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.

(Snopes)   Tired of debunking all the urban myths about politicians, get-rich quick schemes, and cancer kids email chain letters, Snopes gets around to investigating something really important: Dracula   (snopes.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Count Dracula, snopes, Bram Stoker, Nosferatu, Mary Shelley  
•       •       •

4471 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Nov 2012 at 11:04 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-01 11:05:32 AM  
Have they debunked monster parties yet? Where's Dr. Retarded on this?
 
2012-11-01 11:08:53 AM  
Abraca-pocus!
 
2012-11-01 11:12:49 AM  
Not sure why this was the first thing that popped into my tiny brain after RTFA....

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-01 11:13:50 AM  
Hello from the future. It's 2079 and the world is still around. There has been a monumental change in.... I can't tell you or it will affect your timeline. Will call in two years......
 
2012-11-01 11:16:42 AM  
I liked the fact that the screenplay for Coppola's adaptation got so many of those elements from the novel (sunlight, the bowie knife, etc.) right. Also, I thought it had the hottest Lucy ever.
 
2012-11-01 11:17:51 AM  
I recently read Bram Stoker's Dracula for the first time, and all I kept thinking is "Thank God these people don't have blogs...".
 
2012-11-01 11:19:05 AM  
There's no such thing as vampires. Werewolves, on the other hand...
 
2012-11-01 11:20:09 AM  
The number of times they mention driving a stake through the heart made me think of this.

Not one of his more adored movies, but I remember laughing so hard I was crying in the theater. Pretty sure I was the only one.
 
2012-11-01 11:20:47 AM  
Did Bram Stoker ever wonder if the sexual symbolism in Dracula was too obscure?
 
2012-11-01 11:21:39 AM  
Fartbama is a vampire. Debunk THAT, Snopes!
 
2012-11-01 11:23:24 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Fartbama is a vampire. Debunk THAT, Snopes!


WHAR DEF CERTIFCAT? WHAR???!!!??
 
2012-11-01 11:23:48 AM  
So the protagonists did not in fact kill Dracula as no decapitation or wood -in-heart occurred. Fabulous.
 
2012-11-01 11:24:30 AM  
I *heart* Dracula. Have since I was a preteen. Got to write an awesome Anthropological research paper on vampire mytholology in other cultures. Really interesting stuff if you're into that kinda thing.
 
2012-11-01 11:30:23 AM  
Hopefully they finally settle the question of whether batman can beat up spiderman.
 
2012-11-01 12:03:01 PM  
The Burning of the Sick and Poor:

Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land. Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviste for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, when Dracula himself made an appearance. "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?" asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm."

twimg0-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-11-01 12:06:21 PM  
I wonder the origins of vampires...

I'm hypothyroid and have to eat the thyroid glands of a pig everyday (in pill form) to survive.
If not for those, I would have to bite the neck out of 1 being a day to eat their thyroids... or die.

My hands are cold nearly 24/7, they feel like they are a dead persons (not that id know).
Many hypothyroid are oversensitive to sunlight... and avoid it.

I also have vitiligo which is connected to hypothyroidism, so ultimately that may turn me into a pale-ass freak.


There are other connections but I can't recall them at the moment...
 
2012-11-01 12:26:22 PM  
How many time did he say

"I vant to dreenk your blood"?
 
2012-11-01 12:34:23 PM  
www.dreadcentral.com

Grandpa. Outside and not bursting in to flames. 

I'll bet the mailman was a real wolf(man).
 
2012-11-01 12:49:11 PM  
What is really funny is that "Dracula" was a real person and did real horrible things and tons of people think he was fictional, while Jesus is fictional, his stories are all make believe, and yet tons of people believe he was real and performed miracles.

/hmmm
 
2012-11-01 01:07:48 PM  

frepnog: while Jesus is fictional, his stories are all make believe

 
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-01 01:14:02 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: frepnog: while Jesus is fictional, his stories are all make believe
 
[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]


if in the year 2012, you STILL really believe that god impregnated a virgin, creating a half-man, half-god human that was capable of miracles, and then had him hung on a cross and resurrected after 3 days and then ascended that man to heaven, then dude, I seriously just don't know what to tell you.

there is no magic in the universe. NONE. it is either ALL real, or NONE of it is.

there are no demons, no angels, no rainbow farting unicorns, no leprechauns, no vampires, no werewolves, and there was no miracle performing Jesus.

Sorry, dude. I wish that was not true. I really do. A world full of magic would be farking AWESOME. But reality is a far different place, and in your heart, deep down in those secret places you don't like to talk about, you know what I say is true, even if you openly deny it.
 
2012-11-01 01:16:22 PM  
I love how people give so much credence to snopes. It is pretty much two old hippies sitting around typing stuff into Google all day because they don't have jobs.

Anyone can start a blog.
 
2012-11-01 01:17:05 PM  

frepnog: there are no demons, no angels, no rainbow farting unicorns, no leprechauns, no vampires, no werewolves, and there was no miracle performing Jesus.

 
imgs.xkcd.com
 
/ you may be completely accurate, but unless proof is provided, it is still opinion.
 
2012-11-01 01:23:30 PM  

frepnog: SuperSeriousMan: frepnog: while Jesus is fictional, his stories are all make believe
 
[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

if in the year 2012, you STILL really believe that god impregnated a virgin, creating a half-man, half-god human that was capable of miracles, and then had him hung on a cross and resurrected after 3 days and then ascended that man to heaven, then dude, I seriously just don't know what to tell you.

there is no magic in the universe. NONE. it is either ALL real, or NONE of it is.

there are no demons, no angels, no rainbow farting unicorns, no leprechauns, no vampires, no werewolves, and there was no miracle performing Jesus.

Sorry, dude. I wish that was not true. I really do. A world full of magic would be farking AWESOME. But reality is a far different place, and in your heart, deep down in those secret places you don't like to talk about, you know what I say is true, even if you openly deny it.


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

While yes it's Wikipedia, it does provide some references.

Also - you're original statement, "Jesus is fictional", is much different than "there was no miracle performing Jesus." I agree with the latter, although I think the consensus is that Jesus himself did exist (or there was a person that inspired the name).
 
2012-11-01 01:27:49 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: frepnog: there are no demons, no angels, no rainbow farting unicorns, no leprechauns, no vampires, no werewolves, and there was no miracle performing Jesus.
 
[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]
 
/ you may be completely accurate, but unless proof is provided, it is still opinion.


if i have to prove that something does not exist, then it seems the greater part of the work is already done. since zero evidence of any of these things has ever in the history of man been shown to exist, then you must prove to me that they DO exist.

i know, absence is not evidence. bullshiat. i can say all day that there is an invisible unicorn living in my basement, and you can't prove that it doesn't exist, but you know damn well in your heart that it doesn't.
 
2012-11-01 01:47:32 PM  

frepnog: since zero evidence of any of these things has ever in the history of man been shown to exist, then you must prove to me that they DO exist.

 
As usual, you miss the point.  The point is simple: you are expressing an opinion and claiming, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that your opinion is fact.
 
Basically, you arrogantly believe that your opinions are more valid than anyone else. That's called hubris, and is intellectually dishonest.  And when challenged to defend your assertion of "fact", instead you attack the questioner.  
 
If you can't prove your thesis, either find new evidence or admit that your opinion is no more or no less valid than anyone elses.
 
2012-11-01 01:51:51 PM  

TheRameres: frepnog: SuperSeriousMan: frepnog: while Jesus is fictional, his stories are all make believe
 
[imgs.xkcd.com image 500x271]

if in the year 2012, you STILL really believe that god impregnated a virgin, creating a half-man, half-god human that was capable of miracles, and then had him hung on a cross and resurrected after 3 days and then ascended that man to heaven, then dude, I seriously just don't know what to tell you.

there is no magic in the universe. NONE. it is either ALL real, or NONE of it is.

there are no demons, no angels, no rainbow farting unicorns, no leprechauns, no vampires, no werewolves, and there was no miracle performing Jesus.

Sorry, dude. I wish that was not true. I really do. A world full of magic would be farking AWESOME. But reality is a far different place, and in your heart, deep down in those secret places you don't like to talk about, you know what I say is true, even if you openly deny it.

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

While yes it's Wikipedia, it does provide some references.

Also - you're original statement, "Jesus is fictional", is much different than "there was no miracle performing Jesus." I agree with the latter, although I think the consensus is that Jesus himself did exist (or there was a person that inspired the name).


if miracle performing Jesus was not real, and he was not, there is no need to prove that there was an actual human being that the myths point to. The point of Jesus being real is that the myth of half god, half man Jesus was real, and really died for humanity's sins. Since there is ZERO magic in the world, much less nonsense like miracles, whether or not a human being that the myths direct back to is irrelevant.

Jesus, as the Christian religion speaks of, did not exist. There is no evidence that such a god-man ever existed. none. zero. zilch. Either way you look at it, the whole thing is a fabrication, whether a human lived or not. Hell, the only thing the "scholars" will even say was "definitely historical" was that he was baptized and crucified, and none of that has ANY first hand record, just stuff written close to a hundred years after it was supposed to have occurred. The only reason there is any scholar that would claim historical Jesus existed is simply because Christianity is far too entrenched in the world and to deny Jesus' existence is to piss off half the planet. So they have good reason to claim "historical Jesus was real".

It is a crock of shiat, no more real than the Greek god myths (of which there are just as many writings, most far older, that could be used to "verify the existence of Zeus"). The difference is that white people claimed Christianity as their own and perpetuated the myth.
 
2012-11-01 02:04:19 PM  

frepnog: if i have to prove that something does not exist, then it seems the greater part of the work is already done. since zero evidence of any of these things has ever in the history of man been shown to exist, then you must prove to me that they DO exist.


There's more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Socrates existed.
 
2012-11-01 02:07:47 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: frepnog: since zero evidence of any of these things has ever in the history of man been shown to exist, then you must prove to me that they DO exist.
 
As usual, you miss the point.  The point is simple: you are expressing an opinion and claiming, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that your opinion is fact.
 
Basically, you arrogantly believe that your opinions are more valid than anyone else. That's called hubris, and is intellectually dishonest.  And when challenged to defend your assertion of "fact", instead you attack the questioner.  
 
If you can't prove your thesis, either find new evidence or admit that your opinion is no more or no less valid than anyone elses.


being intellectually dishonest is to say that magic is real, and that you can't prove it is not.

is is in no way intellectually dishonest for me to say that magic is not real, and there is zero proof of anything otherwise. I know that it is unpopular to say that Jesus was not real. Time will tell. There will never be a Christian "rapture". Christ will never return. And on their face, religions that believe in gods are false. We live in a physical universe, not a magical one. That is just all there is to it.
 
2012-11-01 02:10:35 PM  
Use more words frepnog, that will work!
 
2012-11-01 02:11:12 PM  

JohnCarter: How many time did he say

"I vant to dreenk suck your blood"?


FTFY
 
2012-11-01 02:12:08 PM  

This text is now purple: frepnog: if i have to prove that something does not exist, then it seems the greater part of the work is already done. since zero evidence of any of these things has ever in the history of man been shown to exist, then you must prove to me that they DO exist.

There's more historical evidence that Jesus existed than there is that Socrates existed.


Socrates never did miracles nor claimed to be the son of god, nor does he have an ancient religion co-opted by white people. so who gives a shiat whether he was real or not? Maybe he was a character in a play. Maybe he was, as is likely, just a clever Greek dude that said some interesting stuff. No one ever started a crusade based on Socrates.
 
2012-11-01 02:12:18 PM  

frepnog: Hell, the only thing the "scholars" will even say was "definitely historical" was that he was baptized and crucified, and none of that has ANY first hand record, just stuff written close to a hundred years after it was supposed to have occurred.


This is an objection from a very modern perspective. Records and their archival are far more common today than historically, and even in relatively modern times, long-duration survival of relatively trivial records isn't easy or common.

Would you believe that no photographs exist of the man who invented photography?
 
2012-11-01 02:14:06 PM  

This text is now purple: frepnog: Hell, the only thing the "scholars" will even say was "definitely historical" was that he was baptized and crucified, and none of that has ANY first hand record, just stuff written close to a hundred years after it was supposed to have occurred.

This is an objection from a very modern perspective. Records and their archival are far more common today than historically, and even in relatively modern times, long-duration survival of relatively trivial records isn't easy or common.

Would you believe that no photographs exist of the man who invented photography?


there is probably no pornography of the man that invented that either. what is your point?
 
2012-11-01 02:14:44 PM  

spleek: Use more words frepnog, that will work!


if i could talk common sense into the world, believe me, I would.
 
2012-11-01 02:21:01 PM  

frepnog: Socrates never did miracles nor claimed to be the son of god, nor does he have an ancient religion co-opted by white people. so who gives a shiat whether he was real or not? Maybe he was a character in a play. Maybe he was, as is likely, just a clever Greek dude that said some interesting stuff. No one ever started a crusade based on Socrates.


Then again, maybe not.
 
2012-11-01 02:31:39 PM  

frepnog: Would you believe that no photographs exist of the man who invented photography?

there is probably no pornography of the man that invented that either. what is your point?


Documentation of people who were prominent in their own time is increasingly spotty the further one works back into antiquity, as functions of increased difficulty of writing and copying, simple degradation of materials over time, losses to civil and military strife, and flat out iconoclasm.

Socrates -- commonly cited as the source of Western Philosophy and thought -- is documented by three sources who claimed to know him, but none of whom wrote within his lifetime. Socrates was a central political figure in Athens, the seat of western culture -- perhaps the best place to live for the events of your life to be recorded for history. Their accounts of the man differ wildly and are mutually inconsistent. And yet, there is little modern argument that Socrates is did not exist.

By contrast, Jesus was a non-mainstream rabbi of a minor desert religion with an oral culture operating on the ass end of the Roman empire, during a period of major political upheaval and internal civil war for that empire. Within 100 years, the Romans would attempt to wipe this culture out and attempt to destroy its ephemera. Jesus was already a relatively minor figure, politically, within his own lifetime. It would be generally unexpected for there to be much in the way of contemporary documentation of him, let alone much that would have survived out of the middle east into today.
 
2012-11-01 02:45:26 PM  
Bullseyed: I love how people give so much credence to snopes. It is pretty much two old hippies sitting around typing stuff into Google all day because they don't have jobs.

Anyone can start a blog.



Fixed to match how you sound.
 
2012-11-01 03:29:05 PM  

This text is now purple: frepnog: Would you believe that no photographs exist of the man who invented photography?

there is probably no pornography of the man that invented that either. what is your point?

Documentation of people who were prominent in their own time is increasingly spotty the further one works back into antiquity, as functions of increased difficulty of writing and copying, simple degradation of materials over time, losses to civil and military strife, and flat out iconoclasm.

Socrates -- commonly cited as the source of Western Philosophy and thought -- is documented by three sources who claimed to know him, but none of whom wrote within his lifetime. Socrates was a central political figure in Athens, the seat of western culture -- perhaps the best place to live for the events of your life to be recorded for history. Their accounts of the man differ wildly and are mutually inconsistent. And yet, there is little modern argument that Socrates is did not exist.

By contrast, Jesus was a non-mainstream rabbi of a minor desert religion with an oral culture operating on the ass end of the Roman empire, during a period of major political upheaval and internal civil war for that empire. Within 100 years, the Romans would attempt to wipe this culture out and attempt to destroy its ephemera. Jesus was already a relatively minor figure, politically, within his own lifetime. It would be generally unexpected for there to be much in the way of contemporary documentation of him, let alone much that would have survived out of the middle east into today.


and it is completely outside the realm of possibility that much of the writings about Jesus are fiction, why exactly? Because they are OLD? Or because people WANT it to be true? Man is inventive, and lies written down are called fiction.

or was the Old testament correct and god created the world in 7 days? Or the flood of Noah (which science has TOTALLY debunked) was actually REAL? Or Jonah REALLY got swallowed by a big fish? Is it so hard to believe that those stories are no more real than the events on last week's Walking Dead?

Or do you REALLY believe the drug induced delusions of Revelation will come to pass?
 
2012-11-01 04:06:41 PM  

Bullseyed: I love how people give so much credence to snopes. It is pretty much two old hippies sitting around typing stuff into Google all day because they don't have jobs.


I can't tell whether you are trolling or whether you are merely ignorantly dismissive of things you don't know about, but the older I get, the less I care about the difference.

/I miss AFU. Now there was a community that knew how to dismiss a troll.
 
2012-11-01 04:07:33 PM  

offmymeds: The Burning of the Sick and Poor:

Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land. Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviste for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, when Dracula himself made an appearance. "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?" asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm."


Did we say "Dracula"? We meant Libertarians.
 
2012-11-01 05:47:31 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: As usual, you miss the point. The point is simple: you are expressing an opinion and claiming, without providing any evidence whatsoever, that your opinion is fact.


Holy crap, someone seems to have missed the entire concept of "burden of proof." Time to break out that critical thinking textbook and give it another read.
 
2012-11-01 05:48:56 PM  

Rindred: offmymeds: The Burning of the Sick and Poor:

Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land. Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviste for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, when Dracula himself made an appearance. "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?" asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm."

Did we say "Dracula"? We meant Libertarians.


I didn't really know anybody who called themselves a Libertarian before this election cycle, but now that I know I few, I've learned that a Libertarian is somebody who stands above petty partisanship, and is able to independently and objectively examine any issue on its merits until they find a way to rationalize supporting the Republican position.
 
2012-11-01 05:59:27 PM  

MrEricSir: Holy crap, someone seems to have missed the entire concept of "burden of proof."


If you're referring to  frepnog, then yes you are correct.  He makes a declarative statement and then offers absolutely no proof to back up his claim. 

Without proof, it is merely opinion. Something that neither he, nor apprently you, can grasp.
 
2012-11-01 06:10:42 PM  

irockalot: Have they debunked monster parties yet? Where's Dr. Retarded on this?


"It happened!"

i2.cdnds.net

"It happened to ME!!"

lol
 
2012-11-01 06:17:07 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: MrEricSir: Holy crap, someone seems to have missed the entire concept of "burden of proof."

If you're referring to  frepnog, then yes you are correct.  He makes a declarative statement and then offers absolutely no proof to back up his claim. 

Without proof, it is merely opinion. Something that neither he, nor apprently you, can grasp.


Nope. Again, you need to study logic a bit more. Asserting that a claim with no basis is false is not an "opinion."
 
2012-11-01 06:27:37 PM  

MrEricSir: Nope. Again, you need to study logic a bit more

 
Project much?  
 
Several billion people believe Jesus is real and performed miracles. One person here does not. Neither side of the debate can offer any definitive, verifiable proof of their belief.  Ergo, it is opinion.
 
I'm not really sure why this very simple concept is too complicated for you to understand, but then again, I'm used to certain types of Farkers who truly think that what they believe is fact automatically makes it so.
 
2012-11-01 06:49:59 PM  

SuperSeriousMan: Several billion people believe Jesus is real and performed miracles. One person here does not. Neither side of the debate can offer any definitive, verifiable proof of their belief. Ergo, it is opinion.


Reality is not a democracy. Believe it or not, using words like "ergo" doesn't make your absurd statement more correct, nor does it give it the appearance of being based on logic.

I'm not really sure why this very simple concept is too complicated for you to understand, but then again, I'm used to certain types of Farkers who truly think that what they believe is fact automatically makes it so.

Positive statements require proof. If no proof can be provided, there is a reason for that.
 
2012-11-01 06:54:01 PM  

czetie: Rindred: offmymeds: The Burning of the Sick and Poor:

Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land. Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviste for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, when Dracula himself made an appearance. "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?" asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm."

Did we say "Dracula"? We meant Libertarians.

I didn't really know anybody who called themselves a Libertarian before this election cycle, but now that I know I few, I've learned that a Libertarian is somebody who stands above petty partisanship, and is able to independently and objectively examine any issue on its merits until they find a way to rationalize supporting the Republican position.


Vlad was probably too busy thinking up new ways to inspire fear in his subjects to be concerned with political posturing.
 
2012-11-01 07:20:17 PM  

offmymeds: czetie: Rindred: offmymeds: The Burning of the Sick and Poor:

Dracula was very concerned that all his subjects work and contribute to the common welfare. He once noticed that the poor, vagrants, beggars and cripples had become very numerous in his land. Consequently, he issued an invitation to all the poor and sick in Wallachia to come to Târgoviste for a great feast, claiming that no one should go hungry in his land. As the poor and crippled arrived in the city they were ushered into a great hall where a fabulous feast was prepared for them. The prince's guests ate and drank late into the night, when Dracula himself made an appearance. "What else do you desire? Do you want to be without cares, lacking nothing in this world?" asked the prince. When they answered that such was indeed their wish, Dracula ordered the hall boarded up and set on fire. None escaped the flames. Dracula explained his action to the boyars by claiming that he did this, "in order that they represent no further burden to other men so that no one will be poor in my realm."

Did we say "Dracula"? We meant Libertarians.

I didn't really know anybody who called themselves a Libertarian before this election cycle, but now that I know I few, I've learned that a Libertarian is somebody who stands above petty partisanship, and is able to independently and objectively examine any issue on its merits until they find a way to rationalize supporting the Republican position.

Vlad was probably too busy thinking up new ways to inspire fear in his subjects to be concerned with political posturing.


When your chosen sobriquet is "Vlad the Impaler", you typically don't worry too much about what the polls say about your favorables.

/Meanwhile in Africa, Vlad the Impala is enduring a succession of tired jokes.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

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