The WORST Game EVER

pete_1967 · #1 7th July 2008, 11:22 AM

Read and weep: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PPJ35...wasThisHelpful

leadgolem · #2 7th July 2008, 11:30 AM

Now that's freaking hilarious.

***Hlingler*** · #3 7th July 2008, 11:53 AM

And this is also freakin' hilarious: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu

Lindy · #4 7th July 2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hlingler

And this is also freakin' hilarious: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu

Hehehe... Sounds like it was written by someone from Redmond WA.

forkbomb · #5 8th July 2008, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lindy

Hehehe... Sounds like it was written by someone from Redmond WA.

Nope.

Just some clever satirists. Uncyclopedia is brilliant.

As for the mentioned review, don't feed the trolls.

I'm not sure whether or not a human being could be so sorely misinformed and/or stupid.

scottro · #6 8th July 2008, 05:03 AM

Errm, yeah, I think it was a satire.

I remember a very clever satirist on Shelley the Republican's site. It was like watching an Ali G. interview. The fellow posted about being an MCSE, and how he decided to try Linux.

It was so good that I wasn't positive he wasn't serious until I saw him complaining about Bonzi Buddy and that other spyware from the 90's, errm, Comet cursor? Then he threw in a few other hints that it was a joke, but the last line was pretty much a giveaway, complaining about no DRM.

Then, one watched the comments. The people being outraged, the people who thought it might be a joke, but, and the ones who tried to reasonably explain how he was wrong.

Eventually, I saw an Ali G interview that I found embarrassing for the interviewee, and then I made a post on the thread, doing my best to explain why I was sure it was a satire.

That whole site, actually, is rather clever--leaving people thinking that it must be a joke, but is it? Apparently, there used to be a small notice on the site saying it was satire, but they took it down--they also removed various other pages referencing the fact that it was satire. Probably along the lines of, if they're too foolish to figure it out, well, they don't deserve to know.

***Dan*** · #7 8th July 2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm not sure whether or not a human being could be so sorely misinformed and/or stupid.

You've obviously never met the blonde publisher of the last paper I worked at! <..

..>

JohnVV · #8 8th July 2008, 05:19 AM

" I'm not sure whether or not a human being could be so sorely misinformed and/or stupid"
---------
well some do think the universe is only 5300 ,there abouts years old .
and to them i say FSM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
--- not satire but close ---
http://www.conservapedia.com/FSM
--and uncyclopedia.org --
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fsm

scottro · #9 8th July 2008, 05:37 AM

Going back to my post, here is a link to the original comparison.

My comments are from May 2007, signed bsder or something like that.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/...the-facts.aspx

And, if any of you don't believe it was a satire, well...
Read my comments. <shrug>

JN4OldSchool · #10 8th July 2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnVV

" I'm not sure whether or not a human being could be so sorely misinformed and/or stupid"
---------
well some do think the universe is only 5300 ,there abouts years old .
and to them i say FSM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
--- not satire but close ---
http://www.conservapedia.com/FSM
--and uncyclopedia.org --
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Fsm

Probably more like 20,000 years old, but watch who you argue with on this because there are many indications for a young earth and the only thing the billions years old earth club has going for it are radioisotope and radiometric dating which is proven flawed. One of the best known and most humorous incidents involved K-Ar dating of five andesite lava flows from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. One lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954 and one in 1975 yet test results ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old! The examples are endless. How about fossilized 19th century mining equipment? How about fossils that cut across multiple sedimentary layers that geologists claim have been laid down over eons. The geologists cannot explain these discrepancies, they just ignore them.

But that is okay. You are free to believe as you like. You are not alone, most people blindly accept the silly theories science has come up with these last couple centuries without bothering to even ask for proof. It is the nature of man, in our arrogance we will try to do anything to get away from a creator.

kona0197 · #11 8th July 2008, 07:01 AM

When I saw this thread I thought you were talking about Guitar Hero...

Reisswolf · #12 8th July 2008, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JN4OldSchool

Probably more like 20,000 years old, but watch who you argue with on this because there are many indications for a young earth and the only thing the billions years old earth club has going for it are radioisotope and radiometric dating which is proven flawed. One of the best known and most humorous incidents involved K-Ar dating of five andesite lava flows from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. One lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954 and one in 1975 yet test results ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old! The examples are endless. How about fossilized 19th century mining equipment? How about fossils that cut across multiple sedimentary layers that geologists claim have been laid down over eons. The geologists cannot explain these discrepancies, they just ignore them.

But that is okay. You are free to believe as you like. You are not alone, most people blindly accept the silly theories science has come up with these last couple centuries without bothering to even ask for proof. It is the nature of man, in our arrogance we will try to do anything to get away from a creator.

Is this post also a satirical one, in the spirit of the links provided in the thread?

I am absolutely certain that a more in-depth discussion on the matter cannot be carried out at these forums, for fear that the discussion will descend into a flame war. So I will not write another post in this thread. But it would be a tragedy if casual readers encountered that post and came away with the notion that science is somehow a flawed conspiracy.

It is science that attempts to seek answers through rational, empirical means, not the other way around.

I will say no more in this thread.

forkbomb · #13 8th July 2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reisswolf

Is this post also a satirical one, in the spirit of the links provided in the thread?

It has to be.

But this thread just became serious lock-bait...

All we need now is a flat-earther or Time Cuber.

#14 8th July 2008, 08:13 AM

Yup, it's already on my radar scope. Let's keep on-topic (or near enough) folks...

Wayne

forkbomb · #15 8th July 2008, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottro

Going back to my post, here is a link to the original comparison.

My comments are from May 2007, signed bsder or something like that.

http://www.shelleytherepublican.com/...the-facts.aspx

And, if any of you don't believe it was a satire, well...
Read my comments. <shrug>

The cleverest satire is the satire that most people don't see.

Which is also why the same type of satire tends to be the most frustrating - I'm a bit slow to see satire sometimes, mostly because our society is so sick that it's hard to pick out the BS from the stuff people really believe.