spEak You're bRanes

Delusions of Grandeur and Permanently Bewildered10 Jul 2009 02:13 pm

By Nelson

Thanks to Paul for this from the global warming thread. I’ve not dared to look in there myself, knowing that if I dipped a toe in, it’d come out marinated in stupid. Obviously, it’s crammed full of the educationally sub-normal, explaining why “scientists are wrong”.

It got me thinking about the workings of the computer I’m typing on. The scales and numbers involved simply don’t fit into my comprehension. Yet, building on the work of so many people over hundreds of years, it does the same thing, reliably, more times a second than I could count in a lifetime. And that’s just the physics. The mathematicians and computer scientists have added layers of elegantly designed abstraction on top of that. It’s a beautiful example of the unimaginable, organised complexity our species is capable of creating. It transcends the capabilities of any one of us and is possible only because we’re all adhering to the same tried-and-tested scientific methods.

In contrast, the Have Your Say halfwits seem to imagine that the internet is powered by a combination of paraffin, goblin magic and pure luck.

G8 are now supplicants to the new religion. They have added to the debate, not by making promises but by producing more hot air.

England was famed for its wine in roman times, a man found in a glacier was walking over the alps in a grass skirt in roman times, there was a period of bitter winters in the middle ages.

All well documented but now the new religion demands we believe in computer generated wisdom, Am I a heretic believing in GIGO Garbage in garbage out?
[et-dona-ferentes]

Sorry to disrupt your knee-jerk brainsquawk with a moment of reason, but if you manage to get yourself frozen in a massive lump of solid ice, wearing only a grass-skirt, the first thought of those that defrost you is less likely to be “gosh, it must have been lovely and warm wherever this ice formed” and more likely to be “This twat was very inappropriately dressed for crossing a glacier”.

And no, you’re not a heretic. Nothing so romantic I’m afraid. You’re just a cunt.

106 Responses to “Science Fact”

on 10 Jul 2009 at 2:38 pm Rotwatcher

Ah, but you’re wrong. Just today I was reading an article in that learned scientific journal The Spectator where the renowned jismcrust Professor James Fishingpole like totally debunked the global warming myth cos he’s read a book by another Professor (ok, so he wasn’t a professor of meteorology but it a real -ology not like sociology or it might have been scientology) who said it was crap because he’d seen a documentary on Channel 4. Truefact.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:11 pm History Crow

I’m a bit sick of this twats suggesting there’s a cartel of wicked scientists, in cahoots like Gordon Clown and the hippies.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:29 pm liberal intelligentsia

Just spent a few minutes over there and am feeling a bit traumatised. Did manage to retrieve these nuggets of fuckwittery before I near passed out.

Searing logic:

Why is Mars (the planet) warming up then?
Are Martians driving 4×4s now?

Ruth Edals

Ad Hominem! I’ll give you Ad Hominem:

All bogus research on global warming was financed by socialists and leftists. All research was done by socialist and leftist scientists. Conclusion: It is a leftist scam to take billions of dollars for themselves. All jobs that Obama says will be created by this program will be jobs for leftists and socialists.
Marshal Max, Los Angeles

Fucking weird:

Sorry, CO2 has no effect on climate one way or the other. H2O absorbs all the sun’s energy in the CO2 band. There is nothing left to heat up CO2.

We have had record cold temperatures (”Brits run out of Grit”) because of reduced solar activity, as evidenced by the lack of sunspots. 2008 had the fewest days with sunspots of any year since 1913. Remember 1913? The Titanic hit an ice berg, a blue norther sank shipping in the Great Lakes.

Check it out “2008 Blankest Year of the Space Age”.
Caiser Sozy, Dallas
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:34 pm dom Kaos

“The days of people working and living in the same village from generation to generation have gone and cannot be brought back.” – Eddie the frog.

Yep Eddie, I’m with you so far. Move with the times, blah blah blah.

“These days should be brought back by law…”

Eddie, I thought I’d uncovered a vein of rationalism for a moment there, but then you have to go and fucks it all up again.
So close and yet so far…
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:43 pm That Bloke in the Corner

“It is an undisputed fact that human beings were far happier 20-30 years ago when all this madness of globalisation and competition didn’t exist. Revolution is needed.”

Yep, everyone was over the moon wearing flares, driving crap cars and having only 3 TV channels and having to secretly buy our porn from the newsagent at 6 in the morning 3 miles from our house so nobody would see us. The only revolution needed here is one that gets fuckmonkeys like this secured away in special institutions with rubber wallpaper.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:43 pm Ceannair

Sorry, anyone who can’t spell Keyser Soze does not have a say.

So there.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:45 pm Col. HPWStJ Featherstonehaugh (Ret'd.)

Don’t know what the bally loon is on about.

Everyone knows local temperature is determined by amount of chillies consumed per person per year. That is why it’s so dashed hot in India, and the rot is spreading, my lads. More bloody immigrants, more bloody curry, more bloody heat, more bloody sunshine!

I didn’t fight in five wars in fifteen countries, lose my shooting arm, shooting eye and shooting stick for this! Send ‘em back where they came from, or I’ll release the dogs.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:46 pm That Bloke in the Corner

“The only target that really matters is population. It is a basic fact that there are too many humans on the planet. If we had half the number then resources would last twice as long.”
[Breakfast-Maker]

Well Breakfast Maker, if you are volunteering for the HYS euthanasia project you will be gladly accepted, you haven’t got Topsy Turvy’s and Joy Pattinsons number on speed dial have you? Go on give ‘em a call and persuade them to join you
on 10 Jul 2009 at 3:59 pm dom Kaos

It is an undisputed fact that human beings were far happier 20-30 years ago when all this madness of globalisation and competition didn’t exist

Where the hell was Eddie living in the eighties – East Germany? Albania? Hull?
on 10 Jul 2009 at 4:55 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

It is an undisputed fact that human beings were far happier 20-30 years ago

Absolutely bollocks. The only good things that happened in the 70s were my parents getting married, me being born, Camberwick Green cherry-flavoured toothpaste* and Chorlton & The Wheelies. Fact.

*Anyone? Anyone?
on 10 Jul 2009 at 5:23 pm dom Kaos

and “Save Your Kisses for Me” by The Brotherhood of Man. Don’t forget that.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 5:52 pm neil craig

Being free to smoke in pubs. That we were only threatened with a global ice age. No (well far fewer) fascists running TV. No politicians in power who were personaly guilty of war crimes, genocide & child rape. The hospitals weren’t dependent on our police kidnapping people & cutting them up for organs. The BBC weren’t run by the sort of scum who would lie & censor to assist in such things. Voyager.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 6:09 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@dom kaos – how could I forget? I can still do the stupid dance to the chorus! Also, I must concede, the 70s were the Golden Era of kids’ telly. I actually shed a few tears when Oliver Postgate died.

Oh shit, I’m going to convince myself that the 70s was the greatest era e-vah!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 6:56 pm Adam

Um…as far as I’m aware the hospitals NOW don’t depend on the police ‘kidnapping people and cutting them up for organs’ either…
on 10 Jul 2009 at 7:47 pm History Crow

Have we been visited by another stray HYSer?
on 10 Jul 2009 at 7:47 pm Felix Castor

Smoking in pubs was murdering bystanders. I am overjoyed it’s gone.

The 70s were absolute shit.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:22 pm Mal

Western Morning News letters page – home of the inbred rural twatbasket. I.e. people who would post to HYS if only they could figure out these new fangled computer things.

THE country is in an appalling financial mess. Certain Labour politicians and economists are saying that the recession has stabilised and that they see the “green shoots of recovery”.

Meanwhile, official figures suggest the economy has declined 4.9 per cent in the year ending with the first quarter of this year – the worst decline since 1931, the year of the Great Depression – and the OECD now predicts a “more severe recession to come”.

This Government is borrowing money at an extraordinary rate; Brown’s celebrated “prudence” has gone out of the window. The National Debt will be 80 per cent of GDP by 2012, with interest repayments more than our annual defence budget.

There are no “green shoots”, and if we go on as we are the country will be bankrupt and no-one will lend us money.
Anti-royalists complain that the Royal Family costs the taxpayer £41 million a year –just what we pay to the European Union per day as subscriptions; add the cost of red tape, introducing EU law and regulations, and the cost of the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies, and the total cost is about£150 billion a year.

Lord Hunt, Minister for the Environment predicts that by 2020 we will have thousands of offshore wind turbines up and running. He makes no mention of the cost which, according to Christopher Booker will be £97 billion if they can be built.

And since electricity companies will be authorised to charge for renewable energy certificates, some of the “red op” newspapers are predicting that by 2015, normal household energy billŝ will average at £5,000 a year.

Cannot our politicians appreciate that we are on the verge of financial collapse and have but two options left – withdraw from the EU and forget all about absurd and scientifically false predictions with regard to global warming, which just isn’t happening?

Peter Wyatt

Totnes

There is, of course, another option that involves Peter Wyatt’s genitals and a steam hammer – personally, I’d go for that one.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:25 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@Felix – 100% with you over the smoking. My heart bleeds for the thoughtless fucking bastards who can’t choke me with their stinking, asthma-inducing potential cancer anymore (not that I drink or go to pubs, but it’s the principal of the thing). Boo-hoo.

Being free to smoke in pubs. That we were only threatened with a global ice age. No (well far fewer) fascists running TV. No politicians in power who were personaly guilty of war crimes, genocide & child rape. The hospitals weren’t dependent on our police kidnapping people & cutting them up for organs. The BBC weren’t run by the sort of scum who would lie & censor to assist in such things. Voyager.

Oh Monsieur, with this mental you are truly spoiling us! That is indeed a family feast bumper bucket of finger-lickin’ crazy (dunno why I’m now bastardising adverts to make my point, but hey). Did Neil Craig live in Nicaragua or similar 20-30 years ago? Because I can’t remember all those things happening over here. Yeah, Thatcher was (and is) a hellbitch from the 5th dimension but I can’t remember her government going THAT far. Although if she had, I think the British public would still have been more outraged by her stopping the free milk to school kids than they would a genocide of forrins. I’m intrigued to know which politicians are guilty of child rape and why we haven’t heard about the police kidnapping people off the streets for body parts – you’d think the Grauniad at least would’ve do a piece on that. Unless, of course, it’s all the ravings of a lunatic.

PUT YOUR TINFOIL HAT BACK ON, DEARIE!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:27 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

‘… would’ve DONE’, arse biscuits.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:32 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

Sorry to keep posting (I really should take up smoking and drinking and get down the pub), but THIS piece from the BBC news site is a gem. And by gem, I mean jaw-droppingly awful. I wish they’d open it up to HYSers. Worth reading for the last line alone:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010537.stm
on 10 Jul 2009 at 8:41 pm Felix Castor

Oooh, Neil Craig’s blog is full of SYB goodness. A vehement climate change denier with a spectacular Sarah Palin fixation.

Can’t wait to find out who the child rapist is.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:13 pm Dr Feelgood

The 70s were shit – apart from Space 1999, Arctic Roll and sneaking Dad’s Watney’s Party 7.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:26 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

This is just going to become us lot saying how crap the 70s were… then listing how many things we liked about it, isn’t it? I blame myself.

PS Spacehoppers!
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:31 pm Commander Koenig, Moonbase Alphga

Thank you to Dr Feelgood for recognising Space 1999. Currently, we’re still drifting in space, but it’s nice to be remember.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 10:32 pm Commander Koenig, Moonbase Alpha

Thank you to Dr Feelgood for recognising Space 1999. Currently, we’re still drifting in space, but it’s nice to be remembered.
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:01 pm Pirate Pete

Commander your comms are acting up again – Brian the Brain just did a flypast in his modified Swift btw…

Just back on the global warming thingie, the arctic ice is thawing at an increasing rate every year – they reckon that by the time my nephew reaches his 40s (he’s 10) the arctic will be completely ice-free for a certain period every year – I hope the poor bugger can swim :\
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:04 pm Felix Castor

Neil Craig = Genius

Using figures issued by the BMA that each reduction by 1% of GNP causes 21 deaths per 100,000 (ie 1050 across Scotland) we have been able to calculate that the Climate Change Bill will provably cause deliberate & unnecessary deaths best estimated at 6,346,050 Scots over the next 91 years, though this excludes lives which would be saved or extended if there would otherwise have been any economic growth in those years. The calculations are clear, verifiable, simple & involve no hidden algorithms & are therefore much more valid than any estimates produced by the IPCC, let alone Al Gore.

Calculations are accessible HERE & have not been disputed as to fact.

That being the case the unanimous decision of the Scottish Parliament to order these deaths proves either, in the generous option, that every single MSP is clinically insane. The less generous estimate being that, for the sake of power, money & the chance to impose ever more control over the people of Scotland & to produce fear they have deliberately engaged in mass murder, treason & an attempt to destroy civilisation. If so they could only be barbarians who do not understand civilisation & wouldn’t like it if they did.

The 9% Growth Party calls on Her Majesty to dissolve the body & bring its murdering treasonous fascist members to trial, if judged sane.

I was almost ready to praise him as mildly coherent too. Will I never learn?
on 10 Jul 2009 at 11:40 pm History Crow

It makes me wish he was some kind of spoof…
on 11 Jul 2009 at 12:37 am Ludwig

Yadda yadda HYS loons and everything but do you remember me?
on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:56 am Red On The Bed

Can I just point out that 20 years ago it was 1989. Not the seventies. More E’s, less Spangles, I seem to remember.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 3:35 am Rod Wrongnob

Of course, if you believe in global warming and you use any sort of modern technology, including the Internet, then YOU AER A HIPPOCRYT!!!!!

a man found in a glacier was walking over the alps in a grass skirt in roman times

Because any garment made of grassy materials is bound to be exactly equivalent to a grass skirt as worn by cannibals in comic books in the 1970s….
on 11 Jul 2009 at 3:47 am Rod Wrongnob

Ahh, Neil Craig’s blog. What a delight for connoisseurs of ill-informed Randroid futurology mentalism.

This from his profile/manifesto thingy:

A significant factor in what is now called the 2nd Enlightenemnt was … the vote for the 9% Growth Party in the 2007 election … The Forth tunnel … & other progressive technology projects led to Scotland achieving one of the higher growth rates in the world & now in 2020 gives Scotland a GNP triple what she had before the 2007 election. … emigrating to the 2nd British Isles L5 Space Settlement … certain the worldwide reseach effort coordinated at the University of Islay will have been able to reverse aging.

So how did the 2007 election go?
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:53 am Pendant Alert

on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:56 am Red On The Bed

Can I just point out that 20 years ago it was 1989. Not the seventies. More E’s, less Spangles, I seem to remember.

FEWER Spangles, ffs!
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:38 am BB

“a man found in a glacier was walking over the alps in a grass skirt in roman times”

Yeah – those bloody Romans with their grass based techology.

Still – history, science – all the lies of Zanu-Labour and the BBC designed to crush the hard-working indigenous population of Great England.

I vote we return to the 1970s – mutually assured destruction, the three day week and Ask The Family – the very best decade ever.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 11:09 am Melliflouous

I’m confused by the feelings aroused when I read that La Spesh can do the dance to the chorus of Brotherhood of Man. Totally distracted me from my searing commentary on the actual thread!!
on 11 Jul 2009 at 11:24 am Hitler's Penis

HYS Does Climate Change! Fuck a duck, this is *excellent* stuff. Idiocy beyond compare. (happy sigh)
on 11 Jul 2009 at 11:35 am Gobbler The Oral Sex Alsatian

fuckmonkeys

woof woof woof?
wag wag wag

release the dogs

woof woof woof
pant pant pant!

La Spesh can do the dance to the chorus of Brotherhood of Man.

woof woof woof??
frolic frolic frolic!!
on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:19 pm Marcus

I feel left out by all this 70s talk – I was born in 1981, though owing to a small localised timewarp I grew up in the 50s.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 1:37 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@Pedant Alert – the original quote said ‘20-30 years’… so alert yourself!

I’m not even going to start on how shit the 80s were – I spent most of them trying to be a moody Goth whilst people mocked me for looking like Tiffany, the shit teen pop star.

@Melliflouous – I would, of course, don a massive pair of primary-colour loon pants before doing so. I’m currently sewing a four legged pair for Gobbler.

PS I can do a whole variety of novelty dances. Am available for parties, weddings, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, etc.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 3:24 pm Ceannair

I’m touched by how long the epithet “La Spesh” is going.

I’m actually welling up with genuine tears here.

It’s in the Branesosaurus along with twatbasket. My place in history is assured!

p.s. Gobbler – SIT!
on 11 Jul 2009 at 4:33 pm tlumacz

I don’t remember the 70s – I wasn’t yet alive. The main benefit of this, apparently, is an inability to join in group displays of mental illness manifesting itself as nostalgia. I’m sure once age catches up to render me similarly unable to comprehend progress, I’ll be right in there with my own Maconie-esque reminiscence of Select magazine, a unified Serbia and Montenegro and Two Dogs lemonade.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:11 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@tlumacz – I don’t like your tone, young man. In my day, we wouldn’t have DARED speak (our branes) to our elders like that.

Try having a partner 9 years younger than you; my life is a constant round of ‘Whaddayou mean you haven’t heard of Spangles/Noggin The Nog/Elsie Tanner/Noseybonk/Jamie And The Magic Torch/Lena Zavaroni/Battle of The Planets/Aztec Bars/Mind Your Language/Yootha Joyce/Metal Mickey/Blockaboots/Magpie’ etcetera ad infinitum. I’m constantly leaving my friends comments on facebook saying things like ‘Oh, now he’s not heard of Hylda Baker! This is RIDICULOUS!’. He also doesn’t ‘get’ The Smiths and insists that Fingermouse was a show presented by some pockmarked Scottish bloke instead of being a major character in Fingerbobs, featuring Yoffi, everyone’s favourite paedo and Mick Fleetwood-alike. For shame!

@Ceannair – thank you so much for La Spesh, too. But where is the Branesosaurus? Why do I not know of it? Waaah! I can’t see it on the page (sobs)!
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:14 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@Ceannair – erm, by ‘Branesosaurus’, do you mean the general lexicon of we regular addicts? I feel silly now.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:32 pm History Crow

@ Bit Special – Yep, sounds like it. There should be a special section for phrases that never quite caught on…

… if I’m right.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:34 pm soder

@tlumacz
With you all the way. All this nostalgia shite is wretchedly fucking dull, as is the flirty nickname chumminess. I thought you were fairly lenient with the Maconie ref though. I had a scrambled mess of Top of the Pops 2 subtitles, Steve Wrights rim-licking posse types, and Chris Evans’ nauseating optimism humming round round my head in a homicide-inducing way. No wonder Kelvin fucked off. Where is the rage? If it’s funny you get an A+. Any more dribbling badger spunk and you get a bunsen burner mashed into the side of your head.

Relax, I’ve snapped.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:40 pm alt-f4

Before I got my act together and took a couple of degees (in computer science and maths as it happens, so a thank you to Nelson is in order) I worked in a depot. On the nightshift. The nightshift paid 11 quid a week more, but it did involve spending a couple of hours each night having tea-breaks with the kind of people who make a career out of them (tea-breaks that is).

The talk was generally what you would expect. The smelliest women they’d shagged. Where to get the cheapest kebabs from. Chav-talk. One fateful night the topic was environmental. By the end of it they have convinced themselves that the problem would be solved as soon as a dynamo had been invented that could charge an electric car’s battery from the engine. They were utterly convinced. I was aghast.

After that I took to taking my tea-breaks alone. Switched to coffe, and read a shit load of books about maths and programming.

I even gave up pot for a year.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 8:55 pm alt-f4

I even gave up pot for a year.

Well, when I say a year it was probably more like about 10 weeks. And only on weekdays.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 9:31 pm alt-f4

Smoking in pubs was murdering bystanders.

But what about smoking pot in pubs? At least then they’d die with a grin on their faces.

Incidentally, the smoking-ban is not for your benefit. It was not agreed that you had a right to smoke-freedom. You don’t. It’s there for the sake of the people who have to work in such places since they have to spend all day every day in them. It’s because of zero-tolerance and the unwillingness to seek compromise that myself and an innocent woman were verbally abused on a train last week by a cantankerous old passive-agressive smoker simply because we “stank” of the tobacco that we have consumed prior to boarding a non-smoking train. Get a grip. You are more likely to be harmed by the glass some rage-ridden tobacco-junkie pushes in your face absent a few drags to calm himself down.

Now, the seventies.

Pros: Monty Python. Cheap cigarettes.
Cons: Everything else.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:17 pm Dr Feelgood

Bit Special, sounds like you only experienced the ITV version of the 70s.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:38 pm alt-f4

Did Neil Craig live in Nicaragua or similar 20-30 years ago?

I think he’s implying that those things happen today.

The hospitals weren’t dependent on our police kidnapping people & cutting them up for organs. The BBC weren’t run by the sort of scum who would lie & censor to assist in such things.

Here I think he’s a little confused but is trying to say that the BBC shouldn’t be run by the kind of scum that would kidnap people and cut them up for their organs live on-air. Personally, I think it should.

Voyager.

Here he’s just talking bollocks.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:48 pm Received Opinion

Hooray for the smoking ban! 2005 was a dark and barbaric time in history. Absolutely every pub in the country not only permitted smoking, but actually required it, and anyone suspected of not smoking in a pub was likely to be called a poof or possibly a nonce. Before the smoking ban, there was simply no way to avoid being constantly surrounded by cancerous fumes.

Hooray for freedom and democracy, and DEATH TO ALL SMOKERS. Well, I say “death”. Obviously they will die eventually anyway. I mean we should kill them now so that they don’t murder anyone else by walking past them.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:53 pm alt-f4

Obviously they will die eventually anyway.

Haven’t you heard? The University of Islay is coordinating a worldwide reseach effort to reverse aging.

So we’re all going to get younger and younger until we eventually simply just get too young and seperate into an ovum and a sperm.

So there’s no need to give up smoking after all.
on 11 Jul 2009 at 10:57 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@Dr Feelgood – we had really shit reception (although now you mention it, this does jar with the memory of my Mum insisting that we couldn’t watch ITV as it was too ‘common’. And Jigsaw (Noseybonk) and Battle of The Planets were on the BBC, in my defense). Yet another rubbish thing about the 70s.

@alt-f4 – my Nicaragua thing was a quip. I realised full well he was a terrifyingly paranoid loony talking about today.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:47 am Neil Craig's Mother

Has anyone seen Neil around? Its way past his bedtime; Joy Pattison said she’d bring him home by 10. Has he been spouting his usual morcels of crap? I’ve warned him. Its a good job I castrated him when he was young so he would never spread his seed- even as a toddler I knew he was a wrongun
on 12 Jul 2009 at 3:20 am johns hopkins kranti

hahahahha…”you’re a cunt.” i love this blog.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 10:12 am Felix Castor

Interesting to hear from smokers that feel my description of passive smoking in pubs was a little strong. You may have a point.

Don’t care though as the smoking ban stands so I win!

Next thing will be to criminalise adults smoking indoors in the presence of children. Even if it is in your own fucking homes.

Three cheers for “Big Brother society nanny state political correctness gone mad”!
on 12 Jul 2009 at 12:23 pm Grov

They say smoking isn’t cool, but they’re wrong. It’s stupid and pointless, but damn is it cool.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:26 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@Felix – I’m with you all the way! 1984 the living shit out of those selfish, thoughtless, cancertastic legal-drug-addicts, I say! Smokers can cry me a big black tarry river of death. Nothing is better for a child than breathing in the carcinogenic fumes of ignorant adults. Ah, such happy memories of spending hours in the family car crying and wheezing my lungs out as my parents smoked with the windows up. Their right to do that clearly superseded mine and my brother’s rights to just. fucking. breath. By the way, I’m anti-smoking, in case my position on the matter is ambiguous.

@Grov – you are so right. Nothing is more cool than a prematurely aged, yellow-fingered hepcat with a hacking cough, who stinks like a crematorium. Mmm, the quintessence of style.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:48 pm alt-f4

Next thing will be to criminalise adults smoking indoors in the presence of children. Even if it is in your own fucking homes.

If only NuLab and the PC-Brigade would stop defending the so-caled “human” rights of genocidal smokers, eh?

You sound like you should be spending less time in pubs, not more.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:58 pm alt-f4

such happy memories of spending hours in the family car

Did he drink and drive as well?

Say that he did, and while taking his eyes of the road to blow smoke callously into you and your brothers bloodshot eyes, he ran over and killed a mother and her two children on y zebra crossing as she was on her way to the tobacconist. If she hadn’t been a smoker she’d still be alive today. Smoking kills, right?
on 12 Jul 2009 at 3:07 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

@alt-f4 – nice sexist presumption it would be my Dad driving ‘n’ smoking. Actually, my Mum was the worst culprit. And yeah it was that dead bitch’s own fault for going to the tobacconist’s that day – read about it in a true crime book, did ya?!

PS Sarcastic anti-smoking quipping does not put us in the ranks of HYS. Exaggerating the opinions of others you don’t agree with to ridiculous lengths, on the other hand…
PPS Relax, Dude. Have a fag or summink.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 4:29 pm alt-f4

nice sexist presumption it would be my Dad driving ‘n’ smoking.

- unless your parents ran a driving school and you were out in the company car at the time, only one of them could have been at the wheel at the time of the alleged accident.

- the female victim of male violence (drink-driving) is consistent with non-sexist role modelling.

- From your own description of him we infer your brother was too young to drive.

- The imagary evoked by the comment’s central theme, “drunk driver”, is invariably male.

- a man allowing his wife to drive while he was also in the car is inconsistent with an eighties English setting.

A choice had to be made as to which one of your parents I was going to portray as a drunken child-abusing maniac, but given the above considerations, it just had to be dad.

OTOH, portraying your mother as a drunk-driver who wipes out an entire single-parent family because she’s too busy sadistically abusing her own spawn could hardly be described as a positive role model for women.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 4:33 pm Felix Castor

@alt-f4 – I am a staunch defender of the rights of smokers. I strongly believe an individual should have the right to smoke, just as they should have the right to punch themselves in the face.

Where you and I might differ is that I do not believe people should have the right to poison others with their smoke, nor should they be allowed to punch others in the face.

So you can’t punch me in the face. If I’m right.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 4:53 pm Mesostim

Being a cunt I managed to post this in the wrong section first time… still… got to spell a few more words right this time.. only a few though.

Here’s a nugget from the Brandon Life (Local, Informative, Factual and Entertaining it claims). Eddie Stewart holds court with his clichéd opinions, whining about political correctness and “elf n’ safety”, witlessly punctuated by “you couldnt make it up” and “going to hell in a handbasket”. He genuinely believes his cousins bests mates hairdresses son has been banned from sing “Baa Baa Blacksheep” at their made up nursery… You get the idea… he’s a cock… I present his latest rant, since it’s on topic.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the doom-and-gloom merchants really enjoy scaring the life out of we lesser mortals. These ‘experts’ see obesity, heart disease, cancer in the majority of us as we continuously consume a growing mountain of fatty fast food. However, they do not all agree as to what is bad for us. The same can be said of ardent enviromentalists. According to them we are all going to hell in a gas guzzler unless we change our wicked, wasteful ways.

An ex US presidential candidate compounded the fearsome warnings with his documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. In this film he warned of the consequences of our abuses of Planet Earth, witht he polar bears disapearing faster than Halley’s Comet and global warming in the not-too-distant future causing icebergs to melt, with floodsm earthquakes, etc., of biblical proportions. His documentory has since been discredited by some of those very scientists he purported to quote. Some have now ever dared to change his miscontrued title to ‘An Inconvenient Untruth’! In fact a group of these scientists are now busy picking holes in these accepted theories and two of them have even co-authored a book, ‘Global Warming and Other B*****cks: The Truth About All Those Science Scare Stories’, and it makes fascinating and meaningful reading. They say the sun is behind global warming and NOT carbon emmisons, and that the Polar bears are NOT dying out. In fact most populations are doing well, thank you… and I, for one, believe them!

The same is true of penguins. There is also no evidence to support the oft-repeated ‘fact’ that the gulf stream is under threat. In fact, the gulf stream is as strong as ever and is getting warmer, not colder. Nor is it changing direction. The claim that cutting out ‘bad foods’ from our diets will increas fitness is also not proved. Indeed, I read a report recently that a study has been doneof deaths in the past 10 years and overweight people had lived longer, on average, than so-called fit people. Well what are we to believe? I trust the scientists who wrote this book, but that is only my view. However I do think we have far too many regulations and restrictions foisted upon us by those who seen to revel in this and I am heartily fed up with reading all these unscientific negatives.
Roll on the revolution!

Yep that right, Eddie Stewart has read a book he agrees with, the world is saved. Thousands of peer approved research be damned, it’s just not scientific anymore (had they only thought to slip bollocks into the title of a couple of them and maybe they’d be taken seriously
on 12 Jul 2009 at 5:29 pm Mal

If you wish to discuss the smoking ban, why don’t you go to HYS where I’m sure your opinions will fit right in?

Thank you.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 5:32 pm Mal

@Bit Special

PS Sarcastic anti-smoking quipping does not put us in the ranks of HYS.

You think?
on 12 Jul 2009 at 5:36 pm alt-f4

nor should they be allowed to punch others in the face

If somebody takes it upon themselves to go into a clearly marked designated smoking lounge and, motivated by his hatred of smoke, threaten smokers therein that he’s going to “smash your faces in”, it is legally permissible to pre-emptively punch him in the face on the grounds of self-defence. Stubbing lit cigars into it would probably be beyond reasonable force though.

As it happened before he got permanantly blinded, the doorman came over and punched him in the face, legally and quite professionally, on our behalf.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 5:42 pm Mr Poo

I’m glad there’s been a smoking ban, and I say that as a smoker. Fucking freeloading “passive smokers” get right on my tits, they should go and buy their own, the cunts.

Passive smoking kids, like La Spesh, are the worst. Here she is boasting about her *illegal* passive smoking exploits… She should’ve been sent to borstal.

If I’m right.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 6:02 pm Felix Castor

@Mal – If you want to discuss me discusssing the smoking ban I suggest you do so on the BNP website.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 6:25 pm alt-f4

Passive smoking kids, like La Spesh, are the worst. Here she is boasting about her *illegal* passive smoking exploits…

Children have the right to smoke, nobody is denying them that. But where they get fucked over is a conflicting law that makes the supply of tobacco products to children illegal. Children are thus left with no choice but to rely on their parents, or to steal in order to exercise their right to smoke.

Spesh was actually one of the lucky ones where both her loving parents selflessly chose to sacrifice their own health and took up smoking solely to provide for her and her little brother, and in a manner that doesn’t even leave any incriminating evidence behind.

And does she thank them for it?
on 12 Jul 2009 at 6:28 pm Mal

Did I say I was interested in any kind of discussion? I’m just here to point and laugh at the stupids.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:48 pm Bit Special AKA La Spesh

OTOH, portraying your mother as a drunk-driver who wipes out an entire single-parent family because she’s too busy sadistically abusing her own spawn could hardly be described as a positive role model for women

Exactly – look at how I turned out!

@Mal – does not liking to breathe in the smoke of others (being asthmatic an’ all) really make me the same as Topsy? REALLY?

@Mr Poo – Borstal is rubbish for girls. You don’t get to bum other kids in a frosty greenhouse or anything good like that*!

To appease my smoking brethren (or those that possibly don’t smoke but think that anyone pro-smoking ban might as well go to Rolle to live with Joy), may I point out that I gave you twatbasket AND the BNP Babes, and will atone further with this:
http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/toys/dailymail/
It’s where HYSers go to refresh the cunt section of their brains.

Smoking is still rank, though.

*One of my teachers was an extra in Scum. Trufax.
on 12 Jul 2009 at 7:51 pm dom Kaos

Passive smoking = theft
on 12 Jul 2009 at 9:51 pm Dr Feelgood

We (well, some of you) seem to have got into a serious debate about the personal merits of smokers vs non-smokers. Meanwhile…

Market capitalizations:
BAT: £33.84 Bn
Philip Morris: $83.07 Bn

Our very own, modern day, IG Farbens.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 12:52 am tłumacz

And there we go. We now may as well be on the HYS board itself. The hysterical cretins have risen.

Incidentally, Dr Feelgood, to whom did you intend greater offence – victims of the holocaust or smokers?
on 13 Jul 2009 at 6:40 am Theodore

The UK is one of the largest consumers of lager in the world and yet we seem completely unable to brew a decent pint. Even when we try to brew a good beer over here, we mess it up completely (Stella Artois). In order to buy a really nice beer, I now only go for imported beers such as Corona, Becks or Perroni. Apart from the CO2 generated in the brewing process, the CO2 generated by transporting decent beer into the UK must be significant. Come on England, for the sake of the planet try to make a decent lager. The last attempt was Harp which was poisonous (really) and revolting – it’s been 25 years since we tried. I think it’s time we tried again.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 7:37 am Felix Castor

@Theodore – Well what do you expect if you insist on imbibing lager? These fair shores produce many excellent ales, but for your more down market tastes the only option is the obscure backwater some call continental Europe.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:18 am Dr Feelgood

@tłumacz: Neither, they are the victims – my point is that major companies exist that make huge revenues from producing and marketing a product that has killed and will kill tens of millions of people.

This element is frequently ignored in the ongoing spat between consumers and non-consumers of the product, concerning their rights to consume or be affected by others’ consumption, as can be seen above.

Sorry, if this isn’t funny.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:24 am alt-f4

@Felix – you are of course talking utter bollocks, no doubt induced by that stale english piss you’ve been drinking, mistakenly believing it to be beer.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:25 am Oaf

<blockquote….and insists that Fingermouse was a show presented by some pockmarked Scottish bloke instead of being a major character in Fingerbobs, featuring Yoffiblockquote

It was Yaffi wasn’t it?
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:26 am Oaf

Apparently not: http://www.thechestnut.com/finger.htm

Does anyone know a good university which specialises in blockquote technique?
on 13 Jul 2009 at 8:45 am alt-f4

my point is that major companies exist that make huge revenues from producing and marketing a product that has killed and will kill tens of millions of people

$

With a first degree in blockquoting, the same could be said about cars, which undermines all the arguments of the self-rightous drink-drivers moralising about tobacco.

http://www.banthecar.com

Besides, I smoke pot and would willingly trade a tobacco ban for the de-prohibition of marijuana in spite of the hyprocacy of such a position. But of course, pot smoking also throws the unenforceability of the tobacco ban into stark relief, leaving one with little option other than to ignore unworkable and outdated appeals to authoritarianism and simply rip the piss instead.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 9:28 am Bit Special AKA La Spesh

Dr Feelgood – whilst we are allowing ourselves a moment of unfunniness, part of my hatred for smoking is to do with the big (death-peddling) business side of it. It’s not all ‘boohoo, Speshy no like so you musn’t do it’ (although most of it is).

@tlumacz – not liking smoking does not make one a hysterical cretin. Being addicted to something that can give you horrible, potentially fatal diseases and which can also cause them in others, as well as making things disgusting and intolerable for them when in your vicinity and thinking you have a right to impose this on them is not entirely the height of mature and balanced logic. If smokers wanna smoke then they can go for it – just not near me or in confined spaces with other people, please. Hardly the opinion of a tin-foil hatter.

@alt-f4 – amusing how they’ve implemented the tobacco ban in Amsterdam, but you can still smoke pot in the brown cafes; real fags NO, spliffs YESH. Actually, I would be okay with this arrangement over here.

Roll on the new offering. Hope it’s not about smoking.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 9:41 am alt-f4

amusing how they’ve implemented the tobacco ban in Amsterdam, but you can still smoke pot in the brown cafes;

I was there last month, for the first time in a few years. They will turn a blind-eye to tobacco in joints in the coffeeshops, so long as you don’t have the cigarettes on open display. But cigarette-smoking is verboden.

One of the means to discourage tobacco use in “joints” was interesting. They’ve always provided jars of complimentary rolling paper and roach-making material, but now some are providing jars of complimentary “filler-weed” for use as a joint-filler in place of tobacco. This consists of the “waste” weed that growers would have previously discarded, but surprisingly, it is of a higher quality than one finds in street weed in prohibition-oriented nanny-states.

Tha “ban” though, is not really a ban at all. All places are free to set aside designated tobacco smoking rooms, with the only rules being that non-smokers do not have to pass through them, and staff are not allowed into them – so no table service. This is called “compromise” which used to be an English word as well until it was expunged from British dictionaries sometime in the recent past.

When are we getting a new topic? Have you had your say yet? Do you possess important information that you figured out all by yourself, or was told about by a bloke in the pub? Click _here_ to share it and make a fool of yourself.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 9:50 am Throbbe

We seem to have forgotten why we are all here.

wont sum1 think of the stupids!!1one!?

In between thinking of La Spesh’s spacehoppers, obviously.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 10:06 am Call of Davrodu

Oooh is this site going back to “discussing” issues like on that marvelous HYS then? Right here goes, ahem.
Perhaps these smokers could prevent themselves from forcing horrible diseases onto the innocent if they were allowed to gather together to socialise in restricted areas filled only with their own murderous type. Perhaps they could use some of the old pubs now closing across the country for their expensive and suicidal idiocy. They’d have to staff them themselves of course, the bastards.

Was that any good? Shut up you say? fine have it your way.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 10:33 am Oaf

With a first degree in blockquoting

But where do you get a first in blockquoting from? I only have a grade four CSE in it and I need to improve.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 10:34 am Oaf

Buggery bollocks!!
on 13 Jul 2009 at 10:49 am GiveItAGo

This thread is shit and I just wasted twenty minutes reading it. Now I’m off to sulk in a corner.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:40 am Makhno

Hey, Grov never said the effects of smoking were cool. Just the act. Which, if done well and witnessed from beyond smelling range, it is – witness almost every movie made in the Forties.

@ alt-f4: Filler weed is higher quality than a lot of street weed? Bugger. My housemates and I have missed out on a fortune.

We found an abandoned weed farm in the loft, with sacks and sacks of filler. The polis didn’t even bother to remove it, they just asked our landlord to. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was his in the first place. I suppose it’s pretty much the same stuff that goes into those “almost THC-free” hash tisanes that are legal in quite a few Continental countries, but I wish it had occurred to us to find some gullible fools and pass it off as the good stuff.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:42 am Mal

So, to summarise…

“Smokers/tobacco companies are evil.”
“No, they’re not.”
“Yes, they are.”
“No, they’re not.”

And on and on until we all rip out our lungs (tar filled or not) from the tedium.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:55 am millie

@ Oaf

It was Yoffy and he was Canadian. I went to school with his daughters. Trufax.
on 13 Jul 2009 at 3:34 pm Charles Exford, Oxton

Has anyone pointed out to “Caiser Sozy” that on planet Earth the Titanic sank in 1912?
on 15 Jul 2009 at 1:59 pm Neil Craig

Neil “is trying to say that the BBC shouldn’t be run by the kind of scum that would kidnap people and cut them up for their organs live on-air. Personally, I think it should.”

Looks like you & your friends get your wish Dr Feelgood.

Congratulations.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 4:16 pm Neil Craig

Since the moderator here has promised that he doesn’t censor & the fact that most of my responses here haven’t appeard must be fue to gremlins, Daily Mail readers & global warming lets try this from my blog:

Speak You’re Branes very own Nelson here.

When I read a few quotes from my site in your post I assumed you’d visited the site and then copied and pasted them.

Is this hopelessly naive of me? Should I assume that you work for my ISP? Or fabricate some other paranoid bullshit to explain how content from one part of the web can possibly have ended up in another???

I’m not going to risk leaving it there. I have the idea, from your hilariously obtuse misreading of Alex’s joke the other day, that you’re going to misunderstand me unless I spell it out, very clearly, as if to an idiot:

1) I don’t work for the BBC and never have.
2) I just cut n paste the comments from the HYS site, like anyone else in the world could
3) I’m just some random bloke from Nottingham who thinks the HYS crap is funny.

Basically, Norman’s right and you’re badly wrong on every count (I’m guessing this has happened to you before?). There’s no conspiracy. You’re just a bit of a self-important twat, getting your knickers in a twist over something completely imaginary. All kinds of people from all kinds of different places are going to find that amusing.

Jah bless.

Nelson

ps. And nobody’s censoring anything you post on SYB (overwhelmingly or not). Seriously, I wouldn’t, I love it when you people turn up.

July 16, 2009

neil craig said…
While I accept your claim not to have censored me as the very highest standard of honesty to which you aspire it is, of course, a lie. Anybody can see that my responses both shortly before & shortly after “Neil Craig’s mother” challenged me to reply aren’t there – the same applies to others.

You are putting up stuff after it has been deleted – obviously this means you have access to it after it has been deleted.

July 16, 2009

Nelson said…
No Neil. It means one of the thousands submissions I get from the general public was emailed before it got taken down. It’s not magic or a conspiracy. Besides which, EVERYONE has access to HYS content after it’s been deleted, you muppet.
http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/

And no, I really haven’t “censored” you, you self-absorbed ninny. I can’t see a comment from “Neil Craig’s Mother” either. Are you 100% sure you’re looking at my blog and not somebody else’s?

Hold it together lad.

July 16, 2009

neil craig said…
on 12 Jul 2009 at 1:47 am Neil Craig’s Mother
“Has anyone seen Neil around? Its way past his bedtime”

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/2009/07/10/science-fact/

And quite obviously my responses both before & after that have been censored.

Prat

July 16, 2009

Nelson said…
Riiiight… um yeah. Obviously censored.

*backs away slowly*. Cya later Neil! Big hugs!

July 16, 2009

neil craig said…
Not seeing is believing dickhead.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 4:29 pm Nelson

Well I feel like *right* chump now!
on 16 Jul 2009 at 4:35 pm Kelvin

Neil, we don’t censor comments here because frankly we’re too damn lazy. But I do know that sometimes this site gets into a strange mood where it decides everything you post is spam and dumps it, even before it reaches the Akismet plugin that’s supposed to deal with spam. Oddly though the site must keep a hash of the post, because if you try and repost it, it accuses you of repeating yourself. I see it happen to plenty of my own comments, even when I’m logged in on the back end. They don’t show up in the pending comments box and Nelson tells me they don’t show up in Akismet either. So when this happens we have literally no idea that something’s even been posted.

So let me ask, after you posted your comments and the page refreshed, did you see that the comment had been successfully submitted, or is it possible the site broke another elastic band and lost them somewhere along the way?
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:14 pm Nelson

Yeah.. good point. There’s some sort of problem with “WP Supercache” on my ISP that makes everything shit. The site was down a lot yesterday apparently. Several people noticed and emailed me (all of them presumed it was a problem with WordPress, rather than a personal attack on them, the gullible fools!).

I was out all day though (doing my BBC job, promoting Hamas and sex in primary schools).

Had a look through the logs Neil, and I can see 9 HTTP POST requests to wp-comments-post.php which may or may not have been you attempting to post stuff. It’s hard to tell. But I can only find 5 of your actual comments. So there you go. Mystery solved! Turns out nobody was out to get you after all! All you needed to do was keep trying until the site accepted your comment. But I guess you were a bit too busy bringing down the establishment.

Is there really any point patiently trying to work this out with you? Or are you still wanking over the idea that someone thought your swoony arse piss was worth suppressing?
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:27 pm Ed

I get the SYB comments feed and the above comments didn’t show in my feed. I think your WP installation is a bit ill.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:30 pm Kelvin

I told Nelson a Commodore 64 with a thickwire adaptor made from a couple of bent bobby pins wasn’t up to the job, but would he listen to me? No, he was too busy texting 1984RFR and cackling as he deleted Neil’s posts.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:32 pm Nelson

You get the SYB comments feed??? Seek medical attention

Even I don’t read the comments here. Apart from now. I’m reading them now.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:35 pm Nelson

Oh, Neil, for future reference, this site doesn’t moderate comments (unlike yours, what are you scared of? ). So if you don’t see your comment immediately, then it didn’t work and you should try again.

Your huge comment above is an exception… if you include lots of links and make it really long and boring, Wordpress suspects it might be ~~written by a boring cunt~~ spam, so I have to approve it first.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:35 pm Kelvin

Ed – they show up for me. Maybe you have a caching issue somewhere upstream?
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:43 pm Kelvin

Oh, Neil, for future reference, this site doesn’t moderate comments (unlike yours, what are you scared of? )

Well Nelson, it’s like this. When you’re posting on a site that’s run by Hooray Henrys and dedicated to schoolboy humour, it is obviously of paramount importance that your freedom of speech is protected. Whereas when you’re posting on an important grown-up political blog it’s vitally important that you don’t say anything to upset the blog owner.

Also I sent an invoice to Mark Thompson but it came back unpaid with a note saying “fuck off” and a restraining order. Does this mean we don’t work for the beeb after all?
on 16 Jul 2009 at 5:58 pm Nelson

Don’t be daft. Course we work for the beeb. It’s people like us that ensure the world ignores the important opinions of people like Neil. He’s brilliant and insightful and so we have to work very hard to make everyone dismiss him as a tit. It’s the only thing that could explain why nobody takes him seriously.
on 16 Jul 2009 at 7:14 pm Ed

@Kelvin

Yes, the comments did in fact show in my feed. I was confused about what date was today.

@Nelson

I get the comments feed so I don’t have to manually monitor each recent posting page. It’s a very efficient way to waste time and laugh at alliterative animal orifice references.

Further to the main RSS feed, on Google Reader it’s showing this:
Not Your Typical BNP Voters (1 Jul) = full
Deep Thought (3 Jul) = title only
Too Speedy (6 Jul) = full
Hot In Burkha (6 Jul) = title only
THEN ALL POSTS UP TO
Millions of Tiny Propellors (15 Jul) = title only
Massive Rhys (16 Jul = today) = start, then “[...]”

A further note: I read the RSS file using the handy perl script, and the Rhys entry shows the “description” element with “[...]“, but the “content:encoded” element has the full text. The Propell[oe]rs entry shows the same in the raw feed, but not on Google Reader which seems to have cached it as above.

So, it appears that you’ve configured your feed to truncate the “description” element, which you didn’t have previously. Hope this helps.

"If you love Afghanistan so much..
why don't you go live there?"

106 Responses to “Science Fact”

About

Search

Tags

Archives

Pages

spEak You're bRanes

"If you love Afghanistan so much.. why don't you go live there?"

106 Responses to “Science Fact”

About

Search

Tags

Archives

Pages

"If you love Afghanistan so much..
why don't you go live there?"