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.

(Telegraph)   Killer Bees could solve the population crisis. Yes, yes they could   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 64
    More: Misc, traffic congestions, University of Western Australia  
•       •       •

5341 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Aug 2013 at 11:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



64 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-18 09:18:37 PM  
Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".
 
2013-08-18 09:35:04 PM  
www.nbc.com
 
2013-08-18 10:10:20 PM  
/IT'S COMING!!!
 
2013-08-18 10:14:43 PM  
This time, with image

cinemaknifefight.files.wordpress.com

/IT'S COMING!
 
2013-08-18 10:36:50 PM  
www.teamvalkyrieftw.com>
 
2013-08-18 11:18:53 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-18 11:37:23 PM  
FTA: "But African bees, which are much more aggressive and likely to swarm than their European cousins..."

WHAT???

Oh, "bees". Whew!~ For a second, I thought they said "teens".

Never mind. Carry on, then...


Also FTA: "Now Australian scientists are trying to produce a cross breed of African and European honeybees which has the hardiness to resist the mite but is still "human-friendly".


What could possibly go wrong?

Right?
 
2013-08-18 11:45:38 PM  

Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".



martinfrost.ws

Yes, and ^ this guy ^ is not amused with our Monsanto nonsense.


static.indianexpress.com

Just ask ^ this guy ^.
 
2013-08-19 12:04:17 AM  
I wonder when the Klan will perfect their melatonin-and-catholic viral pandemic.
 
2013-08-19 12:04:55 AM  
whitneym49.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-19 12:05:34 AM  
I've been saying this for years.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-08-19 12:05:51 AM  
hypetrak.com

solving population problems by getting all up in them guts
 
2013-08-19 12:06:16 AM  

Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".


How else do we eliminate the four pests and make our glorious nation strong?
 
2013-08-19 12:11:27 AM  
Uh, they tried crossing African and European strains before in an attempt to increase honey production, but what they got was a bunch of hyper-aggressive bees that produced almost nothing and also spread throughout Central and South America.

Because we don't learn our lessons in history very well.
 
2013-08-19 12:11:35 AM  
Eddie Izzard   ✓
Classic SNL ✓

So that just leaves...

userserve-ak.last.fm
 
2013-08-19 12:11:37 AM  
If they kill enough people, sure.
 
2013-08-19 12:12:11 AM  
They're going to have to start killing a lot more people to even make a dent.
 
2013-08-19 12:12:28 AM  
...and what a  glorious form of population control Killer B's were!

www.blogcdn.com

www.autominded.com
 
2013-08-19 12:14:03 AM  
This bee did a lot for me when there was no rain.
media.portable.tv
 
2013-08-19 12:14:28 AM  
Zugswang
Uh, they tried crossing African and European strains before in an attempt to increase honey production, but what they got was a bunch of hyper-aggressive bees that produced almost nothing and also spread throughout Central and South America.
Because we don't learn our lessons in history very well.


What if we took african killer bees and cross-breed them with bees from the asia, that might work.
 
2013-08-19 12:15:09 AM  

Now I Is!: Eddie Izzard   ✓
Classic SNL ✓

So that just leaves...

[userserve-ak.last.fm image 250x246]


Not so fast...  B. Brian Blair and Jumping Jim Brunzel disagree.
www.onlineworldofwrestling.com
 
2013-08-19 12:18:33 AM  

Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".


Bayer seems to get the credit for this one.
 
2013-08-19 12:22:37 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-08-19 12:25:26 AM  
Same goddamn jokes for the last 25 years . . . SAVE UP!


i1.ytimg.com


/ kill me now, please
// not obscure enough
 
2013-08-19 12:25:43 AM  
These hybrids have been around suburban SoCal since at least 2004 (elsewhere as well I assume).  I had two hive run ins, both near different homes I've had.  I thought they might be African Honeybees because they would attack in small sorties if you came within 35 ft of their hive, but I couldn't be sure.  The1st hive stung me a few times - it felt like getting in the head by airsoft rounds before the sting even kicked in (fast little farks)

The 2nd hive that mentioned above was sending folks running-amok in downtown Tustin, was finally managed by a private bee hive removal dude with his van, his special bee outfit and gear et al.  As he was wrapping-up with just a couple dozen bee left flying around I asked how it went; he said "well I got the queen".  I assumed the guy was maybe apart of a bee round up organization that relocated them so they could carry on their work pollinating - so I ask him "Are you going to find a good place to release them"?  They guy just about ripped my head-off saying "Hell no I'm not going to release them, these are African Honey Bee hybrids, I got stung about 7 times".

So yea, cool story, mad bee dude who needs better equipment.
 
2013-08-19 12:26:32 AM  

Zugswang: Uh, they tried crossing African and European strains before in an attempt to increase honey production, but what they got was a bunch of hyper-aggressive bees that produced almost nothing and also spread throughout Central and South America.

Because we don't learn our lessons in history very well.




And into North America as well. As they are already here, there are no worries about them getting loose. If entomologists can use more sophisticated techniques and achieve the desired result, good for them.
 
2013-08-19 12:28:47 AM  

Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".


And yet somehow, you can find exactly zero peer reviewed, scientific studies to support that position.
 
2013-08-19 12:31:49 AM  

meanmutton: Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".

And yet somehow, you can find exactly zero peer reviewed, scientific studies to support that position.




Absence of proof of the conspiracy only proves just how deep the conspiracy goes.
 
2013-08-19 12:36:40 AM  
Sounds like a modest enough suggestion to me.
 
2013-08-19 12:38:02 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: These hybrids have been around suburban SoCal since at least 2004 (elsewhere as well I assume).  I had two hive run ins, both near different homes I've had.  I thought they might be African Honeybees because they would attack in small sorties if you came within 35 ft of their hive, but I couldn't be sure.  The1st hive stung me a few times - it felt like getting in the head by airsoft rounds before the sting even kicked in (fast little farks)

The 2nd hive that mentioned above was sending folks running-amok in downtown Tustin, was finally managed by a private bee hive removal dude with his van, his special bee outfit and gear et al.  As he was wrapping-up with just a couple dozen bee left flying around I asked how it went; he said "well I got the queen".  I assumed the guy was maybe apart of a bee round up organization that relocated them so they could carry on their work pollinating - so I ask him "Are you going to find a good place to release them"?  They guy just about ripped my head-off saying "Hell no I'm not going to release them, these are African Honey Bee hybrids, I got stung about 7 times".

So yea, cool story, mad bee dude who needs better equipment.



i159.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-19 12:44:22 AM  
wiki.hicksvilleschools.org
 
2013-08-19 12:48:12 AM  

cretinbob:


The monarch's crew?
 
2013-08-19 01:00:54 AM  

meanmutton: Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".

And yet somehow, you can find exactly zero peer reviewed, scientific studies to support that position.


Mostly because, as mentioned above, it's actually Bayer. So a pox on both their houses, with quadruple going to Monsanto anyway. Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.


www.orangejuiceblog.com
 
2013-08-19 01:02:48 AM  

Oldiron_79: cretinbob:

The monarch's crew?


Go on...
mantiseye.com
 
2013-08-19 01:03:14 AM  
img149.imageshack.us

British bee expert...
 
2013-08-19 01:06:25 AM  

Amos Quito: Kevin72: Ummmmm, no. Nice whitewashing there. They are not dieing from some wing weakening parasite. They are dieing from Monsanto's "Round-up Ready".


[martinfrost.ws image 424x288]

Yes, and ^ this guy ^ is not amused with our Monsanto nonsense.


[static.indianexpress.com image 300x200]

Just ask ^ this guy ^.


Thank you, Vlad the Putin. Rootin' Tootin' Putin I think George Bush called him.
 
2013-08-19 01:11:20 AM  

Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.


Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.
 
2013-08-19 01:12:36 AM  

pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.




I wouldn't expect much. I think he's been drinking.
 
2013-08-19 01:14:16 AM  
Well, some bees do hate abortion.

userserve-ak.last.fm
/Hot, like a mini-Bible being thrown at your face during a concert
 
2013-08-19 01:15:55 AM  
Beads?
 
2013-08-19 01:19:52 AM  
I found their weaknesses.
/google
//LINK

///saw a baldface the other day. Sweet baby Jesus's baby food I shiat myself thinking about it.

///Im not going to link a picture of it for I fear I'll need to get a new chair. So instead I encourage you to GIS bald faced hornet.
 
2013-08-19 01:24:41 AM  

Elzar: Oldiron_79: cretinbob:

The monarch's crew?

Go on...


I'd hit Dr. Mrs.The Monarch like the fist of an angry gawd.
 
2013-08-19 01:26:03 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Well, some bees do hate abortion.


/Hot, like a mini-Bible being thrown at your face during a concert


Stryper should go on tour with Slayer for the most unlikely tour combo OF ALL TIME
 
2013-08-19 01:29:55 AM  
In South America, bee keepers have already adopting the killer bees and are working on curbing their anger the old fashioned way.  Unless the Australians are going straight to genetic engineering, I have more faith in the South Americans creating a friendlier bee we can all steal.
 
2013-08-19 01:32:07 AM  

DrunkenBob: In South America, bee keepers have already adopting the killer bees and are working on curbing their anger the old fashioned way.  Unless the Australians are going straight to genetic engineering, I have more faith in the South Americans creating a friendlier bee we can all steal.


You understand the old fashioned way created them in the first place and quite possibly were the major impetus for the acceleration in GMO research. How the pendulum swings.
 
2013-08-19 01:43:54 AM  

Repo Man: pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.

I wouldn't expect much. I think he's been drinking.


Not out drinking. Back from a 6-mile walk. But I will take a hit of Pinot Grigio before going to bed.
Link
 
2013-08-19 01:58:43 AM  

pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.


Like I say, the thing that has changed in 63 years is that big business has more stranglehold on reasearch funds. Here is your citation needed. Enjoy your smoking, hfcs, gmos, beeless agriculture, etc.

Medical Consensus Summarized
Perhaps the best and most judicious summary of the most generally accepted medical viewpoint is to be found in an editorial published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Actual surveys indicate," it stated, "that the majority of physicians themselves smoke cigarettes. From a psychological point of view, more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it. There does not seem to be a preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health."To that authoritative statement it might be well to add the advice given me by a Washington physician after a long evening of discussing the pros and cons of smoking. Together with two cancer researchers and a statistician, we had all puffed away for hours while we analyzed the medical evidence for and against the cigarette. When we finally quit, at three in the morning, a deep blue haze filled the room."Summing it all up, Doctor," I asked, "would you advise me-an average, sedentary, moderately healthy character-to keep on smoking or to quit?"Cigarette in hand and glancing at the overloaded ash trays, he laughed.Then he leaned over and whispered, "I'm going to tell you exactly what I tell most of my patients. Don't smoke-unless you like it."Source: Albert Q. Maisel, "Don't Smoke-Unless You Like It, Collier's, November 4, 1950, 18.
 
2013-08-19 01:58:45 AM  
Anyone ever read a short story called "The Bees from Borneo"?  Predates the actual killer bee problem by a decade or more, if I recall.
 
2013-08-19 02:01:39 AM  

Kevin72: pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.

Like I say, the thing that has changed in 63 years is that big business has more stranglehold on reasearch funds. Here is your citation needed. Enjoy your smoking, hfcs, gmos, beeless agriculture, etc.

Medical Consensus Summarized
Perhaps the best and most judicious summary of the most generally accepted medical viewpoint is to be found in an editorial published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Actual surveys indicate," it stated, "that the majority of physicians themselves smoke cigarettes. From a psychological point of view, more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it. There does not seem to be a preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health."To that authoritative statement it might be well to add the advice given me by a Washington physician after a long evening of discussing the pros and cons of smoking. Together with two cancer researchers and a statistician, we had all puffed away for hours while we analyzed the medical evidence for and against the cigarette. When we finally quit, at three in the morning, a deep blue haze filled the room."Summing it all up, Doctor," I asked, "would you advise me-an average, sedentary, moderately healthy character-to keep on smoking or to quit?"Cigarette in hand and glancing at the overloaded ash trays, he laughed.Then he leaned over and whispered, "I'm going to tell you exactly what I tell most of my patients. Don't smoke-unless you like it."Source: Albert Q. Maisel, "Don't Smoke-Unless You Like It, Collier's, November 4, 1950, 18.


Well that is all peer reviewed science. You win. Also there is no citation.
 
2013-08-19 02:08:08 AM  

pellies: the thing that has changed in 63 years is that big business has more stranglehold on reasearch funds.


This is not true. It is the other way as implied by my 63 years comment. Unless you mean they've convinced the government of defunding and that has many potential causes. By a margin of at least 1000 percent all basic research is funded by non business interests. You made the ridiculous claim you back it up.
 
2013-08-19 02:09:25 AM  

pellies: Kevin72: pellies: Kevin72: Anyway, try not to forget the 1950s where all the peer reviewed scientific studies said that smoking was good for your health.

Citation needed as this is a ridiculous statement. Not to mention it was 63 years ago. I'm glad nothing changes.

Like I say, the thing that has changed in 63 years is that big business has more stranglehold on reasearch funds. Here is your citation needed. Enjoy your smoking, hfcs, gmos, beeless agriculture, etc.

Medical Consensus Summarized
Perhaps the best and most judicious summary of the most generally accepted medical viewpoint is to be found in an editorial published a few years ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association. "Actual surveys indicate," it stated, "that the majority of physicians themselves smoke cigarettes. From a psychological point of view, more can be said in behalf of smoking as a form of escape from tension than against it. There does not seem to be a preponderance of evidence that would indicate the abolition of the use of tobacco as a substance contrary to the public health."To that authoritative statement it might be well to add the advice given me by a Washington physician after a long evening of discussing the pros and cons of smoking. Together with two cancer researchers and a statistician, we had all puffed away for hours while we analyzed the medical evidence for and against the cigarette. When we finally quit, at three in the morning, a deep blue haze filled the room."Summing it all up, Doctor," I asked, "would you advise me-an average, sedentary, moderately healthy character-to keep on smoking or to quit?"Cigarette in hand and glancing at the overloaded ash trays, he laughed.Then he leaned over and whispered, "I'm going to tell you exactly what I tell most of my patients. Don't smoke-unless you like it."Source: Albert Q. Maisel, "Don't Smoke-Unless You Like It, Collier's, November 4, 1950, 18.

Well that is all peer reviewed science. You win. Also there is no citatio ...


Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.
 
2013-08-19 02:14:06 AM  
funnyasduck.net
 
2013-08-19 02:30:31 AM  

jicon: Not so fast... B. Brian Blair and Jumping Jim Brunzel disagree.


Thank you.
 
2013-08-19 02:30:56 AM  
www.metal-archives.com
 
2013-08-19 02:46:43 AM  
These?
zeldawiki.org

/hot like a Link?
 
2013-08-19 03:42:31 AM  

rubi_con_man: I wonder when the Klan will perfect their melatonin-and-catholic viral pandemic.

I'm pretty sure you are getting melanin and melatonin confused. Not a big deal but as someone who has undergone a pinealectomy I was a little concerned.
 
2013-08-19 04:10:56 AM  
"Hello caller you're on the air, are you sane?!?"

"Absolutely Lazlow. Killer bees."
 
2013-08-19 04:18:19 AM  
It may well be that Colony Collapse is due to Monsanto's fiddling with Round-up resistant plants (I kind of doubt it) or bees' unusual vulnerability to wing-crippling parasites...but in my never-ending search for unforeseen consequences, I've come up with another reason bees seem to be so distressingly absent from our suburbs and rural areas: OMFG ALLERGIES!!!!

Consider: a decade or so ago, the big scare was KILLER BEES ARE INVADING YOUR SUBURBS! As a result any time a swarm hit suburban or small-town America, it was presumed to be "killer bees" and never allowed to settle and build a hive, but was immediately "abated" and either destroyed or driven off. It may be that these swarms were in fact hybridized bees, but let's be realistic: Who usually did the determining? Why, those same "abatement companies" who had to make their money eradicating hives. Concurrent with the KILLER BEES! was the ARE YOU/YOUR KIDS ALLERGIC TO BEES?!? panic, and anyone who wasn't allergic to peanuts or shellfish could at least think they were allergic to bee stings, and eradicate bees in their neighborhoods for the same reason.

Bees swarm because they need new territory. They land in an area because there aren't any other hives to provide competition. So-called "killer bees" aren't any different in terms of bee-ness except for being more aggressive in protecting their hive--they do all the same pollinating, etc., as their non-killer cousins. Eradicate a "killer" hive without replacing it with a regular hive means no bees in the area for that season, since swarms only happen when the hive up the road needs to expand; NOT because that area needs more bees. But then when they do, suburbanites are awfully picky about where they want a hive to set up. Can't be under the eaves or too close to their nice houses, no; the bees have to accommodate US, please, and not set up housekeeping near the pool.

So not too surprisingly, the only bees left are over-bred, stressed, traveling apiaries and domestic honey-hives. Wild bees have been eradicated in the push to clear OMFG KILLER BEES out of the OMFG ALLERGIES! suburbs, and also because we don't like bees all over the place. If people would stop freaking out when a swarm settles in their park or whatever, we'd have bees again in a few seasons; but that won't happen because OMFG KILLER BEES AND MY KID MIGHT BE ALLERGIC SHIAT!!!! and that will be that. Hope you like fly-pollinated flowers, because that's all we'll have in another decade.
 
2013-08-19 04:24:11 AM  

Kevin72: Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.


I found the actual editorial from Colliers online, but bear in mind it only cherry picks a few sentences from a JAMA editorial "from a few years" earlier which mentions surveys (not studies) that say most doctors smoke.

The JAMA editorial goes on to relate an amusing anecdote about 4 guys sitting around smoking until 3 AM (I'd be willing to bet they were drinking too, but it doesn't say) concluding that you shouldn't "smoke unless you like it".

The overall tone of the Colliers editorial seems to be quite pro-smoking and Colliers wasn't a scientific journal nor even a magazine focused on medicine.

It did however note that some that some people suspected smoking as the cause of many ills including heart disease and cancer.

Another quote from the same Colliers editorial:

Americans, most of all, have taken the cigarette to heart. More than three quarters of all our adult men, and more than 40 per cent of all women, now smoke. We consume almost 400,000,000,000 cigarettes each year. We average nearly a full pack each per day.

Recently, however, the ranks of the antitobacco forces have been swollen by new recruits. Serious scientists and physicians have solemnly reported the results of intensive research in authoritative medical journals. These studies, if only because of their source, cannot be laughed off as were the denunciations of "the filthy weed" by the wild-eyed soapboxers of generations past.
 
2013-08-19 05:13:26 AM  
So let's not fix the underlying problem what ever it is?

So you breed some "africanized" bees into the gene pool..  that are more resistant to whatever is going wrong....   will they be able to continue to resist if the underlying problems are not addressed and get worse?

Might we be getting a cat to replace the canary in the coal mines because the canary dropped dead?
 
2013-08-19 06:09:12 AM  
This isn't Colonization, this is spontaneous re-population!
 
2013-08-19 10:26:50 AM  

mrlewish: So let's not fix the underlying problem what ever it is?

So you breed some "africanized" bees into the gene pool..  that are more resistant to whatever is going wrong....   will they be able to continue to resist if the underlying problems are not addressed and get worse?

Might we be getting a cat to replace the canary in the coal mines because the canary dropped dead?




I'm not an entomologist, but I believe that lack of genetic diversity caused by inbreeding is considered a possible contributing cause to colony collapse disorder. If that's true, then these hybrids would be addressing at least one of the causes.
 
2013-08-19 11:37:32 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: ...and what a  glorious form of population control Killer B's were!

[www.blogcdn.com image 450x338]

[www.autominded.com image 700x222]


I like you; you're not like the other people, here in the trailer-park.
 
2013-08-20 01:47:30 AM  

gfid: Kevin72: Colliers Magazine, JAMA. I'm not your mother. Go ahead and only believe only when peer reviewed science tells you. By then it's too late, as it will be for beeless agriculture, when it turns the pesticides kill the bees, not the parasite they're blaming it on. Just like it was too late for the smokers of the 50s and 60s when the real truth came out.

I found the actual editorial from Colliers online, but bear in mind it only cherry picks a few sentences from a JAMA editorial "from a few years" earlier which mentions surveys (not studies) that say most doctors smoke.

The JAMA editorial goes on to relate an amusing anecdote about 4 guys sitting around smoking until 3 AM (I'd be willing to bet they were drinking too, but it doesn't say) concluding that you shouldn't "smoke unless you like it".

The overall tone of the Colliers editorial seems to be quite pro-smoking and Colliers wasn't a scientific journal nor even a magazine focused on medicine.

It did however note that some that some people suspected smoking as the cause of many ills including heart disease and cancer.

Another quote from the same Colliers editorial:

Americans, most of all, have taken the cigarette to heart. More than three quarters of all our adult men, and more than 40 per cent of all women, now smoke. We consume almost 400,000,000,000 cigarettes each year. We average nearly a full pack each per day.


For research above and beyond the call of duty, I now have you favorited.
Recently, however, the ranks of the antitobacco forces have been swollen by new recruits. Serious scientists and physicians have solemnly reported the results of intensive research in authoritative medical journals. These studies, if only because of their source, cannot be laughed off as were the denunciations of "the filthy weed" by the wild-eyed soapboxers of generations past.

 
Displayed 64 of 64 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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