when it comes to handuns. That doesn't mean it's correct to call a semi weapon "automatic".

It hasn't been bastardized. It's just an archaic usage from back when auto-loaders were the new hotness. A 1911 would have been commonly called a .45 automatic, for instance. It hasn't been relevant for the better part of a century, but that doesn't make it wrong. Still, it's so rarely used (and generally only in a context that makes it a clear reference to loading) that it's safe to assume that's not what subby intended.

Fair enough. I don't like it, but a few minutes of Googling shows that even some manufacturers refer to semi-automatic handguns as automatics. I think that, with the invention of fully-automatic weapons, it's archaic as folks have said, but it's definitely still in use.

But damn it, it's gonna bug me....


The ACP in .45ACP literally means "Automatic Colt Pistol". Back in the army we used to refer to fully-automatic (multiple squirts for one trigger pull) or semi-automatic (one squirt per trigger pull. Obviously you understand the distinction, I'm just pointing out the difference for those that may not...); but both are automatic fire modes. Prior to the invention of fire selectors that enabled a single firearm to utilize either fire mode, the distinction was mostly irrelevant.
 
2012-08-16 02:12:46 PM

odinsposse: Maybe he was just doing that moral exchange thing people were talking about. You know, you eat at Chik-Fil-a and then donate money to a pro-gay group. He just decided to shoot up some anti-gay people instead.

Also, can anyone think of another instance of an angry crazy liberal shooting up anything? This may be the first time.


Uh, off the top of my head, Lee Harvey Oswald?
 
2012-08-16 02:14:49 PM

Highroller48: zedster: I doubt he had a legally obtained 9mm automatic handgun, not too many of those.

I'm always amazed at how few peopole konw the dirfference between "Semi-Automatic" and "Automatic".

It's very simple, folks...If more than one bullet comes out when you squeeze the trigger once (a la Robocop), only then is it an "automatic".


Well... If I made cookies with semi-sweet chocolate chips or sweet chocolate chips, could you tell the difference?

Maybe CNN just needs to get back in the kitchen.
 
Displayed 50 of 368 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report