Grief Athletes and Permanently Bewildered23 Feb 2009 09:08 am

Vulnerable Ages

By Nelson

I just came across HaaHaa HeeHee.

On the death of Tony Hart:

He was a lovely man and I’m sure he must have inspired millions to be more creative. An example of quality and innocence on TV.

There are so many well loved TV personalities reaching the vulnerable ages that BBC should create a searchable condolences section separate from the HYS forums to allow people to express their sorrow as a “permanent” tribute.
HaaHaa HeeHee, United Kingdom

Searchable?

Condolence Search Form


I did find myself wondering if HaaHaa HeeHee is taking the piss. If only there were some kind of universal barometer of cluelessness that would let us know for sure.

There isn’t a shred of credible scientific evidence to support the idea that species evolve into other species. There is no plausible theory as to how life/matter/energy came to be out of nothing.

Evolution is as scientifically unproven as creationism or any other “ism”. It is interesting to consider all the theories but it is time to stop the presenting evolution as “scientific fact”.

Darwin is the author of questions and not scientific advance.
HaaHaa HeeHee, United Kingdom

Ah.

32 Responses to “Vulnerable Ages”

  1. on 23 Feb 2009 at 9:40 am   smackMonkey

    HaHe(abrig.) is clearly referring to the many vulnerable ages:
    0-16 vulnerable to peedos.
    16-24 vulnerable to facebook.
    24-36 vulnerable to grandios expectations.
    36-54 vulnerable to endless disappointment.
    54-80 vulnerable to irrelevance.
    80+ vulnerable to death and excessively sentimental rememberance.

    the opportunities for condolences are endless. sorry to hear you were peedo’d etc… there is a whole industry of online greeting cards beckoning in its comment.

    We wouldn’t have the global FinCris if entrepreneurs like HeHaw were taken more seriously.

  2. on 23 Feb 2009 at 9:54 am   Stew

    I thought the condolences button might be real, a special-purpose version of the twat-o-tron. Imagine my dismay when I clicked and it did nothing. I don’t know, what do I pay my licence fee for, etc. etc.

  3. on 23 Feb 2009 at 10:02 am   dirigible

    There isn’t a shred of credible scientific evidence to support the idea that species evolve into other species.

    Yes there is. Quite apart from the vast fossil record that the cosmic liar tucked under the ground during week one, transitional stages and all, you can observe speciation under laboratory conditions with creatures far smarter than Haahaa Heehee

  4. on 23 Feb 2009 at 10:22 am   Mark Eltringham

    Apart from all that, there was in the news recently evidence of how cane toads have evolved in the 70 years since they were introduced to Australia to make them better suited to that country. Not only that, a number of other species have also evolved to help them cope with the existence of cane toads, including some that have evolved resistance to the toad’s poison.

    But why let the facts get in the way of an opinion? I’d like to think this sort of thinking is limited to the messageboards of the Daily Mail, but schools now teach creationist shite in science classes.

  5. on 23 Feb 2009 at 10:58 am   James

    What do I pay my licence fee for if not to have a searchable database full of tedious cvnts saying that, although they never met Reg Varney, they feel sure that they would have been lifelong friends had they done so?

  6. on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:14 am   Daley Mayle

    How can Evolution be less plausible than the idea of a giant invisible beardy man who lives in the sky creating everything in 6 days? How? HOW?

    It always amuses me how the Darwinism-deniers are so fucking thick that they prove we come from primates better than anything. Fuck the dead-sleb-boohoo-ometer he’s proposing, when do we get a proper ratings system for comments? I’d like one based on facial expressions, with pics such as eye-rolling, face-palming and that look Martin Freeman does when he’s playing exasperated. HaaHaa HeeHee’s comments on Darwin would get my full ‘Boh!’ Joey Deacon face. You know the one I mean.

  7. on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:21 am   Mr Cat

    Are people on this thread really arguing with someone who made comments on HYS? I don’t think haha heehee is aware of your replies. Perhaps you could go onto HYS and tell him? And share any other thoughts you have on there too?

    Jesus wept.

  8. on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:23 am   Killing Time

    Presumably the endless intellect that is HaaHaa HeeHee believes that Mr Hart (much like his side-kick Morph) simply ‘appeared’ from nowhere.

    No creator, no evolution, nothing. Just a vague ‘boing’ noise, the momentary sight of a lump of cosmic plasticine, and then “Heeeeeere’s Tony!”

  9. on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:30 am   James

    Perhaps we could start the condolences book for Tony Hart here? I’ll kick off:

    One thing I will say for Tony is that he was a BRITISH hero who served in the Gurkhas and struggled on to 83, despite being a widower in declining health.

    Contrast that with the BBC kids art show presenters of today, who top themselves at the first sign of trouble. These people have no fucking backbone. RIP Tony.

  10. on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:59 am   Dr Feelgood

    To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks, “have you ever noticed how creationists look really unevolved?”.

  11. on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:08 pm   Mark

    @ Funny Peculiar

    I’ve never seen him blink, but he does clean his eyeballs with his tongue every so often.

  12. on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:12 pm   Craftierthanyou

    @ Stew
    I did the same thing :-(

  13. on 23 Feb 2009 at 1:19 pm   Funny Peculiar

    as scientifically unproven as creationism or any other “ism”.
    HaaHaa HeeHee, United Kingdom

    Is this div using a highly-sophisticated, global-wide network of elctronic computing machines to suggest that no science is provable?

  14. on 23 Feb 2009 at 1:25 pm   Mark Eltringham

    Well according to the angry Mr Cat, it’s pointless making comments about that sort of thing on this blog set up to make comments about that sort of thing. :)

  15. on 23 Feb 2009 at 2:20 pm   Dr Shade

    Quite apart from the vast fossil record that the cosmic liar tucked under the ground during week one, transitional stages and all, you can observe speciation under laboratory conditions with creatures far smarter than Haahaa Heehee

    To be fair to HaaHaa HeeHee I’ve never seen anything in the fossil record that evenly remotely resembles Morph, so what did he evolve from? Eh? EH? Explain THAT you Darwin-loving fascist know-it-alls!!!11!!

  16. on 23 Feb 2009 at 2:24 pm   Kelvin

    Well according to the angry Mr Cat, it’s pointless making comments about that sort of thing on this blog set up to make comments about that sort of thing.

    It’s pointless trying to debate a point with someone who’s not here to read it, and wouldn’t be able to make a coherent argument if they were here to read it, and who’s already trying to “debate” it on a place known for the lack of mental agility in its participants, and that you can go to yourself if you really really must tell the internets everything you know.

    It’s not pointless to take the piss out of them in an amusing fashion, which is what this blog is for.

    Hope that clears up any confusion.

  17. on 23 Feb 2009 at 2:50 pm   bigruss

    Thanks Kelvin.

    Now explain dark matter.

  18. on 23 Feb 2009 at 2:57 pm   Kelvin

    Now explain dark matter.

    The expansion curve of the Universe appears to suggest the Universe is much heavier than can be accounted for from the matter we can directly observe. Therefore physicists theorise that the missing mass exists in the form of Your Mum.

  19. on 23 Feb 2009 at 3:42 pm   Bernie Issue

    the only reason the universe is swamped with dark matter is because the touchy-feely liberals who are ruining this country are too scared of offending the so-called religious sympathies of known terrorists to kick the dark matter back to where it came from. Nurse, my medication!

  20. on 23 Feb 2009 at 3:55 pm   Geoff Jeffries

    “The expansion curve of the Universe appears to suggest the Universe is much heavier than can be accounted for from the matter we can directly observe. Therefore physicists theorise that the missing mass exists in the form of Your Mum.”

    The single funniest thing I’ve ever read on here. Nice.

    Sorry, couldn’t be arsed to remember how to do block quotes…

  21. on 23 Feb 2009 at 4:42 pm   Dr Shade

    By Nelson
    I just came across HaaHaa HeeHee.

    I hope you offered him a tissue to clean himself up afterwards…

  22. on 23 Feb 2009 at 5:05 pm   Mim

    I find HaaHaa HeeHee’s inability to spell HaHa slightly disturbing.

  23. on 23 Feb 2009 at 5:42 pm   Dr Shade

    I find HaaHaa HeeHee’s inability to spell HaHa slightly disturbing.

    Obviously one of the Norfolk HaaHaa HeeHee’s. They were related to Lord HawHaw don’t you know?

    Very flat, Norfolk.

  24. on 23 Feb 2009 at 5:56 pm   Mim

    Is Norfolk the one that features in inbreeding jokes? It’s all The South to me below about Leeds, so I get confused.

  25. on 23 Feb 2009 at 5:57 pm   Kelvin

    Nice try Mim, but you’ll never convince me the internet has got beyond Zone 6.

  26. on 23 Feb 2009 at 6:00 pm   Mim

    Don’t worry, I’m actually sending my comments by homing pigeon to the nearest proper town.

  27. on 23 Feb 2009 at 6:17 pm   Mr Cat

    I heard that teh internets was nationally available but seen with greater awe the further from London you get. In the outer hebrides tribes of people are thought to worship their computers in little shrines and make human sacrifices to keep their bandwidth up.

  28. on 23 Feb 2009 at 7:15 pm   Lord Summerisle

    Don’t knock it, it works.

  29. on 23 Feb 2009 at 8:03 pm   Bit Special

    I access teh interwebs from my outside toilet, me flat cap keeping me warm whilst me whippet howls outside. Eeeh, life’s grand.

    I am also offended by the misspelling of HaHa. But then again, I take pictures with my phone of spelling and punctuation errors in shops, so I can hardly talk about sanity (”This wine is great for party’s?” Parties that do or have WHAT, precisely, Sainsbury’s? Hmm, hmm?).

  30. on 23 Feb 2009 at 8:59 pm   Bit Special

    I’ve just realised that I put the question mark inside the quotation marks instead of outside them. I am preparing for ritual suicide.

  31. on 24 Feb 2009 at 2:31 am   Mim

    I officially disapprove of prescriptivist approaches to language but in practice I nitpick like a retired headmaster with no friends. I justify this to myself with the reflection that at least I don’t believe that misplaced apostrophes are causing the inevitable Decline of Society. Or write to the Telegraph about it.

    It would probably make much more sense for the possessive apostrophe to die out altogether instead of randomly spreading to plurals. Maybe we should just rejoice and take it off the endangered list?

  32. on 01 Mar 2009 at 8:20 pm   Pete M

    We do have the interweb here in Norfolk.

    Mind you, it’s still in black and white.