Skip to content
 
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.

(Abc.net.au)   Jesus Chainsaw Massacre now available with half the spatter   ( abc.net.au) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

21810 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Feb 2005 at 9:12 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1097 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest

 
2005-02-11 11:13:29 PM  
COMALite J

All good points, but putting papistry aside. Can't we assume that Linus, Clement and Cletus were ordained by an apostle or someone who was.

So even if John was too busy living in caves in the desert and having apocolyptic visions (which as I recall, he was supposed to have been) to run the day to day affairs of the church, that doesn't affect that the priesthood's apastolic succession does it?
 
2005-02-11 11:14:25 PM  
BojanglesPaladin: For millenia, everyone KNEW they existed.


..........and for millenia, they had washed up on shore. finding them alive is a relatively new concept. yes, crackpots believed in ginormous squid that lived at the edge of the earth right after the 'here there be monsters' portion of their map, and going any further would result in the squid eating your boat. giant squid have a tendancy of washing ashore after they die. do you not see the connect the dots portion of this one?

kinda like behemoth and leviathon. do you not think dinosaur bones might have led to those particular legends/parables?

btw, the random capitalization has already been copyrighted by mike_71. i don't think you want his crack team of paralegal midgets in gimp suits to serve you with a subpeona.
 
2005-02-11 11:18:31 PM  
heap

I did the Genesis = Birth of the Universe comparison a while back. Tempted to go do it again just to refresh.

I was struck by how closely it parralleded evrything from the Big Bang, formation of planets, water cooling on the earth, forming of the atmosphere, emergance of plants, emergance of life, order of evolution, etc.

It was as if you were explaing where the world came from to your child. Simple, to the point, easy to grasp, and correct in concept.

A bit of an eye opener when it occured to me.
 
2005-02-11 11:21:05 PM  
heap
btw, the random capitalization

yeah, I do that. Always have. I do it when writing by hand too. No idea where I picked it up. My teachers gave me a hard time about it. It helps facsimilate my own speaking syle into ASCI. That way at least I know that what I was emphasising is clear :)
 
2005-02-11 11:26:23 PM  
heap

But with giant squids, there was a period of time (the modern age) when the people who saw the squid corpses weren't believed. No one inland bought it, because there was no evidence. Squids rot fast, and were usually rotting already by the tme they hit shore. The fishermen who came back with tales of giant squid encounters were dismissed in the same way we dismiss say, the Loch Ness monster, Oki Fanoki, and that other one.
The first documented photo of a giant squid was often held to be a clever hoax.

But they DID exist. As any pre-scientific method person with half a brain could have told you :)
 
2005-02-11 11:34:26 PM  
chaoswolf
soporific,
"No; gay bashing has less to do with Christianity and more to do with mental illness."

Wrong, hate is a taught behavior. and in this case, nobody would give a flying rat's ass about homosexuality unless they are told to, which in this case, is by zealots in the xian faith.


Said zealots are often zealots because they are mentally deranged and need an outlet. And while you can try to teach hate, it doesn't really stick without someone mentally ill to receive it and really take it to the next level. Just ask well-adjusted children of racists who married outside their race.

Seriously, take a look at the "Christian" groups that make it their mission to be anti-gay. Fred Phelps and his ilk for instance. You can find some mania there pretty quickly. Without Christianity, they would base their hatred of gays on some other reason, or find something else to hate altogether.

And there are plenty of hate groups that have nothing to do with Christianity. Or even religion. Human beings have a great capacity to hate and tear down and scapegoat and blame. We can easily do evil things, with or without religion to back us up. We like to be evil, and I daresay that under the right circumstances, you or I could and would do vile and evil things that make these "xians" you speak of look like saints.
 
2005-02-11 11:38:48 PM  
Chaoswolf
Wrong, hate is a taught behavior. and in this case, nobody would give a flying rat's ass about homosexuality unless they are told to, which in this case, is by zealots in the xian faith

It's Christians huh? Here's a thought. List for us the major faiths in the world that DON'T frown on homosexuality.
Feel free to include non-religions, like say Communist countries, or Fascist Germany. Go ahead. Show me the uniqueness of Christianity in taking a dim view of homosexuality.

I'll wait, but not too long OK? Heading out shortly.
 
2005-02-11 11:40:58 PM  
bojangles

really, we're kinda driving right past the point here.


do you honestly believe that ghosts and giant squid are comparable? i guess i'm just looking for the 'little ghost' that is commonly accepted, and even the possibility of empirical evidence. its not like ghosts rot, they just ... well, they're friggin ghosts. poof, and all that.

nessie, big foot, honest politicians...that is a slightly different playing field. they at least claim these mythical beasts are corporeal, and something at least vaguely similar exists in the natural world.
 
2005-02-11 11:48:40 PM  
heap

I was using the squids to specifically illustrate two things:

1) Science tends toward arrogance with a 'if I can't test it, it doesn't exist' way. Jules Verne based his Squid on an actual encounter in the mid 1800s. That no one believed. Science for a time had us all believe that there was no such thing as a Giant Squid.

2) Without Science people can STILL BE RIGHT, no matter how illogical it might seem. Science is not the final arbiter of what is 'real'. Reality is.

Another analogy that I love is this:

"Science is a blind man, in a pitch black room, looking for a black cat"

"Religion is a blind man, in a pitch black room, who has found the cat"

Do ghosts and fairies and whatnot exist?

Dunno. Maybe. Bucause I find it awfully hard to overlook the fact that for all of recorded history, in all places, in all cultures, in all times including our own...

People keep saying they found 'giant squid gibblets' on the shore.

And I'm pretty sure my Grandmother's house had some 'squid gibblets'.
 
2005-02-11 11:50:40 PM  
This is not a troll, but a "what if."

What if Jesus had been acquitted by the Romans, and never been crucified: what would they have put on his grave?
 
2005-02-11 11:51:28 PM  
oldebayer

"Here lies Jesus"
 
2005-02-11 11:52:05 PM  
bojangles

rather than further beat this rotting squid carcass, i think i'm just going to say 'you aren't very good at this analogy stuff' and leave it at that. the blind man and his cat thing is enough for me to arch an eyebrow at, but i've got a feeling it'd go in circles long enough to occupy, but not enlighten.
 
2005-02-11 11:54:15 PM  
BojanglesPaladin
Another analogy that I love is this:

"Science is a blind man, in a pitch black room, looking for a black cat"

"Religion is a blind man, in a pitch black room, who has found the cat"


First thing to mention is that this is certainly not an analogy. It's a "parable".

Secondly, are you saying that religion is a matter of luck? As in being "lucky" enough to have become religious (i.e. find the black cat)? Or are you implying that religious people have some sort of extra sensory perception that allows them to "find God" (i.e. find the black cat)?
 
2005-02-12 12:02:11 AM  
heap

I will be more direct.

The giant squid is directly comparable to El Chupa Cabra, Nessie, Bigfoot, etc..

The analogy is of a mythical, unprovable being that many people SWEAR to have seen and/or directly interacted with, but for which no accepted scientific proof exists.

Try another one. This time we'll make it non-corporeal.

For centuries, people warned you not to follow willow-the-wisps out on the moors, or you would end up dead. You might see the dancing lights, but they were a trick meant to lead you to your death.

But that was nonsense. No such thing and the only people who 'saw' them were just stumbling home drunk. Nobody with any science in them would buy such hogwash! After all where is the PROOF!

But the country bumbpkins kept right on seeing them.

Turns out it's a naturaly occuring phenomenon now called 'swamp gas' in which methane and other gases fromed from peat moss and whatnot become bio-luminescent or actually light like a gas stve pilot light. And this happens in areas where the ground has become marshy and unsafe, where one can get mired in the muck and even drown.

So. Science tells us that at night you might see dancing lights out on the moors. But don't go there, the ground is like quicksand and you could drown and die.

As any pre-scientific method person with half a brain could have told you.
 
2005-02-12 12:05:33 AM  
Action Replay Nick
It's a "parable".

Parables are narrative stories which contain a moral. There's no story there.

For the rest, see my above post about the will-o-the-wisp.

The blind man analogy helps illustrate that science itself can sometimes get in the way of understanding the universe.
 
2005-02-12 12:11:39 AM  
BojanglesPaladin:

The blind man analogy helps illustrate that science itself can sometimes get in the way of understanding the universe.

maybe i'm just not a fan of analogies.

just seemed to me like it'd be just as valid of an analogy to show that closing your eyes and groping will get you some pussy.

re: will-o-the-wisp.... corporeal means more than 'has a body'. tangible rides shotgun on its definition. you're talking about gas, not ghosts.
 
2005-02-12 12:22:21 AM  
BojanglesPaladin

I'm terribly sorry, but you are wrong. Your blind man "parable" fits the bill of:

parable
A simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

Although your parable is simplified into two sentences, it's still a parable. If I am wrong please explain to me how and why, instead of just asserting that you are right. I can't find any analogous elements in those two sentences.
 
2005-02-12 12:34:39 AM  
BojanglesPaladin

Reading your blind man one it is about faith. Even if you can not see, you think you have it right even if nothing you know supports you to an objective observer.

The squid story is one of many.
 
2005-02-12 12:35:29 AM  
heap

You are being too literal.

And I'm talking about Will o' the Wisps.
Pre-Science they were generally thought of as ghosts of the dead. (sometimes fairies).

Post-Science they are generally thought of as gas.

Only the 'definition' has changed dependant on the perspective. From the perspective of superstition or faith, they are ghosts. From science they are gas. All roads lead to Rome you see.

But they are both dancing lights on the moor that should generally be kept away from because of the danger where they are.

Many things that we understand as 'real' are not tangible. Ever touched or actually seen a black hole?

Another one (they one that hit me and started me onto this train of thought years ago). This is less precise and not so much an analogy as an illustration.

The vikings believed that the morning dew was caused by the winged horses of the Valkeries hooves when they passed through the sky returning fallen heroes to Vallhalla. The hooves would 'kick up' water which would fall like liquid dust and gather on the grass below.

Now of course the weatherman tells me that the morning dew is caused by condensation, precipitation and a delicate balance of humidity and temprature variance.

Now I have never seen or in any way directly interacted with flying horses in any tangible sense.

But I have also never seen or in any way directly interacted with a delicate balance of humidity and temprature variance in any tangible sense.

And neither one changes the fact that there is dew on the ground this morning.

So I ask myself: Does it matter which is 'right'. Is one of them really 'wrong'?

The dew is there.

As I've said before, science doesn't determine what is real. Neither does Religion for that matter. Reality does.
 
2005-02-12 12:39:29 AM  
Action Replay Nick

Not to lose the POINT of the blind man analogy, but..

There is no story. The blind man can be the same in both instances. In my mind it is.

But if calling it a parable helps you get what I'm trying to get at, then feel free to call it a parable. I'll call it a parable if you like. It's beside the point.
 
2005-02-12 12:44:00 AM  
BojanglesPaladin
Now of course the weatherman tells me that the morning dew is caused by condensation, precipitation and a delicate balance of humidity and temprature variance.

Now I have never seen or in any way directly interacted with flying horses in any tangible sense.

But I have also never seen or in any way directly interacted with a delicate balance of humidity and temprature variance in any tangible sense.


--------------------------------------------

You can recreate condensation with the following items.

1. A large, clear bowl
2. Plastic Wrap
3. A weight
4. A smaller container (example: cut-down yogurt cup)
5. A rubber band or piece of string

From:

http://www.freesciencefairproject.com/projects/water_cycle.html

[image from freesciencefairproject.com too old to be available]

Can you recreate a flying horse using five "ingredients"? Do you think it will ever be possible to recreate a flying horse with five household ingredients?
 
2005-02-12 12:49:26 AM  
ActionReplayNick
Can you recreate a flying horse using five "ingredients"? Do you think it will ever be possible to recreate a flying horse with five household ingredients?

Of course not. Nor did I suggest that.

Neither does your expirament create the morning dew.

So whether caused by magical flying My Pretty Ponies, or by the wonder of condensation, the feel of morning dew on my bare feet is the same.

I hope I have been as clear as I can.
 
2005-02-12 12:50:49 AM  
And I have to go. I was hoping to hear back from ChaosWolf and heap, but I got a pretty woman who ranks higher. (and who is looking over my shoulder impatiently).

Good night all.
 
2005-02-12 12:57:17 AM  
BojanglesPaladin

in either circumstance, you're looking at observation and extrapolation. the different level of stringency applied to that extrapolation is gonna vary, but...in essence you're looking at a ghetto scientific method in these examples.

people meander off in the swamps that have pretty lights, and don't come back. swamps with pretty lights over them are dangerous. this danger must be caused by ghosts.

people who eat pork and shellfish die by shiatting their guts out. eating pork and shellfish is dangerous. this danger must be because god doesn't like these animals.


its just kinda hard to credit the religious angle for this as being the solution. how often does religion point you in the direction of anything shy of god as an explination? the devil may be in the details, but so is the answers. when 'god did it' is the assumed conclusion, details don't matter. sure, the observation still led to teaching behavior that avoided the observed circumstance, but there was little push for understanding.
 
2005-02-12 01:02:50 AM  
BojanglesPaladin: All good points, but putting papistry aside. Can't we assume that Linus, Clement and Cletus were ordained by an apostle or someone who was.

Yes, they were. As Bishops. A Bishop is over one congregation (at that time usually a city and maybe its environs), not the Church as a whole. No Bishop has the authority to run the whole Church, even if no Apostles remain, just as no State Governor would be in the line of succession to the Presidency of the USA even if everyone that was in the line of succession all died at once. The mere absence of higher authority does not grant that higher authority. It must be ordained by the laying on of hands by one who has equal or higher authority that that being bestowed.

Not all of the Bishops combined had the authority to run the Church in the absence of the Apostles, nor could they ordain even one Apostle.
 
2005-02-12 01:06:31 AM  
BojanglesPaladin

Now that your woman has taken you away from the computer that you should require a "logic licence" to use, I can troll you by saying you have committed grave sin in having "Paladin" in your username. If you don't repent for this terrible crime against Jesus and the one true God the Father seconds before you die, you will burn in hell.
 
2005-02-12 01:09:59 AM  
BojanglesPaladin

PS: I don't like you because you change or dodge the subject every time I ask you a relevant question.
 
2005-02-12 01:19:41 AM  
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Figured this couldn't hurt, also figure since they somehow found proof that Abe Lincoln was gay that why couldn't Jesus be a Black Jewish Gay dude? Isn't that far fetched of an idea. And quite frankly, seeing that people are per canon God's creation, I don't think God would create gay people just so they should be persecuted by other people. Imagine how much theological insight could be had if people took a step back, removed themselves emotionally, and actually thought about this sheeyot.
 
2005-02-12 03:58:27 AM  
walkingtall

Don't you realize that all of your certainty about the universe comes form something someone has told you?

How does this not bother you?
 
2005-02-12 04:00:08 AM  
[image from img237.exs.cx too old to be available]
 
2005-02-12 05:18:27 AM  
"Faith and doubt both are needed - not as antagonists, but working side by side to take us around the unknown curve."


Lillian Smith
 
2005-02-12 01:00:28 PM  
Wow. I leave and the thread is over.

Too bad.
 
2005-02-12 01:08:30 PM  
BojanglesPaladin (hoping your're not gone yet)

"Here lies Jesus"

O.K., but what about the dates? I think it is fairly well-established that he was born in 4 B.C. or thereabouts.

Saw some stuff about the popes. I'm hoping the next one calls himself "George Ringo I" All the Beatles should have a chance.
 
2005-02-12 01:18:51 PM  
Why are you all arguing with BojanglesPaladin anyway? He seems to be in denial on all things. He constantly refuses to accept that I'm a woman, even stooping to insulting me outright by claiming I might be a man who suffered some immasculation at the hands of French sailors. It seems clear to me that he's got a problem with a woman kicking his ass so clearly and plainly. Or maybe he has other mommy issues courtesy of his misogynist's fantasy religion. I don't know. I'm just guessing here.

What I do know is that he's baiting everybody. When a man comes out and accuses a woman of being a man- especially when that woman is a feminist- it's meant to be insulting and inspire a comeback.

Who knows? Maybe BJP is right! Maybe I'm really a man who enjoys being a woman online! Maybe I'm really Mike_71 trolling. Maybe I'm Harry Knowles living out my fantasies. All you guys have to go on is my word for it, after all. On Fark, we're all anonymous, and seeing as I don't feel like publishing my picture on the internet just yet, you have to either trust me, or not. You also have to trust BJP when he says he's a Christian, male, female, sane, or anything else. Welcome to the internet folks.

So I'm telling you, I'm a woman. Does it gain me anything? Is there some secret advantage BJP sees to posting with a feminine voice? Perhaps I am some man who has been raped by French sailors, and I'm using this identity to deal with it. Perhaps I'm really a 30-something woman who just doesn't like smarmy asshats like BJP, and am not afraid to voice my opinion. Perhaps I'm a magical faerie-tale God, or an undead demigod? Perhaps the Christians are right and the savior is back, and he turned out to be a kinda cute bisexual woman with a chip on her shoulder!

Either way, we're being baited. He's farking with us, and I'm not going to waste any more of my precious words on his style of Christian love. He's a perfect example of why I don't like those people. One of him is a pain in the arse. Millions of them make my skin crawl.

I'm done with this thread.
 
F42
2005-02-12 02:02:12 PM  
Action Replay Nick:

You can recreate condensation with the following items.

1. A large, clear bowl
2. Plastic Wrap
3. A weight
4. A smaller container (example: cut-down yogurt cup)
5. A rubber band or piece of string


Or you could just breathe on a mirror...
 
2005-02-12 02:42:27 PM  
Holly_Wight

What are you on about? I wasn't aware that you and I had debated ANYTHING, much less addressed each other directly.

Perhaps you have me confused with walkintall, or whytechocolate or someone else that actually WAS wasting time with you. I don't believe I have ever even spoken to you.

I only even mentioned you once to remark that your anti-clericism wasn't really worth remarking on.

And as for your gender, I apoligize. I simply didn't see anything in the posts of yours I glanced over that strongly indicated one way or the other. I default to the masculine pronouns unless gender is clear, as is common practice.

But hey, no reason a woman couldn't fit my post just as well.

Here. I'll repost it.


"In fairness most of Holly_Wight's 'complaints' were her own personal experience. I can neither comment on or argue against what HER experience has been.

If she was raped by a gang of French sailors, all I can say is that they were not representative of the French people. That in fact the overwhelming majority aren't even sailors much less rapists.

But she would still feel that French people suck.



There. See how easy that was? All better.

Oh. BTW, just to be clear. In this story, the French sailors represent Christians, and Sailors represent Fundamentalist Zealots.

(Since you seem to WANT to take everything the wrong way)
 
2005-02-12 02:49:28 PM  
Holly_Wight

And just to drive this point home, can you please show me anything I have posted that says I am male?

Perhaps YOU are insulting ME?

"judge not lest ye be judged and all that ...:)
 
2005-02-12 03:28:32 PM  
heap

It looks like you are missing my point. I'm not comparing quality of explination.

I chose examples that did not have religious connotations for a reason.

I'm basically to saying this:
Science and religion are just two different ways of constructing a conceptual framework with which to understand the Universe we live in. Neither is 'better' than they other, they are simply different.

Like Music and Painting. Both can capture the essence of spring, but they do so in very different ways. They have little in common with each other. You can touch a painting, but you cannot hear it. You can hear Music, but you cannot see it. But they can both 'bring to mind' a cool spring morning.

And that cool spring morning exists independantly of either a Beethoven's 'Ode to Spring' or a Monet painting.

Science errs when it insists that something like a Giant Squid or will-o-the-wisps don't exist simply because Science has not found a way to 'account' for them despite plenty of 'unnacteptable' evidence.

Religion errs when it insists that evolution or the Big Bang don't exist simply becasue Religion has not found a way to 'account' for them despite plenty of 'unnacteptable' evidence.

Neither conceptual construct is CORRECT. They both are correct. Equally. But in different ways.

Which takes us to the morning dew.

In a pragmatic, personal sense, is the dew any 'better' when understood scientifically? Is it 'better' when understood superstitiously? No, it is what it is.

And we benefit from BOTH systems. Anyone who takes one, and discards the other is like cutting off one ear, and taking out one eye. You get the greater understanding of the world with a sysnthesis of the two.

Someone here said it perfectly: ""Faith and doubt both are needed"

What I find puzzling is that people have always understood this. The Renaissance was made of science AND religion together. Many of our greatest scientists have been men of devout faith. Not in spite of their faith, but becasue of it.

Only in the 'modern age', has this false divorce been propogated. It is a lie that the two systems should be adversarial.

It's like saying the only way to understand Spring is with Music. Paintings are all wrong.
 
2005-02-12 03:31:43 PM  
Thats it for me. Off to enjoy a beautiful day by doing back-breaking work.

I'll check back later to see if Heap, ChaosWolf or anyone else worth reading has posted.and Action Replay Nick if I could figure out what he was talking about.

Walkingtall and Holly_Wight need not apply.
 
2005-02-12 05:25:15 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

Because those questions often come with a 'you are SOOO stupid to believe this crap' clause in them. Who wouldn't get riled?

Really? Like the "how come gays are too dumb to understand they are sinning and just stop?" That kind of question? Replace "gay" with "scientist", "penguin", etc. Yeah, that's really annoying; how come christians do it so often? How come they're so uber-sensitive that they cry "persecution!!!!!" whenever someone else gets riled at the exact same asshat-type question? Hypocrisy and religion should not go together like chocolate and peanut butter, but they do.

I find that most 'religous' people could care less whether YOU believe.

Really? Is that why they seem to consider it obligatory to spread their "Good News" to people who obviously don't want it?

Most athiests I know have become believers through studying religions.

Let's see,
A: anecdotal
B: well, if they converted, then they're no longer "atheists you know"
C: be a model christian and learn to spell atheist

Enjoy your "backbreaking work", too bad Jesus didn't save you from that, too.

You forgot Poland.
 
2005-02-12 06:11:43 PM  
I like how they ended it with him coming back from the dead. Really sets it up for a bunch of numbered sequels.
 
2005-02-13 12:49:04 AM  
FarkmeBlind

What a stunning rejoinder. Of course mine was anecdotal. That is why I said atheists I know. One would assume the 'former' status. Next time I will post it more clearly for those of you who can't make obvious connections.

But whatever. You wanna hate Christians? Feel free. You want to take a minute fraction of the people of faith in America and pretend that somehow typifies the greater religious community? Feel free. You want to rattle off questionable anecdotal stuff yourself in a fit of hypocricy? Feel free. You seem to be good at it.

Maybe you could say all women are Child killers? After all you see women killing their children all the time. We all have. It's obvious that there is something about women that makes them want to kill children. A small well-publicized fraction can always be magnified to charicterize the whole community.

And why aren't you chasing Muslims for their anti-homosexuality? Some Christians may advise them to change their sinful ways,a few may even tell them they are going to Hell, but Muslims regularly execute them to send them there faster. If attitudes towards gays was REALLY your main beef, you should be tearing into Muslims first, and Christians after that. After all, killing them is far worse than making them feel bad.

But, never mind. I don't imagine you are working rationaly here. Hate is never a rational response.

And as an odd side note. It rained and I couldn't do the work after all. Jesus is unavailable for comment.
 
2005-02-13 12:58:01 AM  
The article says nothing "of Al-Qaeda's operating cells in the U.S."

Why would the poster link an article of a political nature and then grossly overstate the case?
 
2005-02-13 12:59:14 AM  
An even better question:

What kind of moron posts in the WRONG thread?

/I am so ashamed
 
2005-02-13 03:36:44 AM  
Someone so full of hate disguised as "righteous" anger that they don't check which thread to which they are posting, apparently.
 
2005-02-13 04:22:45 AM  
FarkmeBlind

But you didn't do it. I did. Why do you think you posted to the wrong thread?
 
2005-02-13 04:24:50 AM  
FarkmeBlind

And by the way, nice response to my last post to you. I guess when you have nothing worth saying, you just go with an insult. Explains a lot, and pretty much proves my point.
 
Displayed 47 of 1097 comments


Oldest | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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