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.

(Popular Science)   Scientists find new grand canyon under Greenland ice sheet, because global warming   (popsci.com) divider line 50
    More: Scary, Greenland Ice Sheet, global warming, Greenland, scientists, glaciations, the conversation, spatial resolution, river systems  
•       •       •

3221 clicks; posted to Geek » on 30 Aug 2013 at 2:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-30 12:10:17 AM  
To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?
 
2013-08-30 12:33:40 AM  
Who cares. GOLD RUSH!
 
2013-08-30 01:09:10 AM  
Scary tag eh? Hope subby recovers.
 
2013-08-30 01:20:26 AM  

Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


Do you have a normal analog speedometer with both mph and kph in your car? If so, go take a look at it, and see what number corresponds to the 100kph mark. Now, divide that number by 10 to get the width of the gorge in miles.

Then, divide it by ten again and multiply by 8 to get the depth in miles.

Or you could just type "10 kilometers in miles' into Google, but that probably won't help you practice thinking it out for yourself.

/seriously, working with metric is not hard, and any high-school educated American really ought to be able to do basic things like distance conversions in their head or quickly on scratch paper
 
2013-08-30 02:54:03 AM  
Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-08-30 02:57:16 AM  
I can't really visualize this.....

How many Adeles would it hold?
 
2013-08-30 03:06:29 AM  

Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


About the size of Algore's buttcrack
 
2013-08-30 03:07:35 AM  

SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Ignorance or troll?

You decide.

/I seriously wonder that every time I see cherry-picked data
//If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat
 
2013-08-30 03:17:05 AM  

ZoeNekros: If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat


Yeah, it's global warming because the cooling isn't cooling enough.

Chicken Little logic, right there, ladies and germs.
 
2013-08-30 03:19:16 AM  
This might be a dumb question.......

Are they telling me that there is a canyon beneath the ice sheet that is full of air, or a canyon beneath the ice sheet that is full of water?

If it's already full of water does that make it a trench?

(Fire stupid questions 1 and 2!)
 
2013-08-30 03:29:08 AM  

SpdrJay: I can't really visualize this.....

How many Adeles would it hold?


What? In volume or tensile strength?
 
2013-08-30 03:34:51 AM  
Is Tom Hanks promoting it? No? 

/then I'm not interested.
 
2013-08-30 03:51:53 AM  

SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Oh hey, there you go lying again with the same cherry-picked image you always use, the same one that's debunked over and over. Don't you ever get tired of lying like that? I suppose not, dishonest troll that you are. But that's ok, it gives me another opportunity to mock you for the dishonest shill you are, and I always enjoy that.

So here's the actual facts, and I am now once again happily mocking your deliberate willfull stupidity. You're not just a liar, you're a bad and unconvincing liar whose lies are obvious to everyone reading. You're not arguing in good faith, you are rather deliberately trying to spread misinformation for selfish partisan reasons, to the detriment of your society in general. This makes you worthy of nothing but scorn and vilification.

Do keep trying, however. I can always use the laughs from mocking your stupid some more.
 
2013-08-30 04:59:34 AM  

Sid_6.7: That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


Would you like that in football fields or Rhode Islands?
 
2013-08-30 05:04:50 AM  

Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


It's a big ole ditch, ya'all.
 
2013-08-30 05:08:10 AM  

ZoeNekros: SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Ignorance or troll?

You decide.

/I seriously wonder that every time I see cherry-picked data
//If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat


I have him farkied as "12 year GW troll" for posting that precise pic every chance he gets.
 
2013-08-30 05:11:18 AM  

KiltedBastich: SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Oh hey, there you go lying again with the same cherry-picked image you always use, the same one that's debunked over and over. Don't you ever get tired of lying like that? I suppose not, dishonest troll that you are. But that's ok, it gives me another opportunity to mock you for the dishonest shill you are, and I always enjoy that.

So here's the actual facts, and I am now once again happily mocking your deliberate willfull stupidity. You're not just a liar, you're a bad and unconvincing liar whose lies are obvious to everyone reading. You're not arguing in good faith, you are rather deliberately trying to spread misinformation for selfish partisan reasons, to the detriment of your society in general. This makes you worthy of nothing but scorn and vilification.

Do keep trying, however. I can always use the laughs from mocking your stupid some more.


No, i believe he does it so he can get some kind of response, like a child screaming "LOOK AT MEEEE" with tears in it's eyes. It's sad, really.
 
2013-08-30 05:27:59 AM  

Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


Isn't it... like... one grand canyon?
 
2013-08-30 05:56:50 AM  

ZoeNekros: SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Ignorance or troll?

You decide.

/I seriously wonder that every time I see cherry-picked data
//If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat


files.abovetopsecret.com

TELL me about it.
 
2013-08-30 06:02:13 AM  

SamFlagg: This might be a dumb question.......

Are they telling me that there is a canyon beneath the ice sheet that is full of air, or a canyon beneath the ice sheet that is full of water?

If it's already full of water does that make it a trench?

(Fire stupid questions 1 and 2!)


why dont you take your reasonable questions and get out of here like a tree.
 
2013-08-30 06:02:48 AM  
The question is whether the stuff mankind is dumping into the atmosphere is having an unnatural, unbalancing, effect on the climate. If it is then graphs showing natural variations before mankind started dumping stuff into the atmosphere isn't very useful, because it isn't relateable to today.

Anyway, this is an example of an interesting story with the comments ruined by an unnecessary GW reference. Like a science thread in the Bevets days. You could never discuss it because he'd goad people into talking about Jesus.
 
2013-08-30 06:38:37 AM  

namatad: ZoeNekros: SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Ignorance or troll?

You decide.

/I seriously wonder that every time I see cherry-picked data
//If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat



TELL me about it.


4.bp.blogspot.com

2004 isn't even the warmest year of the last decade either, but thanks for making me post an image of how sudden and dramatic the upswing in temperature is. With the resolution of that image, it makes it look like it's going straight up with an infinite slope.
 
2013-08-30 07:33:39 AM  

KiltedBastich: SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]

Oh hey, there you go lying again with the same cherry-picked image you always use, the same one that's debunked over and over. Don't you ever get tired of lying like that? I suppose not, dishonest troll that you are. But that's ok, it gives me another opportunity to mock you for the dishonest shill you are, and I always enjoy that.

So here's the actual facts, and I am now once again happily mocking your deliberate willfull stupidity. You're not just a liar, you're a bad and unconvincing liar whose lies are obvious to everyone reading. You're not arguing in good faith, you are rather deliberately trying to spread misinformation for selfish partisan reasons, to the detriment of your society in general. This makes you worthy of nothing but scorn and vilification.

Do keep trying, however. I can always use the laughs from mocking your stupid some more.


Wait, so in 2007 we had a 2 degree temperature anomaly? Why wasn`t the world told?

I am sceptical of that... Could you provide some evidence of this 2 degree anomaly in 2007 that the rest of the world missed?

That`s nearly half a degree more than 1998! Why does the data from HADCRUT contradict your graph?

Are you making this stuff up?
 
2013-08-30 08:07:29 AM  
Proves a global flood.
 
2013-08-30 08:16:25 AM  

Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?


It's the size of one Grand Canyon.
 
2013-08-30 08:27:22 AM  

Smoking GNU: I have him farkied as "12 year GW troll" for posting that precise pic every chance he gets.


IMO, it would be more accurate to call him "1998 GW troll"*. It is not the 12 years that matter to him ... it is that every single graph he posts must start in 1998. This is the only way his lies can ever appear to have any validity. Not that any person with even a basic understanding of science or statistics can't see right through his little charade.

If you point out that if he starts his graph in any other year, earlier or later, it will have a positive slope he goes quiet and never addresses the the point.

This is the face of deniers folks - someone who is blatantly dishonest and too stupid to even defend his position.

* Personally I consider him to be an idiot puppet and not a troll.
 
2013-08-30 08:37:09 AM  
SevenizGud - Would you mind taking a moment to tell us about your credentials regarding climatology and, in general, science? For folks to take your word over the word of more than 97% of the scientists and researchers in the field, it'd be nice to know that you have some credibility in this area.

And when GeneralJim gets here, I'd like to ask the same of him ... again.  He refused the last time that I asked.
 
2013-08-30 08:37:31 AM  

dready zim: Wait, so in 2007 we had a 2 degree temperature anomaly? Why wasn`t the world told?

I am sceptical of that... Could you provide some evidence of this 2 degree anomaly in 2007 that the rest of the world missed?

That`s nearly half a degree more than 1998! Why does the data from HADCRUT contradict your graph?

Are you making this stuff up?


I'm not sure why you couldn't follow the cite in the figure caption, but it's monthly data from BEST.  BEST is an independent non-profit organization which integrates data from all available sources and publishes their methodology and data on line for free.  Here's how their data lines up with other major groups:

static.berkeleyearth.org

Also, 2007 was the 5th-warmest year in recorded history, so it's not surprising that it had a very warm month mixed in there:
 www.ncdc.noaa.gov
January in particular was extremely unusual:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov

You said "the rest of the world missed", but I think you meant to say "I missed".
 
2013-08-30 08:37:38 AM  

DesertDemonWY: About the size of Algore's buttcrack


I have it on good authority that people have disappeared when they get to close to that and it emits Hawking radiation with ever disappearance.  Can you confirm?
 
2013-08-30 08:42:58 AM  
Hurry, everyone go jump on a plane to go see it.
 
2013-08-30 08:47:53 AM  

Slaxl: The question is whether the stuff mankind is dumping into the atmosphere is having an unnatural, unbalancing, effect on the climate. If it is then graphs showing natural variations before mankind started dumping stuff into the atmosphere isn't very useful, because it isn't relateable to today.

Anyway, this is an example of an interesting story with the comments ruined by an unnecessary GW reference. Like a science thread in the Bevets days. You could never discuss it because he'd goad people into talking about Jesus.


Focus on what BP and friends have been dropping into the ocean.
 
2013-08-30 09:03:56 AM  
Scary tag was the perfect icing on the troll cake subby, you reeled in some good one.
 
2013-08-30 09:44:07 AM  

mamoru: Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?

Do you have a normal analog speedometer with both mph and kph in your car? If so, go take a look at it, and see what number corresponds to the 100kph mark. Now, divide that number by 10 to get the width of the gorge in miles.

Then, divide it by ten again and multiply by 8 to get the depth in miles.

Or you could just type "10 kilometers in miles' into Google, but that probably won't help you practice thinking it out for yourself.

/seriously, working with metric is not hard, and any high-school educated American really ought to be able to do basic things like distance conversions in their head or quickly on scratch paper


When dealing with the great unwashed masses and math, you might as well just put your explanation in to a log-log graph with the captions in cherokee.
It doesn't matter how easy it is, people have a block from doing math, thinking they can do math, and thinking anybody but that nerd they made fun of in high school can do math.
Remember how people were so proud of being "computer illiterate" up until 2000 or so?  It's still that way with math.
 
2013-08-30 10:21:07 AM  
Oh look, it's this guy who shows up to crap in every GW thread:
i1326.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-30 10:21:44 AM  

SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


This thing has been posted ad nauseum in so many places I've lost count. The odd thing is if you go to woodfortrees.org, and play with the numbers, you only have to start from 1996 to get this:

www.woodfortrees.org


And if you go back just a little further you get this:

www.woodfortrees.org

And for giggle,s skipping 1998 we get this:

www.woodfortrees.org

So what does that tell you? It should tell you that 1998 is an anomalous year due to a record strong El Nino, and using it as a starting point in your data especially when generating a linear trend is dishonest and misleading.

Also, about that 'no cooling since 1998' canard:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbn1rCZz1ow

Funny how time and time again denialists like yourself will refer to op-eds and blogs which supposedly cite science, yet when you drill down to the ACTUAL science they are trying to use, it says the OPPOSITE from what they are trying to spin. In other words, The Daily Mail above keeps trotting out 'no warming since 1998' in spite of the MET office telling them directly that there has been warming, and it's been significant.
 
2013-08-30 10:35:04 AM  
'Global warming thread'

*drink*
 
2013-08-30 10:50:56 AM  
So back to the point. They find this canyon under ice by using radio frequencies that travel through ice, so there's ice in this canyon and that means global warming?
I've been taking a running tally here it is below.

Warm temps = global warming
Cold temps = global warming
normal temps = global warming
hurricanes = global warming
no hurricanes = global warming
bad weather = global warming
good weather = global warming
more ice = global warming
less ice = global warming

I have that right don't I?
 
2013-08-30 10:55:27 AM  

h4b1t: So back to the point. They find this canyon under ice by using radio frequencies that travel through ice, so there's ice in this canyon and that means global warming?
I've been taking a running tally here it is below.

Warm temps = global warming
Cold temps = global warming
normal temps = global warming
hurricanes = global warming
no hurricanes = global warming
bad weather = global warming
good weather = global warming
more ice = global warming
less ice = global warming

I have that right don't I?


No.

From TFA:

""We think the canyon is an efficient conduit for ice-melt from the glacier. If you want to model glacial movement - something that is ever more crucial due to global warming - then knowing about such topography is very important." "

Learn to read, pls.
 
2013-08-30 11:08:03 AM  

SevenizGud: ZoeNekros: If you look at the cycles, it really should have dropped over the last decade, rather than remain flat

Yeah, it's global warming because the cooling isn't cooling enough.

Chicken Little logic, right there, ladies and germs.


I'll post this again, this time with the hopes that quoting SevinizGud triggers an email alert ...

SevenizGud - Would you mind taking a moment to tell us about your credentials regarding climatology and, in general, science? For folks to take your word over the word of more than 97% of the scientists and researchers in the field, it'd be nice to know that you have some credibility in this area.
 
2013-08-30 11:19:58 AM  
""We think the canyon is an efficient conduit for ice-melt from the glacier. If you want to model glacial movement - something that is ever more crucial due to global warming if global warming existed- then knowing about such topography is very important." "
/ftfy
 
2013-08-30 11:43:41 AM  

h4b1t: ""We think the canyon is an efficient conduit for ice-melt from the glacier. If you want to model glacial movement - something that is ever more crucial due to global warming if global warming existed- then knowing about such topography is very important." "
/ftfy


That's nice, dear. Now run along and play while the adults talk.
 
2013-08-30 11:48:55 AM  
The problem with GW is that the solutions for it, for now, demand a lot of money and/or sacrifices. While we may not have a choice, deniers is the end result of such a problem.
 
2013-08-30 12:02:53 PM  

Lonestar: The problem with GW is that the solutions for it, for now, demand a lot of money and/or sacrifices.


Every year we wait adds $500B to the investment required according to the International Energy Agency.
 
2013-08-30 12:03:57 PM  

ThatGuyOverThere: mamoru: Sid_6.7: To put that in perspective, imagine a ten kilometre wide gorge, up to 800 metres deep, running from the Southern coast of England and into Scotland. This is on the same scale as parts of the Grand Canyon.

That's cute, but can we get it in terms that matter to important people, namely Americans?

Do you have a normal analog speedometer with both mph and kph in your car? If so, go take a look at it, and see what number corresponds to the 100kph mark. Now, divide that number by 10 to get the width of the gorge in miles.

Then, divide it by ten again and multiply by 8 to get the depth in miles.

Or you could just type "10 kilometers in miles' into Google, but that probably won't help you practice thinking it out for yourself.

/seriously, working with metric is not hard, and any high-school educated American really ought to be able to do basic things like distance conversions in their head or quickly on scratch paper

When dealing with the great unwashed masses and math, you might as well just put your explanation in to a log-log graph with the captions in cherokee.
It doesn't matter how easy it is, people have a block from doing math, thinking they can do math, and thinking anybody but that nerd they made fun of in high school can do math.
Remember how people were so proud of being "computer illiterate" up until 2000 or so?  It's still that way with math.


Or, when on Fark, you could first ask yourself, "Is this person being serious?"
 
2013-08-30 12:10:47 PM  
Lonestar:


The problem with GW is that the solutions for it, for now, demand a lot of reallocating well-entrenched money and/or sacrifices changing things, which no one wants to do. While we may not have a choice, deniers is the end result of such a problem.

We spend billions subsidizing fossil fuels. If we spent anywhere near as much on renewables as we do on ensuring gasoline is artificially cheap, we'd be a lot further along in dealing with the problem. Unfortunately a lot of deep-pocketed organizations don't want to fall off the record-profits train, and will do everything possible to delay that through campaign contributions and coin-operated think-tanks / public opinion factories.

So far as "sacrifices," I assume you're talking conservation. That tends to pay for itself, and while no one might like to insulate their house, install CFL's, or spend an extra $5000 up front to buy a hybrid in order to save $10000 in gasoline, it ends up in people's self-interest if they think beyond the short term.
 
2013-08-30 12:20:26 PM  

SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.

[www.woodfortrees.org image 640x480]


Oh, it's THAT graph again ...
 
2013-08-30 12:46:42 PM  
While I can't say that I'm exactly neutral in the global warming/climate change/grand weatherpocalypse debate (I lean towards the "yeah, we're probably farking up the planet big time" side of the argument, and behave/vote/contribute accordingly), I'd like to think that I could be swayed to reconsider my position by a well-reasoned scientific counterpoint.  After all, I'm not a climate scientist, and it's possible that I'm just consuming a LOT of bad media (it's not without precedent - twenty years ago I went through a "JFK conspiracy" phase that was comically embarrassing).

But I gotta say, the various guys "fighting the good fight" against "warmists" on Fark do an atrocious job of representing their cause.  There's the one guy who keeps putting up the same cherry-picked graph over and over, leaving one with the impression that that's all he's got.  There's the other gentleman with the green text who waits until the thread is just about dead, then tries to bury it in recycled horsehockey, in the hopes that no one will be around to clean it up for the umpeenth time.  And then there are the various algore "jokes," which are frankly getting a little sad at this point.

What I'm saying is, y'all are gonna have to up your game if you want to make some genuine dents in the Worldwide Global Warming Hoax, 'cause right now you're just kind of... funny.

Unless, of course, you're trolling.  In which case, carry on.
 
2013-08-30 01:57:34 PM  

h4b1t: So back to the point. They find this canyon under ice by using radio frequencies that travel through ice, so there's ice in this canyon and that means global warming?
I've been taking a running tally here it is below.

Warm temps = global warming
Cold temps = global warming
normal temps = global warming
hurricanes = global warming
no hurricanes = global warming
bad weather = global warming
good weather = global warming
more ice = global warming
less ice = global warming

I have that right don't I?



No, the reason climate change was mention in the article is that if there is considerable melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, this canyon may have a significant effect on the speed and direction of glacial movement.
 
2013-08-30 03:29:32 PM  

maxheck: That tends to pay for itself, and while no one might like to insulate their house, install CFL's, or spend an extra $5000 up front to buy a hybrid in order to save $10000 in gasoline, it ends up in people's self-interest if they think beyond the short term.


Whoa, whoa.  This is America, the land that invented using donuts instead of bread for cheeseburgers.  Don't you go flaunting your Commie notions and science-faced book-larnin'.  I have it under green authority that climate scientists are trying to end Western civilization.

ducklord666: But I gotta say, the various guys "fighting the good fight" against "warmists" on Fark do an atrocious job of representing their cause. There's the one guy who keeps putting up the same cherry-picked graph over and over, leaving one with the impression that that's all he's got. There's the other gentleman with the green text who waits until the thread is just about dead, then tries to bury it in recycled horsehockey, in the hopes that no one will be around to clean it up for the umpeenth time. And then there are the various algore "jokes," which are frankly getting a little sad at this point.

What I'm saying is, y'all are gonna have to up your game if you want to make some genuine dents in the Worldwide Global Warming Hoax, 'cause right now you're just kind of... funny.

Unless, of course, you're trolling. In which case, carry on.


I've met enough people (exclusively without any formal scientific background) who actually try to repeat variants on said horsehockey, so I'm not convinced it's trolling.  (Some of these people are elderly relatives who graduated from the University of FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:.)  Face to face, I'm generally happy to explain my credentials, and walk them through in layman's terms why said horsehockey is incorrect.  Most people generally then sheepishly admit that it was just something "they heard" and soften their stance.  Over the Internet, despite my ability to directly quote and reference primary sources, the Greater Internet Dickwad phenomenon generally wins out, and the same tired arguments get pasted into new threads ad infinitum, as you've noted.

This may be because the Internet amplifies certain people.  The same people who embrace the concept of a worldwide cabal of thousands of publishing scientists simultaneously executing an elaborate prank on the world economy, tend to embrace lots of other conspiracies, such as birtherism or a secret cure for cancer being held down by The Man.  The root causes are paranoia, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and more than a little bit of narcissism -- it takes quite a bit of that to utterly dismiss the collective opinion of working professionals and their professional societies.

(There's also more than a small overlap between deniers and people I've flagged as Creationists from evolution threads.)

But as you've also noted, just because they're capable of fooling themselves doesn't mean they're capable of fooling any other group.  Generally speaking, when one of the scientists on Fark replies to them, they aren't really writing for the deniers.  They're writing for the larger number of people who read the threads and have no desire to paste in 20 pages of whargarrbl with RANDOMLY inserted all-caps PHRASES for emphasis.
 
2013-08-30 07:45:03 PM  

SevenizGud: Imagine how bad global warming would be if it was, you know, actually warming.


Debate's over, kid. Your side lost.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 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