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.

(YouTube)   Ring ring. "Hello." "Hey Adam, it's Jim. What's going on?" "Not much, just chilling and..uh..I'll call you back"   (youtube.com) divider line 47
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

9547 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Jan 2013 at 9:25 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-01-06 05:35:35 AM
i kept waiting for the alien ship to rise up from underneath. left disappointed.
 
2013-01-06 08:12:35 AM

some_beer_drinker: i kept waiting for the alien ship to rise up from underneath. left disappointed.


Edited out. The world isn't ready for that knowledge.
 
2013-01-06 09:50:32 AM
I keep seeing trailers for this movie and it excites me and then I remember that it's an entire cinematic experience of watching ice melt, something that is little faster than watching paint dry.
 
2013-01-06 10:02:39 AM
www.wanakaman.com
 
2013-01-06 11:05:27 AM
this film is absolutely stunning. find the one theater in your 100-mile radius that is showing it and GO
 
2013-01-06 11:46:59 AM
Y'know how in movies, (esp. older movies) you'll see something explode, and instantly know that it's a small-scale model, because of the way the flame and concussions look, as well as the fire clearly being "small" and slowed down to give an impression of scale?

This is the exact opposite of that.
 
2013-01-06 11:47:37 AM
I was expecting a Budweiser commercial.

/wassssuuuuuuup
 
2013-01-06 11:53:48 AM
Did the film maker have ADD?
 
2013-01-06 11:55:14 AM
Was that a whale right around 2min?
 
2013-01-06 12:44:17 PM
In stunning 360p!
 
2013-01-06 01:05:06 PM
Supes is just redecorating, relax.
 
2013-01-06 01:44:29 PM

some_beer_drinker: i kept waiting for the alien ship to rise up from underneath. left disappointed.


From 2:51 to 2:59, look at the peak nearest the camera. There's an alien face carved there!
 
2013-01-06 02:06:42 PM
"The only way to put it into scale with human reference is if you imagine Manhattan..."

No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.

What a wonderful event, documented by some real dumbasses.
 
2013-01-06 02:54:10 PM
There's a dime in the picture for scale.
 
2013-01-06 02:55:18 PM
How many Rhode Island's was that?
 
2013-01-06 03:04:58 PM
Thrilling headline, subby. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't care enough to find out.
 
2013-01-06 03:07:33 PM

abhorrent1: Was that a whale right around 2min?


Only if a whale is about the size of Chicago's Sears Tower.
 
2013-01-06 03:11:38 PM

Fish in a Barrel: In stunning 360p!


There was a perfectly good 1080 link, no idea why subby picked this one.
Link
 
2013-01-06 03:16:19 PM

RoyBatty: No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.


Watch my link, it has the infographic at the point where the original ended. Subby's link was awful.
 
2013-01-06 03:39:57 PM

Cubicle Jockey: RoyBatty: No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.

Watch my link, it has the infographic at the point where the original ended. Subby's link was awful.


Thanks, that was much better. I still think it was ordered in the wrong direction.

Show me where this is on the map. Show me the comparison to Manhattan. Then show me the various close-ups.

I had no sense of the scale of what they were showing me until 3:30 when the discussion came in.
 
2013-01-06 04:38:20 PM
At 1:50, it looks like a giant whale broke out of the ice and is ready to swim towards Tokyo.
 
2013-01-06 05:26:32 PM
RoyBatty:
"The only way to put it into scale with human reference is if you imagine Manhattan..."

No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.

What a wonderful event, documented by some real dumbasses.

And, yes, taken out of context, as well. From the caption: "Acclaimed National Geographic photographer James Balog was once a skeptic about climate change. But through his Extreme Ice Survey, he discovers undeniable evidence of our changing planet." It looks like we found one of those elusive "deniers" everyone has been talking about. So, before he sees a huge ice calving, he thinks the climate never changes, and after, he's convinced climate changes? I suppose any progress is good.

That not being enough, they up the intensity of the blather..... ". . . Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story facing humanity. As the debate polarizes America, and the intensity of natural disasters ramps up globally, Chasing Ice depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to deliver fragile hope to our carbon-powered planet." From whence this information that natural disasters are "ramping up?" All the research I've read suggests that there has been no overall change of significance, but that we've had a longer low-hurricane period. This doesn't pass the sniff test. And, a chunk of ice is the biggest story facing mankind? Really? Taking pictures "delivers fragile hope?" If it's that fragile, I "hope" he had it insured. Some of those UPS guys are dicks.

I'd say we're entering an era of rainbow-hued bad journalism. Along with "yellow" journalism, we now have "green" journalism. Meh, I suppose this is just another "flavor" of the yellow journalism. But, if so, a large percentage of yellow journalism today is green journalism, where checking facts is passe, even in peer-reviewed publications from the U.N. So, maybe environmental journalism is now driving yellow journalism. Perhaps we should call it "chartreuse journalism" now.
 
2013-01-06 06:25:22 PM

RoyBatty: Cubicle Jockey: RoyBatty: No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.

Watch my link, it has the infographic at the point where the original ended. Subby's link was awful.

Thanks, that was much better. I still think it was ordered in the wrong direction.

Show me where this is on the map. Show me the comparison to Manhattan. Then show me the various close-ups.

I had no sense of the scale of what they were showing me until 3:30 when the discussion came in.


Considering this is 4 minutes takrn out of a 90 minutes movie, towards the end of the movie as well, where the movie is half about the calving and half about the process of capturing the calving, you'll have to give some leeway in your irateness to see how the method of storytelling is told in the movie. It's first about the horrific majesty of calving and then about the significance of the impacts.
 
2013-01-06 08:05:58 PM

RoyBatty: "The only way to put it into scale with human reference is if you imagine Manhattan..."

No farktard. It's 2013. How about a farking map, some aerial imagery, google earth zooming, or even a farking superimposed infographic.

What a wonderful event, documented by some real dumbasses.


I would have gone with the city-shuffling segments from Dark City.
 
2013-01-06 10:28:11 PM
Bloody Hell.
Just....
Bloody Hell.
 
2013-01-06 10:29:23 PM

GeneralJim: That not being enough, they up the intensity of the blather..... ". . . Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story facing humanity. As the debate polarizes America, and the intensity of natural disasters ramps up globally, Chasing Ice depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to deliver fragile hope to our carbon-powered planet." From whence this information that natural disasters are "ramping up?" All the research I've read suggests that there has been no overall change of significance, but that we've had a longer low-hurricane period. This doesn't pass the sniff test. And, a chunk of ice is the biggest story facing mankind? Really?


o_O

I know you're a lying liar, you liar, and I know you often fail at reading comprehension, but I'm pretty sure the 'big story' they're referring to is climate change, not a particular piece of ice.
 
2013-01-07 12:50:26 AM
But where are the tap-dancing penguins?
 
2013-01-07 03:04:08 AM
Cubicle Jockey's link is better but that was impressive. Of course I was once mesmerized by a 20 minute home video of a lava flow w/o the use of any..ahem..'medications'.
 
2013-01-07 09:11:09 AM

Roger_the_Shrubber: Thrilling headline, subby. I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't care enough to find out.


BOO
 
2013-01-07 09:29:40 AM
sweet! the one exciting action shot of the documentary is right there. saved me the effort of watching it. i wish documentaries had a sportscenter-esque highlight show.

/jk
 
2013-01-07 12:57:13 PM

GeneralJim: removed wall of green bullshiat no ...


How bout a nice quote from Phil Plait..."we are way, way past the time when the conspiracy theorists and political climate change denial zealots should be taken seriously. They are in the same category as antivaxxers, creationists, and Apollo Moon landing deniers: The evidence is firmly against them, and all they can do is make noise and pollute the discourse." Sounds like he is describing some one who likes using Way too much green text to me.
 
2013-01-07 07:05:58 PM
Apparently this happened in 2005.
 
2013-01-07 08:50:42 PM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: That not being enough, they up the intensity of the blather..... ". . . Balog risks his career and his well-being in pursuit of the biggest story facing humanity. As the debate polarizes America, and the intensity of natural disasters ramps up globally, Chasing Ice depicts a heroic photojournalist on a mission to deliver fragile hope to our carbon-powered planet." From whence this information that natural disasters are "ramping up?" All the research I've read suggests that there has been no overall change of significance, but that we've had a longer low-hurricane period. This doesn't pass the sniff test. And, a chunk of ice is the biggest story facing mankind? Really?

o_O

I know you're a lying liar, you liar, and I know you often fail at reading comprehension, but I'm pretty sure the 'big story' they're referring to is climate change, not a particular piece of ice.

I do appreciate achievement in any field, even if that field is stupidity. Good job!

Now, try reading what they wrote, rather than trying to read their minds, dumbass.
 
2013-01-07 09:06:28 PM
lokisbong:
GeneralJim: removed wall of green bullshiat no ...

How bout a nice quote from Phil Plait..."we are way, way past the time when the conspiracy theorists and political climate change denial zealots should be taken seriously. They are in the same category as antivaxxers, creationists, and Apollo Moon landing deniers: The evidence is firmly against them, and all they can do is make noise and pollute the discourse." Sounds like he is describing some one who likes using Way too much green text to me.

Making a screed like that is effective, for some, in that the mentally weak, such as yourself, fail to notice that not a single issue was addressed. And, some of those issues are important, if the goal is to find out what the planet is doing. But yeah, just list stupid conspiracy theories, and failures of logic, and list skepticism of politiically-inspired science with them. Some people are dumb enough to fall for that -- you being the current example. So, I take it that your refusal to deal with any of the issues means that you just assume that no scientist could ever become corrupt, right? Otherwise, the, oh REALITY of the situation might enter into it. Some of these unaddressed issues are as follows:

o -- Ice core data refute the idea that changes in carbon dioxide level play a significant role in global temperature.
o -- The models are so far off in their predictions that we are ALREADY outside the error bars.
o -- CERN just validated the process by which Svensmark claims cosmic rays influence clouds, and ordered scientists to NOT discuss the climate implications of CLOUD.
o -- The "semi-infinte" atmospheric model has been mathematically disproved by Miskoskolczi, and his fix has models predicting accurately.
o -- The historic climate data in repositories overseen by Phil Jones and James Hansen keep changing over time, and show as "human-created," i.e. fudged.
o -- Phil Jones has admitted that scientific fraud has taken place.
o -- Studies involving MEASUREMENT, as opposed to computer modelling, show that the IPCC has VASTLY over-estimated atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide.

And, this is peer-reviewed science you are denying or ignoring. So, the warmers want the "denier" tag now? Go for it.
 
2013-01-08 12:22:11 AM

GeneralJim: o -- Ice core data refute the idea that changes in carbon dioxide level play a significant role in global temperature.


No they don't.


o -- The models are so far off in their predictions that we are ALREADY outside the error bars.

No they aren't - certainly not all of them, if any of them. Which error bars specifically are you referring to?


o -- CERN just validated the process by which Svensmark claims cosmic rays influence clouds, and ordered scientists to NOT discuss the climate implications of CLOUD.

[citation needed]

I won't take your word for it because you're a damn liar.


o -- The "semi-infinte" atmospheric model has been mathematically disproved by Miskoskolczi, and his fix has models predicting accurately.

Hahaha. Oh wait, you're serious. LOLOL.


o -- The historic climate data in repositories overseen by Phil Jones and James Hansen keep changing over time, and show as "human-created," i.e. fudged.

Bullshiat.


o -- Phil Jones has admitted that scientific fraud has taken place.

[citation needed]

o -- Studies involving MEASUREMENT, as opposed to computer modelling, show that the IPCC has VASTLY over-estimated atmospheric sensitivity to carbon dioxide.

No, as Damnhippyfreak explained to you in the other thread.


And, this is peer-reviewed science you are denying or ignoring. So, the warmers want the "denier" tag now? Go for it.

Says the guy who is denying or ignoring 99% of peer-reviewed climate science, and is an admitted lying liar.

GeneralJim:And, incidentally, my claim ... was a deliberate misstatement. ... And I apologize to the other Fark readers for the misdirection, now corrected. YOU should apologize for making it necessary

So not only do you lie whenever you feel like it, you think it's someone else's fault that you had to do it. Wow you're unhinged.
 
2013-01-08 03:36:32 AM

GeneralJim: lokisbong: GeneralJim: removed wall of green bullshiat again Snip ...


I don't argue with pathological liars. Sorry but you have proven time and time again you are on the outer fringes of reality. Get help man.
 
2013-01-09 12:52:29 AM
lokisbong:
GeneralJim: lokisbong: GeneralJim: removed wall of green bullshiat again Snip ...

I don't argue with pathological liars. Sorry but you have proven time and time again you are on the outer fringes of reality. Get help man.

So, what is it? Do you just pick random insults? M'kay, show me a REAL lie... you know, something said with the intention to deceive. Just one.
 
2013-01-09 12:55:42 AM
HighZoolander:
So not only do you lie whenever you feel like it, you think it's someone else's fault that you had to do it. Wow you're unhinged.

Speaking of unhinged... where did you get THAT little screed? I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark, and explained in the same thread what I did. Of course, seeing how pathetically clueless you are, it would not surprise me in the least if you don't understand the difference. Try some more character assassination, though... you need the practice.
 
2013-01-09 01:46:51 AM

GeneralJim: something said with the intention to deceive


HighZoolander: GeneralJim:And, incidentally, my claim ... was a deliberate misstatement.


This is just too easy - maybe next time ask for evidence of more than one lie?
 
2013-01-09 01:51:06 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: So not only do you lie whenever you feel like it, you think it's someone else's fault that you had to do it. Wow you're unhinged.
Speaking of unhinged... where did you get THAT little screed? I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark, and explained in the same thread what I did. Of course, seeing how pathetically clueless you are, it would not surprise me in the least if you don't understand the difference. Try some more character assassination, though... you need the practice.


Um, Damnhippyfreak gave pretty compelling evidence that you'd been saying that same untruth for years - so not just in that same thread. This is pretty good evidence of yet another lie you've told though, so good job!

Damnhippyfreak's post exposing your extended lie here: Link

I'd ask you to stop lying, but we both know you can't.
 
2013-01-09 02:20:43 AM
Looks like HighZoolander has this thread covered.
 
2013-01-09 02:24:29 AM

GeneralJim: I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark,



Technically, you've done it at least twice:

GeneralJim: I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest


With this latest post of yours, that makes at least three ;)
 
2013-01-09 03:25:24 AM
HighZoolander:
GeneralJim: something said with the intention to deceive

HighZoolander: GeneralJim:And, incidentally, my claim ... was a deliberate misstatement.

This is just too easy - maybe next time ask for evidence of more than one lie?

See? I told you you were too stupid to get it.
 
2013-01-09 03:29:36 AM
Damnhippyfreak:
GeneralJim: I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark,


Technically, you've done it at least twice:

GeneralJim: I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest

With this latest post of yours, that makes at least three ;)

Another one too stupid to understand the difference between using an untruth as a rhetorical device and a lie. I'm not surprised.

/ So, is this kind of crap what you always do when you've got nothing?
 
2013-01-09 11:22:16 AM

GeneralJim: HighZoolander: GeneralJim: something said with the intention to deceive

HighZoolander: GeneralJim:And, incidentally, my claim ... was a deliberate misstatement.

This is just too easy - maybe next time ask for evidence of more than one lie?
See? I told you you were too stupid to get it.


s1.postimage.org
 
2013-01-09 01:33:26 PM

GeneralJim: Damnhippyfreak: GeneralJim: I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark,


Technically, you've done it at least twice:

GeneralJim: I've not always been right, but I have ALWAYS been honest

With this latest post of yours, that makes at least three ;)
Another one too stupid to understand the difference between using an untruth as a rhetorical device and a lie. I'm not surprised.

/ So, is this kind of crap what you always do when you've got nothing?



It's more that I'm highlighting the kind of crap you always do when you've got nothing.

As I pointed out in the other thread, the bit in bold isn't true as you've been making this same mistake for over two years (with me attempting to correct you since then), the "untruth" still remains as you still haven't gotten the source right, even in the post which you claim "did not remain in an "untrue" state".

You're putting forward a lie to cover up a mistake borne out of intentional ignorance on your part, and then you're continuing to lie about it, like a immature child.
 
2013-01-09 01:37:14 PM

GeneralJim: I've said something untrue on purpose ONCE on Fark, and explained in the same thread what I did


You're up to at least four lies, BTW.

The untruth was in a different thread from the one where you "explained" what you did (besides the fact that you've been putting forward that same untruth for at least two years). Additionally, this "explanation" of yours was in actuality another lie to try to cover it up, for the reasons I gave in the other thread, and outlined above.

Come on now. You've been caught and there's no point in trying to pile on more lies. What I'm trying to do here is to show you something - if you can't deal rationally or honestly with even your very own words (regarding an easily-disproven falsehood) like an adult, then what does that say about your ability to deal rationally or honestly with anything more complex?

I'm trying to show you a mirror here. The rest of us are just anonymous people at a news aggregator - what we think in this small corner of the intertubes matters little. In the end, it's about you and your choices - do you have enough self-respect to man up and do the right thing, or are you going to try to cover it up and blame others like a childish coward. Let's see what you do.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report