Sunday, December 30, 2012

Comics 1150-1153: Randy's Paradox

1150. Randy stands up for the evil corporation trying to exploit the intellectual property of its users! It's good to know that someone is willing to defend Corporate America against the evils of the consumer. F-- for being a fucking class traitor.

1151. Ha ha she dumped her present on the other presents! F for not being remotely funny.

1152. Ha ha Randy is an EDGY ICONOCLAST!!! F for not being an edgy iconoclast.

1153. I would have liked this a lot more if he didn't bash us over the head with the joke. D for bashing us over the head with the joke.

Seriously, though, let's revisit 1150. This is the one where he compares Instagram changing their TOS so that they own everything you upload and have the right to use it commercially with no royalties paid to the user without any sort of notification (I think that the natural outcry against this bullshit has since convinced them to rescind this policy, but I'm too lazy to look for a link) to storing all of your stuff in your friend's garage. Apparently, in Randy-land, when you use a free service, you basically deserve whatever horrible shit happens to you when the assholes in charge decide to fuck you.

This was extra surprising because Randy's readerbase probably consists of a lot of people who are pretty big into the whole privacy thing. In fact, even among total douchebags, there are very few people who think that a corporation is totally within its rights to exploit your intellectual property merely because you're putting it on their servers.

It's doubly offensive because Randy literally makes his living off his intellectual (we are clearly using the word very broadly here) property. His work is licensed under a Creative Commons Noncommercial license. So this is not only stupid, it's hypocritical. "I don't want anyone using my work commercially, but you people who are using Instagram to take and upload pictures totally deserve asshole corporations using your work commercially."

I shouldn't be as surprised that the forumites aren't giving Randy a hearty "what the fuck, since when are you an apologist for these douchebags?", but I am. It's been a while since I paid any attention, I guess.

Finally: a fond farewell to ALTF, who is apparently leaving us on the eve of the year of our Lord 2013. Go bravely, ALTF. You will be missed.

228 comments:

  1. Wow, you actually put a lot of effort into bashing a comic. That hasn't happened since...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i don't think i'd call it "effort"

      Delete
    2. But your time! Your busy career! How in the hell is your immense social life going to stand up to the pressure of you spending more than 20 seconds on each review?

      Delete
    3. sometimes i have to make sacrifices

      Delete
  2. happy new year rob xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. happy new year weasley (can i call you weasley or would it be awkward). i'm really rob by the way

      Delete
    2. i know you're not but I appreciate the effort anyway x

      Delete
  3. A review, here on xkcdsucks...?!

    Also, completely off-topic but I feel like talking about myself: The other day, I offered my help to an old lady who wanted to cross the street. Just as we reached the middle of the street and the traffic light turned to green, I changed my TOS and decided to throw her on the ground and run away as fast as I could (after having kicked her in the face of course). And now people say I'm an asshole...?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She should have know that the "Police" "Bread" and "MusicAL-Lights" WOULDENT go in the whack-i-mole-hole

      Delete
  4. I read the thread for 1150, and there are actually quite a few forumites who are on Instagram's side. See for yourself.

    "There is a huge fallacy in that comic, that is just like going to the north pole, and then at that exact place, saying “I will now go north!”:
    [...]
    A little hint: It was not “your” information from the moment on where you uploaded it to the Internet or gave it to anyone else via any other means.
    [...]
    So the analogy in this comic is completely invalid nonsense! Which should be blatantly obvious from the fact that when Instagram “sells” “your” information (pictures), you still have them, while when Chad (actually) sells you physical objects (stuff), it is gone.

    What the fuck, Randall?"
    [link]

    From the same guy:
    "So you are saying that when some complete idiot created an utterly impossible business model that can never work in reality, and he therefore fails in every aspect, to sustain his business, that that makes it acceptable for you that he switches to a criminal business model?"
    [link]

    "Maybe the analogy would have been better if Chad had just been renting out your stuff to people who would bring it back to the garage, so that it would still be there when you came by. But whatever, close enough."
    link


    "By what logic are XKCD readers more likely than not to be offended by making fun of people who were naive enough to believe that THIS Internet service wasn't out to make money when all the others are?"
    link

    And they are perfectly justified in doing this. The content IS hosted for free, but it still may have value and took time to create. The fact that Instagram didn't capitalize on the value was its own fault.

    link

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fucking libertarians.

      There is no right to anything, let alone profit. The whole capitalist model and the contract law which backs it up is just a pragmatic fudge to keep the wealthy wealthy and the remainder chasing dragons.

      All that really matters in the scheme of things is that you're not a dick. If you do something that makes others suffer, you're a dick. It's as simple as that, and it doesn't matter who did or didn't agree to anything.

      Delete
    2. "......If you do something that makes others suffer, you're a dick......"

      I am about to spend the next three and a half months revealing this truism. In my case, the eponymous 'dick' to which you refer, is the United States of America! And the suffering 'others', are the fine citizens of S. E. Asia.

      Delete
    3. >All that really matters in the scheme of things is that you're not a dick. If you do something that makes others suffer, you're a dick. It's as simple as that, and it doesn't matter who did or didn't agree to anything.

      I was talking with a Muslim friend about homosexuality. He desperately tried to convince me that it's wrong and immoral, and I desperately tried to convince him he's an ass. I don't really understand how morality can be defined other than by this standard, namely, that it's about not harming others unduly. Obviously, we'd need to define "unduly", but I think it's a good enough start.

      Incidentally (well, kinda), I think that's really where religion screws up. It's when it comes up with random rules about "morality", that have nothing to do with anyone's well-being.

      Delete
    4. It's the curse that comes with every silver bullet, whether economic, political or philosophical.

      Delete
    5. "......I was talking with a Muslim friend......."

      The DHS has now 'unduly' made a note of that. You're fuct now!

      "......It's when it comes up with random rules about "morality", that have nothing to do with anyone's well-being......."

      Are you ever fucking naïve!
      Fuck me from behind with a coalesced Indulgence, but the well-being of the 'Clergy' sure gets a much deserved boost and the 'Flock' has the tremendous burden of cogitational thought removed from their weary shoulders!

      Delete
    6. I bet you guys never take your "just don't harm other people" fundament of morality to it's final logical consequences and admit it follows that it's okay to marry your mother/dog/icecream/etc.

      Delete
    7. The freshman political debate club is across the hall, Eumesmopo.

      Delete
    8. On December 31, 2012 6:41 AM, ALTF said:
      The religious elite are, like, controlling us man.

      Delete
    9. There is nothing more repulsive than someone dipping his toe in the Pierian spring. For one thing, his feet are likely to be filthy, spoiling the taste for the rest of us.

      If you're going for pompous italics, where the merry hell is your é?

      Delete
    10. 7:16
      -
      What the hell does that have to do with anything?

      Delete
    11. If you have to ask, you should probably be there.

      Delete
    12. Please, save your college insider invectives for people who get/care about them.

      Delete
    13. @ALTF 6:41: In my defense, he's one of those filthy SE Asian Muslims (honest! Malaysian e-friend), not a nasty Arab one.

      Also, I do accept the invitation to fuck you from behind, thank you.

      @Eumesmopo 6:46: Hm, wrong pick. I for one couldn't care less about what consenting adults do together. Let alone with/to inanimate objects, or animals as long as it doesn't hurt (unduly! Think euthanasia etc.) the latter.

      Now, marriage/love and indeed, sex, are not the same thing as making babies. Inbreeding is not the bestest thing in the world. But that is off-topic. We don't need built-in evolutionary taboos anymore now that we know how things happen and how to avoid them.

      Delete
    14. 7:53
      -
      Wow... ok, I take that one back.

      Delete
    15. I'd be interested in hearing your take on why marriage between a parent and their offspring is "morally wrong", though. Because it seems like this is a view you ascribe to, but I could be wrong just like you were. I'm not interested in a long debate about this issue, I believe I've stated my opinion already, but it'd be interesting to hear the other side's rationale, in a concise version that doesn't resort to such arguments as 1) inbreeding/evolutionary taboo, 2) God said it's wrong, or 3) "it just feels wrong but I can't say why" -- the 3 of them being one and the same, obviously. Do note that I'm refering to a relationship between consenting adults (which implies legal age and no serious mental condition impairing any of the parties' "judgment", among other things). And let's ignore the legal aspect of it, too; one could argue that infringing the law is immoral, and since incest is illegal in... pretty much all places I believe, that would only make your argument tautologically valid.

      Delete
    16. Eumesmopo December 31, 2012 7:41 AM said,

      ".....Please, save your college insider invectives for people who get/care about them......"

      AND.............

      Eumesmopo December 31, 2012 6:46 AM said,

      ".......I bet you guys never take your "just don't harm other people" fundament of morality to it's final logical consequences and admit it follows that it's okay to marry your mother/dog/icecream/etc......."

      College insider invectives?
      Union with sugared and frozen dairy product?

      I like tongue-lashing icecream. Does that count?

      Delete
    17. There are very few thing you can confidently say to be universal among humans and incest taboo is one those things, there are no etnological or historical accounts of a human society where incest is morally permissible, thus it is evident that the prohibition of incest dates back to immemorial times. Based on this universal nature of incest prohibition Claude Levi-Strauss (a french anthropologist who did some field research among the Bororo in Brazil) theorised that incest taboo is the thing that made humans come out the state of nature and enter into the state of culture and is thus the foundation of civilization. Basically his reasonning goes like this: 1. Incest taboo divides (in relation to any specific individual) all humans into two groups: Kindred (whose are close to you and you can't fuck with) and Related (whose are far from you and who are free game) 2. Incest taboo prohibition having sex with those who are close to you force you into exogamy, meaning you have to look for partners among members of a social group distant from your family 3. This normative exogamy forces humans into maintaining bonds with other social groups, thus making humans necessarily very social 4. This effect is the driving force that made humans extremely social animals, capable thus of culture, civilization and language.
      -
      And that's why incest taboo is for the commom good of mankind.

      Delete
    18. Sterculian Rhetoric:
      -
      My problem is not with people marrying icecreams, my problem is with people being hypocrites.

      Delete
    19. ALL Homo Sapiens Sapiens are hypocrites!

      Hunter S. Thompson (a dope-addled anthropologist who did some field research among the Yankees in Las Vegas) theorised that stupidity is the thing that made Yankees come out of the state of nature and enter into the state of cuntribbitry and is thus the foundation of Librul Fucktardery.

      And I like ice cream too.

      Delete
    20. "ALL Homo Sapiens Sapiens are hypocrites!"
      -
      Don't know about all homo sapiens, but you sure are a cynic.

      Delete
    21. I am a pragmatist.
      A cynic is someone who wallows in the 99% and is taught, by the 1%, that to be a cynic is proof of possession of a heinous character flaw.
      A pragmatist, conversely, inhabits the starry heights of the hallowed halls of the 1% and knows cynicism is a virtue. It is only a virtue for as long as the 99% consider it to be a vice mind you.
      And therein lies the rub!

      Delete
    22. @Eumesmopo 10:07: you have not provided a single reason why incest is morally wrong. You have, at best, given a reason why having incest as a moral taboo came in handy at some point in human evolution. You'll have to admit it's a pretty serious logical mistake to go from there to "incest is morally wrong". The validity of Lévi-Strauss' hypothesis itself, but more specifically how it applies to our modern society (as opposed to pre-behavioral modernity hominids), could be disputed as well.

      >And that's why incest taboo is for the commom good of mankind.

      "I personally have no problem with homosexuals, but what they do is wrong because if everybody was like them, mankind would die". Classic. That's both fallacious in how it presents the issues at hand (as if everybody would suddenly turn homosexual/have an incestuous relationship), and simply incorrect in our modern day and age anyway (artificial insemination/contraception for instance).

      But that is off-topic since we were speaking of morality =D Also, make no mistake, incest does make me feel uncomfortable just like pretty much anybody else. And if I saw my friend french kiss his mom, I'd be shocked and would want to throw up. Or find that very unusually hot. Either way, that would be because it's in my genes to feel that way.

      Lastly, I know a lot of LGBT rights advocates would piss on my face for having done what I just did. No, I'm not saying homosexuality and incest are related. But they both have been/are being considered paraphilias, have been/are being repressed for the same kind of reasons, this is discrimination mostly comes from the fact that they're evolutionary taboos which have then become cultural taboos, their "opponents" use very similar arguments ("unnatural, death of mankind, morally wrong," etc.), and none of them actually harms anyone and people should mind their own business IMO.



      lol at captcha: "incesyc". This is a sign!

      Delete
    23. What a bunch of assholes.

      Delete
    24. Anonymous @ December 31, 2012 1:11 PM?

      Reading your rancid word salad is morally wrong

      ".....Lastly, I know a lot of LGBT rights advocates would piss on my face for having done what I just did......"

      Fucking wrongo, cuntmitten. These folks void their bladders on your festering gob because you request it from them.
      You Golden-Showers-taking-weirdo you.

      Delete
    25. "The validity of Lévi-Strauss' hypothesis itself, but more specifically how it applies to our modern society (as opposed to pre-behavioral modernity hominids), could be disputed as well."
      -
      No, you didn't really get it. His theory is not about explaining the "conjectural history of mankind", it's about explaining the universality of mankind. What it does is exactly to explain the repeating structures of social organization that are found on every single human society we know of (including the ones that proclaim themselves "modern"). Pick any culture you want and look at it, you will always see this one same clichê: Various family groups exchanging spouses with one another. That's simply the way human societies work and that's why incest is morally unacceptable: it is socially absurd. You see, that's the part where I disagree with you; morality is not about harming or not harming individuals because it is a collective thing, morality is about what's reasonable to a society as a whole.

      Delete
    26. Eumesmopo makes the discovery that certain practices taken to extremes by all members of some society can be harmful to that society. The more he knows.

      (This is my generous interpretation, anyway.)

      Delete
    27. Of course, it may just be that you're dumb. In which case I have bad news for you, chum. Society has decided that your continued existence is contrary to its interests.

      >morality is not about harming or not harming individuals because it is a collective thing, morality is about what's reasonable to a society as a whole.

      Delete
    28. Quiet, Anon@2:58. Clearly if it's bad when everyone does something then it's bad for one person to do it. STOP TRYING TO BE YOURSELF. Variety is harmful to societies and finding a single homogenised optimum is the key to guaranteed long-term success.

      Delete
    29. @ALTF:

      >Reading your rancid word salad is morally wrong

      But is it tasty?

      >Fucking wrongo, cuntmitten. These folks void their bladders on your festering gob because you request it from them.
      You Golden-Showers-taking-weirdo you.

      I didn't know such biases and bigotry still existed in 2012. I'll have you know that those very fine people will piss on you for *no apparent reason*. Surely what I did in that previous comment was one such non-reason.


      -

      @Eumesmopo:

      >Pick any culture you want and look at it, you will always see this one same clichê: Various family groups exchanging spouses with one another. That's simply the way human societies work and that's why incest is morally unacceptable: it is socially absurd.

      How about nobility? Some of these guys married their daughters. But more frequently, nieces etc. "Socially absurd" doesn't mean anything. To them, incest made great sense.

      As a French man, I take issue with you writing clichê instead of cliché. Hide your face in eternal shame.

      >You see, that's the part where I disagree with you; morality is not about harming or not harming individuals because it is a collective thing, morality is about what's reasonable to a society as a whole.

      That's an interesting POV, but we indeed disagree. Because by this exact same token (the "what if everybody were like that" argument, which I'm pretty sure is what you meant by "society as a whole"), contraception is immoral. 2:53 said it best. Like for instance, clowns. Clowns are good people. But what would happen if everybody was a clown? Yup. Pretty shitty society.

      That's not what morality is about. It's like when people say lying is immoral, they're not actually making a deep statement about the general state of society. They're just saying "it's not good to wrong people".

      Delete
    30. listen you stupid nerds
      everyone knows there are no morals

      Delete
    31. Anon@3:06, I wonder whether our South American friend can name a certain mid-C20 Jew and part-time clown? Do you think he'd have executed the clown or his muse? Who needs RELATIVITY anyway.

      Speaking of which, Rob, you've linked to the most annoying Militant Atheist Libertarian argument the Internet routinely offers. Bravo.

      Delete
    32. i didn't know it was an argument

      Delete
    33. How long have you been on the Internet? Everything is an argument.

      Delete
    34. argument not contradiction bla bla

      Delete
    35. also bonus points for thinking that an image from a chick tract is a militant atheist argument (???)

      Delete
    36. "How about nobility? Some of these guys married their daughters. But more frequently, nieces etc. "Socially absurd" doesn't mean anything. To them, incest made great sense."
      -
      Yes, european nobles did that with frequency. There are other things european nobles did with frequency as well such as murder, rape, torture, genocide, slavery... The thing is: Society establish norms, yet some people chose to violate them, nobles in particular had the power to violate norms and get away with it without even being questioned. Keep in mind that ideology is one thing and practice is another one. Incest happens, but never with the blessings of social norms.
      -
      "That's an interesting POV, but we indeed disagree. Because by this exact same token (the "what if everybody were like that" argument, which I'm pretty sure is what you meant by "society as a whole"), contraception is immoral. 2:53 said it best. Like for instance, clowns. Clowns are good people. But what would happen if everybody was a clown? Yup. Pretty shitty society."
      -
      We are not talking about conformity of personality, or attitude, or behavior, or life path; We are talking about moral conformity - about following the rules.

      Delete
    37. implying it isnt

      Delete
    38. do you even know what chick tracts are

      Delete
    39. Eumesmopo, keep beating that strawman. Your misunderstanding of morality has already been explained to you.

      Delete
    40. parodies, mostly

      Delete
    41. "Your misunderstanding of morality has already been explained to you."
      -
      Where?

      Delete
    42. By 2 or 3 separate Anons, one of whom was me. Read the responses. If there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask questions.

      Delete
    43. I read it already, I don't want to read it again and look for something I'm almost sure not to be there. So, please, quote.

      Delete
    44. Let me be the second person to point you to Anon@2:53, then. Because that's all you're saying.

      By some non sequitur, you think you've reached a moral code.

      Delete
    45. 2:53 Didn't understand a word of what I wrote.

      Delete
    46. Perhaps you have a really good point and you're just really bad at explaining it?

      Everyone seems to have "not understood a word" in exactly the same way.

      Delete
    47. Nah, he just seems to think that anything which would be somehow harmful for a society if everyone always did it is "immoral". Some people really think like this. They carry around signs like "god hates fags".

      Delete
    48. It's just that the issue with incest is not that it is "extreme", or "unnatural", or "harms other people" or any other inherent attribute that makes it "evil". It's just that it is a prohibition which civilization can't function without.

      Delete
    49. You suggested that an incest taboo may have helped human socialisation at some point in the past. That's a million miles away from suggesting that civilisation can't function without a "prohibition" on incest.

      Of course it may be that you personally would indiscriminately and relentlessly copulate with your own willing mother if it weren't for social mores, but you don't represent everyone.

      Delete
    50. oh do all shut the fuck up. eumesmopo is either thick as shit or trollan so youre not gonna get anywhere

      Delete
    51. "You suggested that an incest taboo may have helped human socialisation at some point in the past. That's a million miles away from suggesting that civilisation can't function without a "prohibition" on incest."
      -
      Like I said before, that's a misunderstanding. Levi-Strauss wasn't looking towards understanding "what our ancestors might have done", his theories seeked to understand human universals based on the syncronic analysis of all current cultures across the globe and "modern" humans are by no means exempt from the necessity of the incest taboo in order to basic social alliances to take place.

      Delete
    52. Your position is no different from that of homophobes who panic that everyone will turn gay if a few homosexuals are allowed to come out of the closet without being lynched. The onus is on you to present the argument without handwaving in the direction of contentious authority.

      Bonus points if it's not obvious you're rephrasing the Wikipedia "Incest taboo" page.

      Delete
    53. "Your position is no different from that of homophobes who panic that everyone will turn gay if a few homosexuals are allowed to come out of the closet without being lynched."
      -
      It doesn't matter if one person breaks it or the whole world breaks it, a true prohibition can't accept any violations, that's just how norms work.

      Delete
    54. You're hopeless.

      A "norm" shows some aspect of how a society tends to think its members should behave.

      "Morality" concerns itself with engineering and applying moral systems to determine how individuals should behave in given situations.

      The issues may overlap, but they're nowhere near the same. A norm just describes what is. Norms may involve application of some moral system, or they may have fuck all rational justification (no argument from axioms).

      "Prohibition" is a third issue which may or may not apply to either morals or norms.

      tl;dr Avoid motherfucking = norm, but that doesn't necessarily mean any of motherfucking = immoral, prohibited, harmful.

      Delete
    55. I'm AFK. Please take some ethics or sociology or anthropology or psychology or pretty much any soft science at your college. You paint with the broad strokes of a dabbler and make schoolboy errors of jargon. Good luck, and happy new year.

      Delete
    56. Norms and Morality is the same thing when you don't believe in Lex Naturalis.

      Delete
    57. Eumesmobro, I envy you: your thought processes lead me to conclude that you are perpetually high.

      Delete
    58. The thing about smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers.
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      .
      ...Sorry, I always wanted to quote that.

      Delete
    59. Eumesmopo January 3, 2013 9:50 AM wrote,

      "...Madmen believe they're too smart for neurotypicals to understand them..."

      But with interpolated "motherfucker"s because yankee culture is hep.

      Delete
  5. "......"I don't want anyone using my work commercially, but you people who are using Instagram to take and upload pictures totally deserve asshole corporations using your work commercially."....."

    Hypocritical?
    What a load of Librul bollocks!
    Frankly, I'm shocked Rob. You of all people should be able to recognise hypercriticality when you see it.
    Sheesh!

    Thank you for the good wishes on my departure. I shall leave in an aura of joyous alacrity.
    I have a feeling however, you might be being a tad ingenuous though.
    No matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THE HOUR, ALTF. WHAT HOUR DO YOU LEAVE US. Or have you already left.

      Delete
    2. 06:00 Hours, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada time tomorrow; January 1, 2013.
      The Tutor will follow at a later date.
      I will be alone amidst the filthy Third-Worlders for Allah knows how long.

      Pray for me.

      Delete
    3. my judgment was, as ever, lax.

      Delete
    4. Don't forget that their filthy Third-Worldliness can be transmitted by air too. Always have one of those long hollow beaks handy, I hear they're very efficient.

      Good luck indeed!

      Delete
    5. Prescient little bastard, Rob!
      I make a connection in LAX
      How did your judgement, and by association, you, know this?

      Dearest Anonymous @ December 31, 2012 1:39 PM,

      It ain't the buboes about which I have to worry, it's the Bubbas and Bubbettes from the Christian Childrens' March Against Decency from the Southern US, "Hope? Fuck It! Give Us Money" Ministries that are the problem.
      God I hate those feckers

      Delete
    6. working for homeland security has its perks

      Delete
  6. This Week in 'What If':

    "What a load of Librul bollocks!" - ALTF

    Indeed.

    Now let me do some scientific calculations, woman.

    Considering that the United States has a total resident population of 315,033,000 approx., that 19% of them identify themselves as liberals (according to a 2011 survey), and that the average volume of semen per ejaculate is about 0.4 ml, if all American liberals shot their load at once (for instance if they saw some lewd milking action), it would amount to approximately 24 meters cubed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And around one in five men have problems with sexual performance. COINCIDENCE?

      Delete
    2. ALL YANKEES are Libruls!
      For fuck's sake, y'all have democracy! How fucking liberal is that?

      Sheesh!

      Delete
    3. Also, the most alert of you will immediately notice that my scientific calculations assumed all liberals are males. This only makes sense, if you think about it. But please don't think about it. Thx!

      Delete
    4. You also did not differentiate between spermatazoa and seminal plasma and the prevalence of the oft' seen haematospermia amongst the gun-totin' Yankee cunt!

      Delete
    5. You're right! And I forgot to take into account the emasculated! I am ashamed. I planned on showing my calculations to Randy and hoped he'd let me fill in for him one day, but I now realize how foolish my aspirations were.

      Delete
    6. when at first your calculations are inferior, just make a graph with poorly defined axes and upload it to your website anyway! that's the R Munroe way!

      Delete
  7. She will be mist, and be quite content with vapour though vapidity had been the goal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. First post of the last year I intend to spend in this sorry place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you waiting a year? Just go now.

      Delete
    2. Specifically to wait for a response like that, giving me justification to stay for another year.

      Delete
    3. That is no justification.

      Delete
    4. Anon@10:16, your post included no justification. Please retract.

      Delete
    5. Everyone's posts here include justification. That's why the right edges of our paragraphs are so neat and tidy.

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. Year of Linux on the Desktop 2013

      Delete
    2. Capitalism finally receives 501(c) non-profit status as legitimate religion 2013

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. That's like telling someone you're going to kill them with your mind, half an hour after they've been declared dead. YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
    2. That's like telling someone at a fancy dress party that their clothes are not stylish. YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
    3. That's like telling somebody on the XKCD forums that they're not smart. YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
    4. That's like telling Jesus not to bother spreading a message of peace. YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
    5. That's like fucking morons. YOU FUCKING MORON.

      Delete
  11. ALTF is a tranny.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think 1156 is kinda cool, really. It probably wouldn't actually work because the loud music would scare animals away too quickly for them to make the connection between the sound and dispensation of food, but that's ok I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not getting how Randy thinks it's going to work (assuming it does work; I think the animals could become conditioned by the music, but are also going to be conditioned to look for food at the usual feeding station, and not a passing car)


      It sounds like a great way to get a bunch of animals run over. Is he envisioning some kind of scene out of The Birds where the car is completely enveloped in wildlife, rendering the driver unable to drive? Is accidentally running over some animals intended to make the driver sad and upset?

      How is the driver (who probably is constantly blasting throbbing bass when driving) supposed to figure out that the bass (rather than just the acting of driving through Randy's neighborhood) is what's making animals run at them? Or are they just supposed to conclude that the animals around Randy's house are too crazy to fuck with and pick a different street to drive on?

      Delete
    2. I think 1156 is a pretty cool guy, eh pre-defeets porpoise, and doesn't afraid of moronic.

      Delete
    3. 1156 is bad, and you should feel bad.

      Delete
  13. Fucking 1156

    As introduction, I've been following this site on and off for a few month now, reading your criticism of XKCD from the past, and only giving cursory examination to lardass Rob's horrible, horrible comments. (Do you still make fun of Rob? Or has that ship sailed? I don't want to be a munroe and make stupid references to things that are a year too late or whatever.) Anyways, this is the first time I seriously wanted to attack Randall for a modern xkcd. I was even impressed with Click And Drag and it let me hold off my rising rage. But now, I must let it go. And now back to our regularly scheduled program

    Goddammit Randy, you're actually disgusting. I mean, I realized that already, but this is just too much pandering and pretentiousness for me to take, and I'm a wannabe writer college student.

    Not only is this bastard advocating the use of something stupid dressed up in sciency sounding words, he's making a fucking call back to a black hat guy comic, he's advocating against loud bass (admittedly I have a bias towards this behavior) which was just fucking stupid and overplayed 5 years ago, he's found what's probably the most disgustingly harmful and cruel way to do this. And the FUCKING ALT TEXT! The alt-text is the most douchey bit of nerd pandering in this whole fucking comic. The "Imma take a shot at the catholic church and y'all gon' laugh at them stupid morons who believe in God." kind of nerd pandering. Fuck you Randall and fuck any cuddlefish who laughed at this bullshit.

    And for the record, I'm a hardline Atheist, if I'm aligned with any philosphical ideas, it's probably those of Camus, so I don't think religion is good thing at all, it's the opposite as a matter of fact, but this sort of behavior is what I hate. Telling those who believe in god that they are wrong about what they believe in your eyes isn't a problem. Calling them stupid or a douche for not giving up something that allows them to ignore the horror of the truth of our uncaring, pointless universe is supremely douchey.

    Finally, besides the subwoofer (which I wouldn't have been able to tell if it wasn't labeled) the art wasn't that bad.

    Ah, my first rage, that was pretty cathartic. Should I like, light a cigarette or something? Or just go masturbate to my own shitty creation like Randall?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TL;DR: We all think XKCD sucks, so you've realized just how bad this once. Congratulations, you win nerd rage.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry, did you mean to type 'I'm stupid and want to feel as if I fit in by hating something for reasons I don't quite understand'?

      Delete
    3. @anon 5:36: have you hacked my computer that is the exact text of my next review

      Delete
    4. I'm religious and hating the pope is damn fine by me. That child molesting, aids spreading, inquisiton defending, money leeching, obscurantist, retrograde, nazi old fuck.

      Delete
    5. but eumespopo the catholic church is the most ardent defender of the traditional family structure our society is built upon against the Gay Agenda surely they can't be all bad

      Delete
    6. Also, they're against contraception. And everyone knows that riding bareback is much more enjoyable.

      Delete
    7. 4:44, if you're really one of those people who think it's appropriate to play loud shitty music in public places, then fuck you. I hope you spend the rest of your life locked in a small room with Randall.

      Delete
    8. @4:44: You managed to kill the father. The milk is all yours.

      Now, I agree with 2:34 regarding the fucking that should be operated on you. I hate loud bass being imposed on me. In my country (and probably in yours too, IDK) it's forbidden to honk in populated places (except in case of "imminent danger"). That's because there are people breathing and doing the life thing there, and it turns out noise pollution is Bad.

      Though I admit I am probably a bit of a maniac when it comes to that. There is quite literally no noise pollution in the village I live in, which makes my memories of what it's like to live in a relatively small town seem like a sonic hell, one populated with interesting persons who think anyone gives a shit what they're listening to (not to mention that any music does indeed sound like crap when you only hear the bass). Because let's face it, the reason a lot of people play their music loud is partly to assert themselves -- not all of them, of course.

      Kinda agree on the religion part of your rant, though, but maybe for slightly different reasons. It may seem like a very boring and obvious thing to say, but: there are millions of people who are both religious and smarter than me. I think this is a fact that all agnostics/atheists/anti-theists/skeptics/whatever should remember everytime they get cocky, unless they happen to be very very, very smart. I have quite a deep respect for people who managed to reconcile their faith with rationality. I admire them, if only because of their self-deceiving skills. It takes a lot to deceive a ridiculously smart guy. Stephen Colbert comes to mind.

      ^the above paragraph does not apply to South Americans.

      Delete
    9. @3:04 Shut up gaylord

      Delete
    10. Are you sure you're not confusing me with your mom, 3:59?

      Delete
    11. @2:34 That depends on what you call shitty music. My friends and I have gotten onto an electro-house and dubstep kick, which is music that is seriously assisted by having a booming subwoofer when not played through headphones, and while it does make some hip-hop songs more fun, we tend to turn it down because we actually do listen to the lyrics, as we tend to not listen to something shitty like the disappointingly large amount of top 40 hip-hop radio.

      Also, I've never had a problem with other people doing it. Which may be the flimsiest defense in history, but the fact is that I've never met someone who was really against people playing their music loud off of the internet, though I live in a fairly metropolitan area, so we have a lot of noise already, so bitching about something like someone else's noise is just stupid. When I hear a car of people blasting their music, whether it's unidentifiable bass, Nikki Minaj, or Hakuna Matatta, I just ignore it. Not to say that you're a whiny bitch if you dislike it, I totally get that, it's just not a big deal for my situation and I find it to be fun, so I like to do it. A strong subwoofer can turn any chair into a massage chair, which is always a good feeling, and that's why I blast it on occasion, @3:04, and you're very right when it comes to separating religious people from the idea of religion.

      @Eumesmopo

      I don't like the pope either, my problem with attacks on him in this instance is that while he's basically a living strawman for opponents of religion and/or Catholicism, he's still a strawman. He's shorthand for a lot of the things that are wrong with religious institutions, and by connection, what is wrong with religion. And considering the fact that nerd culture seems to lead towards skepticism, the message that "religion is just stupid" seems very clear, even though it's never stated. And this is the sort of elitism that makes XKCD in general disgusting, nothing about being religious makes people worse or better than someone else, it all means nothing in the end, whatever you believe. I think the fact that Randall has woven nerd pandering into the subtext of his comic to be totally pathetic

      In conclusion:
      "Beat on the brat, beat on the brat, beat on the brat with a baseball bat! Oh yeah! Oh yeah, oh oh!"

      Delete
    12. "@anon 5:36: Have you hacked my computer? That is the exact text of my next review."

      Punctuate yourself, Rob! Have you no shame?

      Without the question mark, or indeed any punctuation, it would have been impossible for an observer to tell if you were really saying two sentences or indeed saying that the computer is the exact text of your next review. And how can a computer be a piece of text it's physically impossible. Unless you hark back to the days when computers would only store a single read-only text file, that did happen, right?

      Delete
    13. That Anon said,

      "...I've never met someone who was really against people playing their music loud off of the internet..."

      You live in a shitty area where everyone's mind is so addled that another noise won't make any difference. This might also explain the quality of your reasoning.

      Delete
  14. I am disgusted by everything here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You disgust me.

      Delete
    2. I, on the other hand, am pleased and intrigued with the original and stimulating ideas expressed here.

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah, baby. You disgust me all night long.

      Delete
  15. I think I've found the real significance of the title of 1156. At first I thought it referred to the 'conditioning' of the wildlife, which would cause them to attack passing vehicles when they hear bassy music But that's too ovbious, and makes too much sense. Then I thought it might be the idea 'conditioning' the drivers to avoid the area when they are plagued by local wildlife. But that's giving Munroe too much credit.

    Indeed the people who have been conditioned here are the xkcd fans themselves. These loyalists have undertaken 'conditioning' to find xkcd funny, every time. Like the proverbial dogs before them, they salivate three times a week for insightful humor, even though there is nothing of redeeming value about 1156.

    Its premise makes no sense, and it even fails on an absurdist level, because it looks like Randall was at least halfway serious with his failed animal-killing contraption. If it was being presented as a deliberately stupid idea, then it would have the bald stick figure be introducing it to his dark-haired lady-friend, (who is obviously more intelligent than he, because her long hair and feminine pronouns identify her as a female). No, this was just a stupid idea in a stupid package.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some quotes from the 1156 thread, because 1156 is so fucking dumb.

    "I actually thought this comic was pretty goddamn hilarious, though mostly just for the title text. I also wonder if there's any chance it could work."
    link
    Kill me now

    "Great comic, but you shouldn't feed bread to birds."
    link
    Why is THIS your main problem with 1156 of all things?

    "You would be undergoing several steps in an elaborate plan to solve the ongoing problem, so i don't think this qualifies as a "problem solving itself"."
    link
    This isn't the main problem either.

    "You can't condition birds and animals to flock to thumping bass.
    They aren't conscious.
    [...]
    Those animals act more like turing machines then say... natural intelligence.
    This comic is propagates an unsound belief in animal psychology."
    link
    Someone there does not understand consciousness, or is an animal-killing psychopath.

    "I have trained crows to call me. They click, then I take them food.
    Sometimes they follow me. I think it is funny.
    Some other people do not think it is funny.
    One man is so frightened of me. It is a misunderstanding.
    Frightened people are dangerous.
    I, still, think it is funny.
    Wildlife can be used as a weapon. I am training these big birds to be very bold around me."
    link
    Not sure if serious...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that it matters, but I was naked when I compiled that post.

      Delete
    2. So hot! But I thought as much. Please provide me with additional details.

      Delete
  17. "There was a moment’s silence, during which they scowled at each other. Suddenly, Rob and Megan kissed each other’s brains out in a passionate mutual embrace of rage-filled horniness. It felt so wonderfully wrong. Rob knew from the start that she was dating Randall. But to Rob it was just a way to get back at him. Megan knew Rob was an enemy of XKCD and everything it stood for, but that just made her burning loins yearn for him even more. And as they walked away from the experience, they knew that they would never be able to see each other again. But every moment of their absence was worth it, for that passionate fiery embrace they shared in the coffee shop. Rob had cum in his pants. He took off the XKCD shirt, and wiped it up, then ate it."

    write more of this
    whoever you are

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's start a petition.

      Delete
    2. Let's Kickstart it!

      Delete
    3. I pledge ointeen dullars!

      Delete
    4. Let's Kickstart a kickstart to kickstart it.

      Delete
    5. A webcomic reference!

      HAH!

      Delete
  18. Way late to this, but: yes, if you use a free service, you basically deserve every fucking horrible shit that they do to you. Every fucking one.
    This is the thing which needs pounding into people's heads. If the service is free, you're not the user - you're the motherfucking _product_.
    Seriously, what the hell happened to us. Back in the day if a complete stranger gave you a single piece of free candy, you instantly assumed they had some ulterior motive. The Internet somehow managed to erase that basic self-preservation trait from our minds.
    Shit. I hope Facebook follows suit (in a sense, they're ahead). Google too. There's no fucking free lunch. None. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fucking libertarians.

      Delete
    2. For what it's worth, xkcd is a free product.

      Delete
    3. i've always liked people who actually want society to be run by evil corporations. it's so beautifully naive. that there are still people so innocent out there really gives me hope for humanity.

      Delete
    4. Rob, that's the thing - I DON'T want society to be run by the evil guys. But it requires that the rest of us be aware of what they're actually doing. And Facebook (now a public company) did NOT pay one billion dollars for a service without at least a semblance of a plan to get that money back and more.
      Instagram may be many things for many people, but for the people in charge it's anything but a photo sharing social thingee. The sooner people realize this, the better. Perhaps then they can work their way up to the mother ship, and think twice before they disclose stuff about themselves online. We need this even more than we need Internet privacy laws, because the attack surface is so fucking huge.

      And yes, people can do horrible, including illegal shit to other people AND still be deserved.

      Delete
    5. so cute! can we keep him? i promise i'll feed him and clean out his tinfoil hat every day

      Delete
    6. How can you guys stand against anything that involves hipsters getting raped with glue and sand for lubricant?

      Delete
    7. I thought hipsters were already full of sand. At best it would be a terrible waste of sand.

      Delete
    8. Jon Levi, you meant: "xkcd readers are a free product".

      Delete
    9. isthis the new altf persona?

      Delete
    10. not nearly cool or interesting enough. ALTF demonstrates a profound mastery of the english language, specif. when used to convey nothing at all. this anon is only spouting sophomoric and internally inconsistent libertarian theories of corporate ethics and privacy, based entirely around the line "if something is free, you aren't the customer, you're the product," despite the fact that this line is based on very simplistic and largely inaccurate definitions of the words 'customer' and 'product.'

      this sort of hard-line idealism is adorably naive, it is unworthy of the boundless adulation that ALTF so richly deserves.

      Delete
    11. I agree that the definitions are simplistic, but not that they are ultimately inaccurate. Corporations exist to make money. Whatever they are selling is the product, and whoever they are selling it to is the customer. A free service may refer to you as the latter, it really makes no difference. Ultimately Facebook's product is the info they have about you. And this is fine - up to a point, as long as people actually realize that, and only part with the information which makes sense to be shared, and with a correct understanding of what it means to share that info by using a free and public service.
      If Instagram has to suddenly change their TOS in order for people to realize that, then I support that wholeheartedly.

      And I'm nobody's alt. English is not my main language, not even the second one (I'm sure this shows).

      Delete
    12. everything simplistic is inaccurate, especially when you try to base theories of how the actual world works on them.

      Delete
    13. Hmmm, that sort of thinking leads to rather trenchant skepticism, doesn't it Rob? Not that radical skepticism is automatically wrong, just that as a University student I encounter it enough as it is.

      Also, libertarian anon guy: there is an important distinction between the typical corporation- product model and the Instagram- user dynamic, namely that Instagram is dependant on the continued cooperation of the users (product as you label them, like the Gilded Age robber baron you are). If the users decide to no longer use the free service, Instagram’s “product” dries up. Sure, Instagram CAN adopt plenty of unpopular TOS policies, but the users are just as free to stop using the service. The public backlash was simply an extension of the users’ freedom to stop using the service. Kind of like a warning. Yeah, you can look at this situation in game theoretical terms, but it’s much easier to just sum everything up by saying “stop being so dickish, Instagram.”

      Delete
    14. "everything simplistic is inaccurate"
      -
      That's rather simplistic, isn't it?

      Delete
    15. @weaselsoup: Nah. ALTF may be a one trick pony, but her trick is cold Sapphic fusion with English herself. There is an anon here who does a fairly good ALTF, assuming it's not another ALTF sock, but 4:20 is nothing like her.

      @Wol: First para - "as a University student" - there is no sentence of any value which can follow this phrase except perhaps "I have a lot to learn". Your second paragraph is ethically, morally and factually sound, but stylistically abhorrent. Libertarians should only be pointed at and mocked. Never actually debate with them, for the same reason you wouldn't debate with a High Priest of the Westboro Baptist Church. Though at least you'd get some internal consistency from the GodHatesFags posse.

      @Eumesmopo: You symbolise all the remaining things I dislike about the Internet which are not already embodied in Randy. However I still like you because you're not Randy.

      Delete
    16. @Wol: I don't think we're saying very different things. It's obvious that the business model of traditional brick & mortar is quite different than that of the online world, but that should not have stopped people from applying the same logic and asking themselves "why is this thing free anyway?". And you answered it - it's free because the business model kind of requires it. From this it should be quite easy to correctly relabel today's "free social network service" to "business using social network techniques as leverage to gather revenue". And long term it does no good to hide behind "oh that's just ad revenue". Ad revenue is nice and all, but that will dry up. People are starting to block them. Mobile is a tough platform to monetize ads. Etc. Then they'll have quite the dilemma on their hands, as to what to do in order to make up the revenue.

      And speaking specifically about Instagram: as far as we know, they're not really generating much revenue, if any. So the alternatives are: become a paid service, continue to try and do nefarious things, or disappear altogether. "Stop being so dickish" won't work in the long run.

      People should have seen this coming a mile away. Assuming they either move their photos to local storage or to a paid service with sane TOS, and we still have privacy laws, I don't think anything else would be necessary. Failing that, I hope every other free service follows suit with TOS changes sooner rather than later.

      Delete
    17. Anon 5:57 - you do realise you just wished for a world where Google Blogger is a paid service, and therefore you would have to pay to use. And since you are anonymous, I highly doubt you would support that notion. (There are some here who would, but not I.)

      I don't know what my point is here. I suppose companies giving you a free product is like doing a friend a favour in order to make them a better friend.

      Delete
    18. yeah. 4:58 has it nearer the nose than rob maybe; altf, while obviously a lovely lady, is only almost as clever as she thinks she is (which is prob still better than most people) and hardly anyone can do completely unrecognisable socks. i hope you see, though, rob, that my question was complimentary to altf in its hypothesis

      Delete
    19. Jon: I merely wish that the real contract be spelled out in the TOS of every service. "You want to still use this for free? fine. But please realize and accept that whatever you may be putting up might end up making us money". Then it can at least get you thinking about who you're dealing with, and what you're actually putting up there. If you've got half a brain, that is.

      Posting anon here (first time) is simply a result of laziness, and not seeing any added value for putting the effort into creating a persona. Besides, it doesn't really guarantee true anonymity. If all of a sudden I started dropping subtle hints about carrying chem/bio warfare agents across the US / Mexico border - you know, just to use a simple, everyday example -, I'm not entirely sure that Google will refuse to reveal the source of my anon posts to someone asking for it.

      If you require true anonymity on the Internet, there are a few tools out there for that. Although with the current struggle to control the whole thing by people who are in the process of figuring out how to overcome the "annoying design flaw" of decentralization the Internet was born with, who knows how much longer that will be the case.

      I also have a Facebook account, with my real name on it. I have every fucking privacy setting on that thing set to 'Public'. I'd change Facebook to lock that setting in forever if I could. At least that way it would convey the right message.

      By the way I've been reading some posts and discussions on this blog since posting, and I feel this discussion is a bit... out of place. this blog is about something else entirely that I previously thought. so, not sure if this is of any use.

      Delete
    20. Oh, now I'm curious. What did you originally think this blog was about?

      Delete
    21. I've had my curiosity piqued too, but I'm more interested in what you now think this blog is about.

      Delete
    22. Anon@11:58:

      1st para - contract uber alles. Libertarian.
      2nd para - uses term "added value" to describe non-commercial activity. Talks about government watching him for carrying "warfare agents". Libertarian.
      3rd para - whines about der Kampf to wrest control of ze Internet. Libertarian.
      4rd para - inconsistent behaviour. Libertarian.
      5rd para - slow realisation that this isn't Kansas, but reality. Ex-libertarian?

      Delete
  19. Wow. http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki

    This exists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, of course, that's because all good jokes need to be explained.

      Delete
    2. Yep, and it used to be a blog run by a bunch of morons (in that they frequently explained things WRONG); it was pretty hilarious seeing people who were too stupid to get the references in xkcd (sorry, xkcd fans, but that's actually a pretty low bar) trying to explain it. Now that it's crowdsourced as a wiki, the blatant stupidity isn't as prevalent.

      Here's a classic example of an explanation that completely missed the mark (with a bonus explanation of bell-bottoms for the terminally idiotic among their readers):
      http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1072:_Seventies&oldid=104

      Delete
    3. 1:18
      -
      Go back to the XKCD forum! The power of Christ compels you!

      Delete
    4. 1:18, the explanation seemed to reproduce both the content and the style of 1072. Perhaps YOU don't understand it?

      Delete
    5. Answering machines existed in the 1970's. So did touch-tone phones. Neither were particularly common. 70's dude's problem is that he has a rotary phone (it's pretty clear in the artwork), and is thus unable to "press 1", not that he's mystified by an answering machine. He does seem a little (understandably) mystified by the touch-tone menu; I'm not sure when phone menus were invented, but it would've been unusual to encounter one when rotary phones were dominant.

      Delete
    6. Any sentence starting with "this one is funny because..." is not promising.

      Delete
    7. "The pants the 70s guy is wearing are called "bellbottoms" and were in style in the 70s. They are called this because they are considerably wider at the bottom creating a sort of "bell" at the "bottom" of the pants."

      thank you, captain sperg

      Delete
    8. I think we could have so much fun with this wiki. At the time of writing, it doesn't have an entry for 631.

      Delete
  20. It surprises me that Randy can replicate the genome for hitherto undiscovered dinosaur species using Perl, yet does not understand UTC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Randy is possibly the least compelling science expositor I've ever come across. Not only did I learn absolutely nothing from that link, but I feel like there's lots of information about the different sorts of time measurement which I could have learnt if only he weren't so fucking awful.

      You know where I learnt most about different time measurements and calendars? From an essay by an old DEC VMS kernel developer. I wish more competent, humble educators were also popular - even if you do have to actually think to absorb their work.

      Delete
  21. 1153 would be too boring to warrant a response, but I feel like he's trying to make an excuse for a shitty comic that took him maybe 10 minutes (accounting for wikipedia time). Being sick is not a reason to be criminally unfunny. Fuck you Randall

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you know that Ryan North was also sick? One wonders whether Megan's marital bed is as pure as she would like.

      Delete
  22. ^ Sorry, Comic 1157, not 1153.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The same argument could apply o 1153.

      Delete
  23. Rob said on January 6, 2013 at 6:18 PM:

    -------ALTF demonstrates a profound mastery of the english language, specif. when used to convey nothing at all------

    The lovely Fucking Aquarians would be quite pleased with this accurate pronunciamento. I will endeavour to inform her.

    Anonymous on January 7, 2013 at 4:58 AM said:

    --------@weaselsoup: Nah. ALTF may be a one trick pony, but her trick is cold Sapphic fusion with English herself. There is an anon here who does a fairly good ALTF, assuming it's not another ALTF sock, but 4:20 is nothing like her.-------

    4:20 is a poseur; a Brit; a cunt.
    Fucking Aquarian will not take too kindly to being called a "one trick pony" - she does have variants, let's be honest. The "cold Sapphic fusion with English" line will please her to no end. She will be informed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish I were even half as easy to please, but alas. I know none but the sourest of grapes.

      Delete
  24. Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She has a cunt, people.

      Delete
    2. No he doesn't.

      Delete
  25. Fucking Aquarians is 12 hours ahead of me, and fucking light-years ahead of you cunts (Though I’ve been told to always exempt ‘His Great Protuberance, Lord Rob’ from any and all derisory remarks I might make to Fucking Aquarians little friends here), nevertheless, here is her response to y’all:

    Dearest Anonymous Cunt(s),
    You wouldn't dare call me a ‘One-Trick Pony’, no matter how deliciously accurate the pronouncement, if you had even the slightest inkling I was hovering about. Now would you? No you would not!
    You do not possess the necessary testicular fortitude for such brazen insubordination – do you?
    Borrow some guts and start spillin’ ‘em! The catharsis will be orgasmic.
    If I had been present when you, or any other of you cuntribbits, attempted such seditious triteness, I’d’ve ripped you a new stoma so wide, deep and high that Euclidean geometry would be insufficient to describe it – four dimensions would be required. AND a passing Orca upon sexually availing himself of this new orifice would declare, in that mournful way whales are want to declare such things, that the experience was wholly unsatisfying and tantamount to ‘throwing a hot dog down a long hall way’.
    It never ceases to amaze me how you, even though you ‘hide’, like simpering milquetoast cowards under the aegis of “Anonymous”, STILL can’t seem to dissociate your cunt-selves from your fuck-the-fuct-up egos! Like as if I can tell one anonycunt from another! (Editor’s Note: Do not believe her. That fucking nine-iron can do just that. How? I do not know.)

    Dearest Lord Rob,
    You must desist doing that – praising me I mean. I know it is truly warranted and you do so with your tongue placed firmly in your cheek – or someone else’s cheek(s) – but still, show some decorum sir. It is bad enough I risk catching obesity every time I might engage a Yankee cunt blog, and now I must contend with catching diabetes too? With all this scurrilous saccharine shite, what’s a girl to do? Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who are you Sterculian Rhetoric? Are you ALTF's famous tutor? I am very confused by your blog and ALTF's. In it she has a picture of her tutor which you have as well (this: http://sterculian-rhetoric.blogspot.com.ar/) and one of your blog entries is the same except for a piece of dialogue:
      http://aquarianslovetofuck.blogspot.com.ar/2013/01/severed-reproductive-organs.html (ALTF)
      http://sterculian-rhetoric.blogspot.com.ar/2007/07/severed-reproductive-organs.html (SR)

      However, judging by the links, yours is older than hers. I would like an explanation please.

      Delete
    2. Good ol-
      The explanation is "psychopathy".

      Delete
    3. Dearest Good ol' Stanley,

      If ALT-F were here, she would tell you to go suck a brace of English, German and Canadian Thalidomide stumps. She is not, alas, so it is left to me.
      Fuck off, cunt.

      And DoucheNozzle?
      You surely do not possess the academic standing necessary to formulate such an ill-informed diagnosis. So fuck off, cunt!

      Delete
    4. Sorry, cupcake.
      I meant well.
      Really!

      Delete
    5. Man, as if she can pick my posts. I use like six different styles, none of them with consistent outlooks.

      Delete
    6. Still bifurcating the adolescent tutees, SR? You can't use the Athenian pederasty defence for girls, you know.

      Delete
    7. Did I offend you in any way ALTF? All i know is you have a UN passport and you troll other blogs as well. Perhaps are you friends with Leslie? You two seem to troll togeter, or are you the same person? Maybe all THREE of you are the same person. Are you Jesus?

      So many questions

      Delete
    8. Hers isn't diplomatic, though. She pays an indulgence for living off the ill-gotten gains of her tutor's family in the form of medical missionary work back in the motherland, by which I mean the UN pay her, by which I mean your money is channeled to her via the purring Jewish machinery of the military-industrial miscegenation of corporation/church and state.

      Delete
  26. Oh dear. I've seen this happen before. It only gets worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ALT-F would tell you to fuck off too, Leslie!

      Delete
  27. Sterculian Rhetoric t-shirts available HERE.

    Free shipping to US addresses only. Use promo code: CUNT.

    ReplyDelete
  28. rob make a new thread already you lazy fuck

    ReplyDelete