Iron Man is now powered by Oracle
-
@TDWTF123 said:
What we have instead is a much bigger issue using gun control as a proxy.
What would that be?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@TDWTF123 said:
Yes, but you can buy loaded cartridges in Walmart anyway, so it's kind of a moot point....but it's actually fairly hard to get hold of saltpetre these days - as I found out recently when I wanted some for pickling beef.
Really? It's not here..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What would that be?
Good versus evil, of course. Pick a side. I have popcorn.I should probably have said it's used as a proxy for many other issues, come to think of it, but the most common one in the US right now is big government versus small government.
As soon as you examine the gun control debate skeptically, it becomes obvious that most things people say have nothing to do with gun control. They're not all complete idiots, as we can tell since many gun activists haven't yet shot themselves accidentally - although clearly gun-control protesters are more likely to be stupid since they haven't darwinned-out as frequently - so the only possible remaining explanations are that they're completely insane - which is, admittedly, a distinct possibility in the US - or that they're really talking about something other than their obvious meaning.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I'm impressed. You've managed to make your statement even stupider by correcting it.
Oh please tell me how.
@TDWTF123 said:
Not only is the UK not the 'violent crime capital of Europe',
Please tell me how it's not.@TDWTF123 said:but, as should be obvious to anyone but a complete idiot or absolutely closed-minded fanatic, violent crime is the set of which gun crime is a member.
Yup... well aware... not sure who this is directed to or what your point is here.
-
What exactly is the argument for gun ownership? Why is there no bomb ownership lobby? Not even a knife ownership lobby.
Are the people crazy about guns because of government action, or is the government action because of the crazy gun people?
-
@Sutherlands said:
Well let's just start from the stupid things you've said...
Dont confuse ignorance with stupidity
@Sutherlands said:I'm not sure why you said this.
Are you new here? You should read the whole post@Sutherlands said:f I know that half the home-owners in a particular neighborhood have a gun in the house, I'm not going to risk it. But if I know that none of the home-owners do, then I'll go there to commit whatever crime. It's a fact that criminals are deterred by guns.
Criminals don't give up on crime, if they have a choice they'll go for the perceived easier target but if everybody has a gun then the risk is the same. They'll just pick one, escalating the violence response to mitigate the risk to themselves@Sutherlands said:It's a fact that criminals are deterred by guns.
@http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html said:
Nevertheless, in a ten state sample of incarcerated felons interviewed in 1982,
34% reported having been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed
victim."[60] From the criminals' standpoint, this experience was not rare.
Again, this is probably because they didn't assume that the opponent was armed, if the doubt was hight enough or a certainty, they would have just neutralized the target before engaging
@Sutherlands said:since it will happen, we shouldn't care about how much it happens?
That is not what I said, I just said that guns or their absence doesn't make crime go away.
@Sutherlands said:Just the fact of the possibility of someone having a gun prevents crime.
For that person, the criminal will just move to an easier target, so you aren't preventing crime, just shifting the crime to another person and that is only if there is an easier target, if not, they'll just escalate the violence
-
@Ben L. said:
What exactly is the argument for gun ownership?
There is nothing wrong with owning one, if your country allows it and you are a law abiding citizen
@Ben L. said:Why is there no bomb ownership lobby? Not even a knife ownership lobby.
What makes you think there isn't? ;)
@Ben L. said:Are the people crazy about guns because of government action, or is the government action because of the crazy gun people?
Again, there is nothing wrong with owning a gun, this people are not crazy, legal gun ownership should not be a problem
-
@Sutherlands said:
@TDWTF123 said:
Tell us how it is. One fanciful headline from the Telegraph a few years ago doesn't mean a thing.Not only is the UK not the 'violent crime capital of Europe',
Please tell me how it's not.
-
Hey, I was away for the weekend. What's the haps?
-
@dhromed said:
Hey, I was away for the weekend. What's the haps?
Sutherlands got murdered in the UK. At least I think that what he's trying to argue.
-
@dhromed said:
Hey, I was away for the weekend. What's the haps?
This thread is like if cancer and Hitler had a baby.
-
What if Hitler and a baby had cancer?
-
What had if baby Hitler a cancer and?
-
@Ben L. said:
What exactly is the argument for gun ownership?
We've had this same stupid discussion, like a dozen times. If you can't be arsed to go back and re-read the thread, then why should I waste my time explaining it to you again?
@Ben L. said:
Why is there no bomb ownership lobby?
I'm assuming because most people aren't absolutists and can see no value in bomb ownership.
@Ben L. said:
Not even a knife ownership lobby.
Well, that's not true. There are lots of pro-knife people (the NRA just sent me a pretty sweet folding knife; some people around here use them for hunting pigs.) However: 1) there's no concerted effort to outlaw knives in the US; and 2) knives aren't really a very good weapon for self-defense, especially with the availability of guns. As such, knives are under the radar for most people. In fact, you can probably walk into any Wal-Mart or the like in the country and buy a 14-inch machete and probably the only requirement is that you be over 18, if that.
-
@TDWTF123 said:
I should probably have said it's used as a proxy for many other issues, come to think of it, but the most common one in the US right now is big government versus small government.
As soon as you examine the gun control debate skeptically, it becomes obvious that most things people say have nothing to do with gun control. They're not all complete idiots, as we can tell since many gun activists haven't yet shot themselves accidentally - although clearly gun-control protesters are more likely to be stupid since they haven't darwinned-out as frequently - so the only possible remaining explanations are that they're completely insane - which is, admittedly, a distinct possibility in the US - or that they're really talking about something other than their obvious meaning.
While I agree that the gun control debate has much larger issues involved--like big government versus small government--I don't think any of these are particularly hidden facets. The big vs. small gov't thing comes up a lot in gun control discussions here.
But a large part of it is, very plainly, an argument on private ownership of guns. A lot of people are simply asserting that they have a right to own guns for self-defense, for hunting or just because they want to.
You should also realize that there's not much of a gun control debate left in the US. The media likes to gin one up because the media tends to be anti-gun, but large, large majorities of Americans are fine with gun ownership. The truth is, it's an ever-shrinking minority of ignorant, anti-gun whiners who have lost the debate but who still try to stir up as much shit as possible.
Of all the "hot button" issues in American politics, gun control is the most lop-sided. In fact, the only reason we still hear about it is because politicians and those in the media--all of whom think they have a right to tell people what they can and can't do--have decided to harp on it in the hopes they can win a little bit of ground for the anti-gun side. But even as actual private gun ownership declines in the US, the number of people supporting gun ownership continues on the upward trajectory it has been on for the last 30 years.
-
-
@morbiuswilters said:
But a large part of it is, very plainly, an argument on private ownership of guns. A lot of people are simply asserting that they have a right to own guns for self-defense, for hunting or just because they want to.
Republicans: Hey I like guns.
Democrats: Don't shoot me, ok?
Republicans: Ok, sure.
Democrats: Gee, thanks!THIS unfortunately IS NOT HOW THE DEBATE WENT
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You should also realize that there's not much of a gun control debate left in the US. The media likes to gin one up because the media tends to be anti-gun, but large, large majorities of Americans are fine with gun ownership. The truth is, it's an ever-shrinking minority of ignorant, anti-gun whiners who have lost the debate but who still try to stir up as much shit as possible.
Unfortunately, that minority is waaaaaay over represented in places like the NY State legislature or Chicago Aldermen (or whatever their city lawmaking body is). The federal nature of our governments means that even though most people in the country as a whole are fine with legal private gun ownership, a significant number of people live under laws that disagree with that sentiment.
-
@Ben L. said:
THIS unfortunately IS NOT HOW THE DEBATE WENT
And unfortunately nobody got shot, either. Really the debate was more like:
Democrats: Hey, let's have another pointless debate to distract from how badly the country is falling apart. Um, let's go for guns, even though we know that no gun control measure will ever pass Congress and even though something like 30% of our own fucking party is strongly pro-gun.
Republicans: Great, this will be a boon to our campaign finances!
Democrats: Yeah, ours, too. We were losing steam with the other non-issues we were using to distract the country from our ineptitude; even the barely-sentient welfare parasites who vote for us are starting to suspect we don't know what the fuck we're doing.
Republicans: Ha! Well, we couldn't govern our way out of a wet paper sack, so just be sure to drop the gun control thing after it starts to become unpopular. We actually quite like being the minority party: lots of campaign contributions but no responsibility and we can just spend all our time blaming you for everything wrong!
Democrats: Shit, we've managed to perfect the strategy of blaming you even when we're in charge. God I love this stupid-as-shit country!
Republicans: Ha ha, it's really the best job in the universe, isn't it? And God damn if I don't love you.
Democrats: Hey, watch it, or people will think you're going soft on the queers.
-
@boomzilla said:
The federal nature of our governments means that even though most people in the country as a whole are fine with legal private gun ownership
I don't think anyone beyond a crazy minority wants to take yer guns away, the debate is about what controls should be enforced to keep them away from criminals.
-
@boomzilla said:
Unfortunately, that minority is waaaaaay over represented in places like the NY State legislature or Chicago Aldermen (or whatever their city lawmaking body is). The federal nature of our governments means that even though most people in the country as a whole are fine with legal private gun ownership, a significant number of people live under laws that disagree with that sentiment.
Yeah, but fuck those places. NY state has some pleasant parts, but I honestly give about as much of a shit about what happens there as I do about Communist France. And Chicago's the asshole of the universe. The way I see it, it's mostly liberals who are being killed by their own dumb policies, so why do I care? Let the food-stamp-collecting, out-on-parole drug dealer gun down the urban hipsters. It makes no difference to me. I mean, sure, I'd prefer it didn't happen, but there's only so much sympathy you can have for idiots who keep touching a hot stove..
-
@morbiuswilters said:
even when we're in charge
The vote for gun control was something like 54/100 for, 46/100 against. And it failed because apparently 54% is not a majority.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I don't think anyone beyond a crazy minority wants to take yer guns away, the debate is about what controls should be enforced to keep them away from criminals.
There are several things at play here (and I think I've already said this, so I'm kind of losing interest in repeating myself):
Incrementalism: You don't just take people's guns away, you work at it slowly, over time. It's like gay marriage: 20 years ago even the flaming liberals were like "Oh, nobody wants gay marriage". Now, personally I don't give a shit about gay marriage, but if you think incrementalism doesn't work, then you haven't paid attention to the 20th century.
There a lots of laws out there that would be more effective at stopping criminals from getting guns but they aren't even being enforced. You're asking that we create new laws, which will primarily target law-abiding gun owners, when the laws that might actually stop criminals continue to receive almost no attention from police.
Private gun sales make up a ridiculously tiny part of actual criminal transfers. And once you start mandating background checks, do you think those criminal buyers (and frequently sellers) are going to comply? The reason they're buying off-the-grid is to avoid background checks.
Once again: if you believe the point is to protect people or stop criminals, you are buying into a lie. These proposed laws do nothing to deter or stop criminals; they only impact law-abiding citizens. And that's by design. The left wing does not want to stop criminals, they want to stop law-abiding citizens. If you don't believe me, talk to some liberals about a well-known convicted murderer (especially if he's a minority) and watch their expressions of sympathy and listen to the excuses they make on his behalf. Then talk to them about law-abiding gun owners and take note of the venom and hatred.
The truth is, these people feel sorry for actual criminals and despise law-abiding gun owners. Their only interest is in enforcing their own parochial view of the world and punishing those who do not conform to that view.
-
@Ben L. said:
@morbiuswilters said:
even when we're in charge
The vote for gun control was something like 54/100 for, 46/100 against. And it failed because apparently 54% is not a majority.No, it never went to a final vote. Also, there's the concept of "political cover"--there are undoubtedly some Senators who voted for cloture who wouldn't vote on the final bill.
But it wouldn't matter anyway, it never would have passed the House and it's questionable it would have stood up to court challenges. And even assuming that happened, most states wouldn't enforce it, meaning it would be effectively useless. It was pure kabuki and everyone involved knew it from the start.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@boomzilla said:
The federal nature of our governments means that even though most people in the country as a whole are fine with legal private gun ownership
I don't think anyone beyond a crazy minority wants to take yer guns away, the debate is about what controls should be enforced to keep them away from criminals.It's that crazy fucking minority in the NY Senate and running Chicago that I was talking about! And there are plenty of people that would be excited to ban everyone from owning certain guns on the grounds that they look scary to people who don't know anything about guns. Or guns for which they cannot count the number of bullets without removing their shoes. And they're not really interested in how these laws will affect crimes committed with guns.
The evolution of explanations of Fast and Furious has been interesting. First, right wingers speculated that it was the Obama Administration trying to set up a bogeyman to give them support for more gun control. One reason this was speculated was the ridiculous lie they told about how many of the cartels' guns came from the US. Eventually, liberals paid enough attention, and they started saying that the Obama Administration designed Fast and Furious to increase support for more gun control.
-
I don't think the argument holds that "we shouldn't bother making laws because criminals will just break them;" that could be applied to any law, really.
Not every criminal is well-connected, either, especially the poverty-induced street thug type, and even more especially the little pipsqueak wannabe-gangster teenagers. Furthermore, just making it inconvenient to get a gun can deter crimes of opportunity and/or passion; something as simple as a mandatory waiting period could give a guy whose wife just cheated on him a chance to cool his head, for example.
Maybe it's just a cultural thing. I've had hardly any exposure to guns, just being near guns would make me uncomfortable, and I associate gun usage more with war, robbery, and murder than with hunting and self-defense. I still strongly support civil liberties, and I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else in so doing - and it's just that last part that concerns me.
-
@joe.edwards said:
I don't think the argument holds that "we shouldn't bother making laws because criminals will just break them;" that could be applied to any law, really.
That wasn't my argument. My argument was "you shouldn't make laws that have a negative impact on law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to stop criminals". In fact, we went through this before, it was called Prohibition, and it was a disaster. Although a slight majority favored it, a lot of otherwise law-abiding citizens continued to drink. This just resulted in a sharp increase in organized crime and the corruption of high-ranking public officials everywhere. It was an utter failure, but that's what happens when you have a moralistic (slight) majority who create laws to harass law-abiding citizens.
@joe.edwards said:
Not every criminal is well-connected, either, especially the poverty-induced street thug type, and even more especially the little pipsqueak wannabe-gangster teenagers.
These guys aren't exploiting the "private sales loophole", though. If they do manage to get a gun from a private sale, you can be damn sure that it would never be background checked, no matter how many laws you pass.
@joe.edwards said:
Furthermore, just making it inconvenient to get a gun can deter crimes of opportunity and/or passion; something as simple as a mandatory waiting period could give a guy whose wife just cheated on him a chance to cool his head, for example.
I'm actually okay with mandatory waiting periods for people who don't own any other guns (it should be obvious that there's no sense to it if the person already owns other guns.) However, it must be enacted by the states--waiting periods are outside Federal jurisdiction.
@joe.edwards said:
Maybe it's just a cultural thing. I've had hardly any exposure to guns, just being near guns would make me uncomfortable, and I associate gun usage more with war, robbery, and murder than with hunting and self-defense.
I don't doubt that it is a cultural thing. I grew up around guns and I see them as about as benign as a car. Sure, cars can be lethally dangerous and you can even murder someone with one if you want, but I'm assuming you grew up around cars and don't see them as killing machines but just as a way to get around.
Now, take some pygmy out of the Amazonian jungle and stick him next to a freeway and he's going to have a freakout. And I get why, a huge stream of metal beasts moving upwards of 70 MPH is bound to be terrifying if you've never seen it before, but it's normal to us.
And speaking of cars, I know I'm far more likely to die from a car than a gun (as I imagine every single person reading this is.) But counter-intuitively, people treat cars as far safer than guns. We have licensing requirements on both, and we restrict access for people who are considered dangerous, but when's the last time you heard somebody suggest that we should ban private car sales because someone who shouldn't be driving might get ahold of a car?
What about creating new laws that make it much harder for law-abiding folks to buy a car, but which don't stop criminal drivers from obtaining illegal cars? Or a Federal ban on any gas tank over 3 gallons? Or the right for police to come to your house, harassing you and demanding you provide evidence that you own every car in your garage? People would riot in the (now allegedly safe) streets.
Hell, cars are dangerous as all fuck. If you're a normal, middle-class American you're probably 100 times as likely to die from a car than a gun. And yet we let 16 year old males drive cars without adult supervision. Sixteen year old males! The most reckless, stupid thing that Nature has ever created! And people barely bat an eye.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Hell, cars are dangerous as all fuck. If you're a normal, middle-class American you're probably 100 times as likely to die from a car than a gun.
Certainly true; but very few people using a car have the intention "do what I want, or I will run you over". Most people who use a gun have the intention "do what I want, or I'll shoot you". Intent is a big differentiator.
-
@DrPepper said:
Certainly true; but very few people using a car have the intention "do what I want, or I will run you over".
Where do you drive?!
@DrPepper said:
Most people who use a gun have the intention "do what I want, or I'll shoot you". Intent is a big differentiator.
If "do what I want" means something like, stay the fuck out of my house and don't try to hurt me, then I agree.
-
@DrPepper said:
Most people who use a gun have the intention "do what I want, or I'll shoot you".
Bullshit, unless, as boomzilla said, you mean "Stay out of my house". In which case, the assholes deserve to get shot.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@DrPepper said:
Most people who use a gun have the intention "do what I want, or I'll shoot you".
Bullshit, unless, as boomzilla said, you mean "Stay out of my house". In which case, the assholes deserve to get shot.
OK, I'll grant you that there are really three populations we're talking about when we talk about guns. Police/militia/army/security guards -- sanctioned to use their weapons on human targets. Then the sports(wo)men -- shooting at non-human things like targets or ducks. Fair enough. The third population is who I was considering when I wrote the above -- "bad guys" who target humans.
Let's not lose the message. A previous poster suggested that you're more likely to get killed by a car than by a gun. I'm just saying that if you're killed by a gun wielder, he very likely intended for you to be killed; but when you're killed by a car driver, it's far more likely to just be an accident.
Of course, I'm completely convinced that if you drink and drive, and hit someone, you're just as guilty as if you'd deliberately aimed your car at someone.
-
@DrPepper said:
Police/militia/army/security guards -- sanctioned to use their weapons on human targets.
And end up killing far more innocents than law-abiding private gun owners.
@DrPepper said:
Then the sports(wo)men -- shooting at non-human things like targets or ducks. Fair enough.
Yeah, but kind of boring.
@DrPepper said:
The third population is who I was considering when I wrote the above -- "bad guys" who target humans.
There are criminals and then there are those who keep guns for protection. I primarily have guns for the purpose of killing humans, but that's not something I want to happen. But they're there to protect me from criminals or criminal government.
@DrPepper said:
A previous poster suggested that you're more likely to get killed by a car than by a gun. I'm just saying that if you're killed by a gun wielder, he very likely intended for you to be killed; but when you're killed by a car driver, it's far more likely to just be an accident.
That was me, and I'm not sure why it matters. Death is death. If you have some hypothetical country where a million die from slipping on ice each year and 1 person dies from being stabbed, would you prioritize anti-knife legislation over anti-ice legislation?
@DrPepper said:
Of course, I'm completely convinced that if you drink and drive, and hit someone, you're just as guilty as if you'd deliberately aimed your car at someone.
Sure, and drinking and driving is a big problem. So do we have laws that say that you can't purchase alcohol if you have access to a car? Of course, driving while drunk is illegal, but so is shooting people. But it's only with guns that people seriously suggest we create a police state to keep people from doing something evil. And drunk driving is a lot more prevalent than gun crime (although most drunk drivers get home safely). Alcohol by its very nature makes people have poor judgment. And the act of driving drunk seems less awful to people than shooting someone, so it's easier to convince themselves to do it.
In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you're a middle-class person not involved in crime in any way, you're more likely to be harmed by a drunk driver than a gun.
-
LOL. Vaguely related to derailed thread: Home intruders shove man in closet, turns out to be where he keeps his guns
-
@morbiuswilters said:
We have licensing requirements on both, and we restrict access for people who are considered dangerous, but when's the last time you heard somebody suggest that we should ban private car sales because someone who shouldn't be driving might get ahold of a car?
Don't give politicians more crazy ideas! However I do get this and believe that people should be responsable behind the wheel, one of the reasons I don't drive is because I know I would suck at driving.
@morbiuswilters said:I primarily have guns for the purpose of killing humans, but that's not something I want to happen. But they're there to protect me from criminals or criminal government.
Even though the risk of any of that happening is really low?
-
@serguey123 said:
Even though the risk of any of that happening is really low?
I look both ways whenever I cross a street, even though some streets I cross rarely have any cars coming, and even when they do, I can usually hear them. So the probability of me being struck if I just started walking is really low. Does this shock and amaze you?
-
@DrPepper said:
I'm just saying that if you're killed by a gun wielder, he very likely intended for you to be killed; but when you're killed by a car driver, it's far more likely to just be an accident.
Uh, not really. One of the big arguments people make against gun ownership is that there are lots of "accidental" shootings (something like 1 negligent to 2 intentional non-leathal shootings). Of course those arguments are also from people not raised around guns and so they don't have the right outlook (I mean they call unintentional accidental rather than negligent).
Note: Yeah I know how the numbers I quoted do go with your point but when most say "very likely" they tend to mean 80+%.
-
@boomzilla said:
Does this shock and amaze you?
Yes. For another example I don't look both ways in one way streets. Why waste my time on something so unlikely to happen? I also don't check for meteorites falling when I leave the house
-
@serguey123 said:
Yes. For another example I don't look both ways in one way streets. Why waste my time on something so unlikely to happen?
Because it happens routinely around here. Especially those damn Washington drivers. Every time I see a car going the wrong way, it has a Washington plate on it.@serguey123 said:I also don't check for meteorites falling when I leave the house
Of the several thousand meteorites that hit the Earth per day, most of them are tiny and of no consequence. I have no numbers, but I'd venture it's a pretty safe bet you're more likely to get hit by a wrong-way driver on any individual day than to be hit by a meteorite.
-
@nonpartisan said:
Because it happens routinely around here.
Then, you should look both way but work toward correcting that
@nonpartisan said:Especially those damn Washington drivers. Every time I see a car going the wrong way, it has a Washington plate on it.
Don't you have traffic signs or police or something? I guess that GPS devices would also show if the street is one way or not so I don't see why they shouldn't get a ticket even if they are from out of state. There is no point in having a law and no enforcing it.
@nonpartisan said:I have no numbers
ok
@nonpartisan said:I'd venture it's a pretty safe bet you're more likely to get hit by a wrong-way driver on any individual day than to be hit by a meteorite.
So, ass-pull? Look, I never said that one was more unlikely than the other, they are both small risk occurrences that you shouldn't worry about. As long as you are aware of how small is the risk I'm fine with that. Whatever brings fullfillment to your pretty much danger free live.
-
@boomzilla said:
LOL. Vaguely related to derailed thread: Home intruders shove man in closet, turns out to be where he keeps his guns
@TFA said:
The wounded man, believed to be in his 20s, was heard crying out in pain as he lay bleeding on the pavement.
Justice-boner
-
@MiffTheFox said:
What do you mean the CPU can't copy memory straight from one pointer to another?
DMA*
Oh wait, I'm supposed to say something about firearms, right? Or maybe the philosophy of mathematics?
(*I suppose you could argue that's not the CPU doing the copy, but meh)
-
@serguey123 said:
Don't you have traffic signs or police or something? I guess that GPS devices would also show if the street is one way or not so I don't see why they shouldn't get a ticket even if they are from out of state. There is no point in having a law and no enforcing it.
So much fail... why do you think that police are there for every traffic infraction? Why do you think they would ignore this?@serguey123 said:@nonpartisan said:
People drive the wrong way down streets every day. I'd venture that most people that have driven for awhile have done it at least once. And it's something that is easy to avoid. A meteorite, on the other hand, doesn't happen hardly ever, and can't really be avoided so looking up would do nothing.I'd venture it's a pretty safe bet you're more likely to get hit by a wrong-way driver on any individual day than to be hit by a meteorite.
So, ass-pull? Look, I never said that one was more unlikely than the other, they are both small risk occurrences that you shouldn't worry about. As long as you are aware of how small is the risk I'm fine with that. Whatever brings fullfillment to your pretty much danger free live.And besides, 1 in 5 homes each year will experience a break-in or home invasion. That's a pretty high chance if you ask me.
-
This thread is turning into another SpectateSwamp.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
This thread is turning into another SpectateSwamp.
Except that thread is still on topic.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This thread is turning into another SpectateSwamp.
Except that thread is still on topic.
So we filled seven pages talking about the shitty product placement in Iron Man 3?
-
@MiffTheFox said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@morbiuswilters said:
This thread is turning into another SpectateSwamp.
Except that thread is still on topic.
So we filled seven pages talking about the shitty product placement in Iron Man 3?
Huh?
This != That
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Huh?
This != That
@jamesn said:
You know what really grinds my gears about Iron Man 3?
Jarvis: "Sir, the Oracle cloud has completed your computations"
What a load of crap. See also: http://www.oracle.com/us/ironman3/omag-mj13-ironman-1936895.pdf
-
This thread: Started on a topic, too many replies, veered wildly off topic.
Swampy thread: Started on a topic, too many replies, is still basically on the same topic (Swampy and his software)
Hence why when WhoeverTheFuck said "This thread is becoming the next swampy", I sarcastically replied "Except [b]THAT[/b] thread at least stayed on topic".
.
.
.
k?
-
@Lorne Kates said:
{.}{.}
Mommy, why are they pointy?
-
@Ben L. said:
@Lorne Kates said:
{.}{.}
Mommy, why are they pointy?It's disturbing that you see boobs and immediately think of your mother.
