Anonymoose (60931) 2 SFW Posts | 567 Space Comments | Favorites | RSS Feed Registered 2010-10-13 13:24:58 Comment Karma: 1130 Featured Comments: 0 Member of :

Recent Comments from Anonymoose

Comment on Never wet (2014-03-04 20:17:00)
Oh, whatever. Squand. It's called Squand. Go to YouTube, search for Squand. Squand. SQUAND. [youube]http://youtu.be/prMOfdjyFK0[/youube]
Comment on Never wet (2014-03-04 20:14:16)
That's fine. I don't the edit button, anyway. I'll just keep posting until I get the syntax right. [youtube]prMOfdjyFK0[/youtube]
Comment on Never wet (2014-03-04 20:11:20)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prMOfdjyFK0[/youtube]
Comment on seems fake (2014-02-11 20:49:43)
If I remember correctly, FOX News was taken to court, except their defense was that there's no law in the United States that expressly forbids them from distorting and falsifying the news. Florida Court of Appeals agreed. 2003.
Comment on a field guide to procratinators (2013-12-06 02:53:01)
Are these supposed to be different types? This is more like my individual "Stages of Procrastination" ... just need to change the order around a bit.
Comment on pope fuck you (2013-12-03 18:17:05)
Objectively, probably - but the money would also likely be divided to a bunch of uses that would, overall, go unnoticed and (while great) not make much of a statement. A soup kitchen built in the mansion of a priest who has forgotten the meaning of [T]he [W]ord that he preaches as [T]ruth, taken from him by the friggen' Pope... not many statements like that on the market. Who know, though, maybe it's a kickass shelter.
Comment on Lewis Black (2013-07-29 19:31:23)
I figured I'd end up throwing those 2 cents into this at some point, and it seemed like a good of a place as any - regardless of whether or not it ended up being a troll post. Still, the reply's under your name. Go ahead and chalk that one up.
Comment on Lewis Black (2013-07-29 14:49:04)
You can't prove you exist, either, but the theory you accept in your own believe system should either be the most statistically likely or you should openly admit that you choose to put your own personal faith in the underdog for your own personal reasons and excuse yourself from the arena of logic. Science and faith can co-exist, but to debate them academically is a waste of everyone's time.
Comment on How about this (2013-07-09 23:34:20)
This is what's up. Aesthetic, ordered increments from largest to smallest, and it alphanumerically sorts on a computer in a way that's useful.
Comment on my microwave stopped working (2013-05-18 19:39:55)
AH HAH HAAAA. It's funny because it implies that he doesn't know that he's set the child security lock. OH HOOOOOO. /Fouad
Comment on On the head (2013-05-09 19:20:32)
What is this I don't even www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaVCfVbucVM
Comment on evolution explained (2013-05-02 15:44:23)
All new science is guesswork based on old science. Sure, non-scientists who don't understand the scientific method will start talking about "truth" and "proof" and make it sound just as dogmatic as religion, but those people are in err, not the science itself. There is not yet credible demand for this theory to be accepted as proven fact, but if your reason for rejecting it is for the embracing of a less statistically likely alternative based on weaker supporting evidence, the burden of justification is on you due to your more extraordinary claim. On top of this, accepting the less likely claim based on supporting evidence such as, "The Bible says so," creates a paradox as to why you'd get enter yourself into a logical debate in the first place, as it holds no dominion over questions of faith, which by definition require acceptance of your belief's validity as inherently being wholly unknown to you. So whatchu got? Unless you're ready to flat out say that you accept the religious-based alternative on a leap of faith with no empirical evidence based on personal preference, in which case you have no right to step into the scientific and logical debate ring, anyway, I'd refrain from calling anyone Captain High Horse, and this is especially true if your answer is neither religious nor scientific, as whimsical personal preference does not supporting evidence make.
Comment on chicken thing (2013-04-29 02:00:27)
Imho, the biggest benefit resulting from how far we've come since the transition to an omnivorous diet introduced the proteins required to evolve our frontal lobes to their current state is that the majority of us no longer need to see this shit if we don't want to. It's a necessary and natural - and the only reason we look at as disturbing today is because we've never been forced to personally hunt it down and cut out its organs just to get our required nutrition if we didn't choose to. That said, I bet you could modify the output conveyor into a the world's most hysterical cannon... It'd be like a combination of that leaf-blower TP cannon GIF and The Legend of Zelda.
Comment on Creepykins (2013-04-28 04:10:35)
Frankly? Bad pacing, poorly performed exposition, sloppy transitioning, misguided fanservice, and poor adaptation by people who either don't understand or don't care about the source material. That's being more harsh than the movies deserve, but it's honest. Claudia morphs into The Missionary with boobs and gets into a Streetfighter match with Pyramid Head, who is acting as Heather Mason's personal bodyguard. It gave my nostalgia a hernia. I'm not saying it's not worth a go just for the eye candy, but Silent Hill has gone the way of Alien. Everything from here on out is going to be bad fan-fiction and soul-crushing disappointment.
Comment on Creepykins (2013-04-28 00:02:56)
It's from Silent Hill: Revelations. The Silent Hill movies are horrible, but contain great eye candy.