Fail Quotes

[evensgrey]

This doesn't take into account expenses from medical tourism (necessary in many a case), or cases where people simply can't find tge needed medicine.


That's the insidious thing about these systems: the costs to people are there, but hidden. At least in the US, people can SEE there's a problem.

Don't forget the exorbitant taxes levied to attempt to pay for it, as well, and all the harms that causes.

[evensgrey]

[yt]y_yiXSfOgCs[/yt]

Anyone want to go and give Noel a bit of a smack and an explanation as to why he's talking shit about the NC bathroom access bill?

[evensgrey]

And I'm back again with fail and stupidity from LinkedIn, this time pretending that it's a terrible thing that bully-corp Gawker Media has been fatally wounded by it's own arrogance and stupidity:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-care-innovation-peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-worry-rachel-sklar?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-hero-14-null&midToken=AQESusUSbWGtxQ&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=0tzlbLiobBu7g1

It looks like the rather transparent nature of the diatribe has been seen through by most of the audience, judging by the comments.

[MrBogosity]

And I'm back again with fail and stupidity from LinkedIn, this time pretending that it's a terrible thing that bully-corp Gawker Media has been fatally wounded by it's own arrogance and stupidity:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-care-innovation-peter-thiel-vs-gawker-should-worry-rachel-sklar?trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-hero-14-null&midToken=AQESusUSbWGtxQ&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=0tzlbLiobBu7g1

It looks like the rather transparent nature of the diatribe has been seen through by most of the audience, judging by the comments.

Just so everybody knows: LinkedIn Pulse is more like an open blog system. Any LinkedIn member can publish basically whatever they want. So it's not really "from LinkedIn," since the article doesn't necessarily match the opinions of LinkedIn or anyone directly affiliated with them, other than that particular user.

[Dallas Wildman]

http://latest.com/2016/06/whoa-the-nra-just-backed-down-on-gun-sales-for-suspects-on-terror-watchlist/

The most confusingly written article I've ever seen:

Headline: "NRA backs down on terror watchlist"
Content: "NRA's position has not changed"

[Ibrahim90]

Fuck....

https://www.facebook.com/ben.perez.5/posts/1121150037958958

Do I have to explain the fail? The false dichotomy for example? Nevermind everything else wrong with this!

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/vermont-gmo-law-begins

As much as I love their ice cream (half baked, chocolate chip cookie dough, fudge brownie, and their strawberry cheesecake fro yo is to DIE for), I'm considering switching to another ice cream brand, if only because the idea of my money going to these assholes kinda takes the fun out of their (admittedly very good, but also very expensive) product...Any suggestions?

[evensgrey]

Well, Tested (the YouTube channel largely showing people used to work on Mythbusters) has pulled a major boner AGAIN:

[yt]7uK1f9aWby8[/yt]

Apparently, this is not the first time she's been on.  Adam seems to have REALLY bad taste in friends.  Or maybe the fog in San Francisco has messed with his brain.

[Altimadark]

And again I get caught up in a stupid Internet argument. I just had to stop for a moment when Cataphract made this claim, basically cementing him as an Islamaphobe (emphasis mine)

@Altimadark The Crusades were an entirely justified retaliation against 400 years of Islamic aggression.

[Ibrahim90]

And again I get caught up in a stupid Internet argument. I just had to stop for a moment when Cataphract made this claim, basically cementing him as an Islamaphobe (emphasis mine)

First, if you're going to claim to be the better person, BE the better person. Retaliating with such a destructive campaign that shocked even their own side, makes them no better than their enemies at best. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Second: so what does the Holy Land (which was open to Western Pilgrims: just ask William the Bastard's father) have to do with the Muslim incursions in Europe? Especially as those were already on the defensive: the Normans had retaken Southern Italy and Sicily, and the Reconquista was in full swing. Why go on Crusade? It wasn't Western Europe who owned Jerusalem and lost it to the Muslims: it was the Eastern Roman Empire. And they had accepted the loss of that region centuries before (the closest they got to retaking the place was in the late 10th century, when the army raided towards Tripoli, Lebanon. And the goal here was just to weaken the Hamadanid State in Syria, not conquer the place: one general was even literally disgraced for capturing Aleppo--for insubordination).

Third: the Crusades were a response to Emperor Alexios I's appeal to help him reclaim lost lands in Anatolia (it was a partial success at least in this respect), in the aftermath of Manzikert. He didn't have Jerusalem even remotely in mind. Nor was revenge over something that happened centuries ago a motive: the battle of Manzikert (1071) was a result of the war between the Fatimids and Seljuks, which sucked the Romans into it, as Alp Arsland invaded Byzantine territory on route to Fatimid lands. Prior to that point the Romans were actually doing quite well in the east, as they had recently gained much territory outside Anatolia (and Manzikert needn't have ended in defeat: Romanos V was betrayed by his own generals).

Fourth: Urban II really thought it was a good chance to reunite the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and to divert the energies of the knights away from killing each other. His speeches recorded by an eye-witness (Fulcher of Chartres), and referenced by his surviving letters, make it clear even HE didn't have what ended up happening in mind: all he thought of was aiding the Eastern Roman Empire. sources stating otherwise were written years after the fact, as an ex post facto explanation.

Finally: the only reason the Ottomans wound up at Vienna's gates was because dumb-ass Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 and made confetti of its empire. That was all that kept Europe from a Turkish invasion, and they destroyed it. Mehmet II's conquests was merely a coupe de gras.

[evensgrey]

Third: the Crusades were a response to Emperor Alexios I's appeal to help him reclaim lost lands in Anatolia (it was a partial success at least in this respect), in the aftermath of Manzikert. He didn't have Jerusalem even remotely in mind. Nor was revenge over something that happened centuries ago a motive: the battle of Manzikert (1071) was a result of the war between the Fatimids and Seljuks, which sucked the Romans into it, as Alp Arsland invaded Byzantine territory on route to Fatimid lands. Prior to that point the Romans were actually doing quite well in the east, as they had recently gained much territory outside Anatolia (and Manzikert needn't have ended in defeat: Romanos V was betrayed by his own generals).

Fourth: Urban II really thought it was a good chance to reunite the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and to divert the energies of the knights away from killing each other. His speeches recorded by an eye-witness (Fulcher of Chartres), and referenced by his surviving letters, make it clear even HE didn't have what ended up happening in mind: all he thought of was aiding the Eastern Roman Empire. sources stating otherwise were written years after the fact, as an ex post facto explanation.

Finally: the only reason the Ottomans wound up at Vienna's gates was because dumb-ass Crusaders sacked Constantinople in 1204 and made confetti of its empire. That was all that kept Europe from a Turkish invasion, and they destroyed it. Mehmet II's conquests was merely a coupe de gras.

You missed an important point:  Alexios I asked for military aid, and expected a fairly small force, of maybe a few hundred knights.  He eventually gets an army of knights, but first he gets this mass of poorly trained, poorly equipped, and, worst of all, extremely poorly DISCIPLINED peasants under the charismatic but not very coherent leadership of Peter the Hermit, and promptly sends them off to be slaughtered when they start looting and pillaging.

The other problem is that while the REQUEST was for some help to retake and solidify his hold on Anatolia, Alexios got a LOT more knights than he was expecting or wanted when they did show up, and they were uninterested in both Byzantine goals (which were limited and mostly defensive, I suspect the inclusion of recapturing Jerusalem had become pro forma traditional verbiage by that point that Alexios didn't expect the knights to take seriously) and promises they had made to turn over captured territory.

Basically, this is why you have to be really careful about asking for violent help from people who are very aggressive and have poor impulse control:  They might just decide to go and savage the people living in a different spot than what you wanted them to savage, and they might just turn on you when they finally notice you're MUCH richer than the people you asked them to savage.

[Dallas Wildman]

I just WANT to submit this for BBE, but it's just too silly.  On the other hand this is just
<slow-mow>
lllllooooooooooowowowwwww
</slow-mow>



Just...no

[Ibrahim90]

I just WANT to submit this for BBE, but it's just too silly.  On the other hand this is just
<slow-mow>
lllllooooooooooowowowwwww
</slow-mow>



Just...no

Wait, what are you referring to?

[Dallas Wildman]

Wait, what are you referring to?

You join the Navy, you should NOT expect to be playing Pokemon GO.  Now scrub those toilets sailor!

[Dallas Wildman]

Hmmm... probably a bad link:

If you can't see it here's a URL:
http://www.i-am-bored.com/2016/07/is-the-us-navy-evil-enough-to-use-pokemon-go-to-trick-potential-enlistees-pic.html