A problem has been detected and this thread has shut down to prevent damage to your computer.The problem seems to be caused by the following file: BE_ANOTHER.SYSPAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREAIf this is the first time you've seen this Stop error screen, restart your computer. If this screen appears again, follow these steps:Check to make sure any trolls are properly banned. If it is a new troll, ask your local staff member for any mod promotions you might need.If problems continue, disable or ban any new...
Database Moderator & Historical Meme Historian
Location: Great Grey North
Joined Oct 24, 2011 at 03:05PM EDT
| || |
opspe's Forum Posts
There’s already an entry. I deadpooled it because as Cute Master pointed out, it’s pretty small.
>implying I haven’t
I can’t believe people actually raise shit about the marginal differences between atheism and agnosticism. But I suppose that’s no different than people who raise shit over different factions of the same religion. I stand by my theory that atheism is a religion, sociologically speaking.
>Doge Defence Force I was expecting a thread in defence of Doge
‘69’ is not an event, nor is it a subculture, and it is most definitely not a person. And as I’ve said, it’s not notable enough as an online phenomenon to deserve an entry.
I disagree, and let me break down why: [‘69’] is a popular saying/meme… First off, it is neither a saying nor a meme. It is the vernacular name of a sexual act. A slang term. [It] has transcended from real life to the internet. This is true, in the same way that all slang terms have. By your own admission, it is a slang term that has spread to the internet, not from the internet. Therefore, it cannot be considered internet slang in the same sense as words such as ‘newb’, ‘feels’, ‘tl;dr’,...
These blurbs are quite outdated. The General board has since taken on a much more serious tone, and JFF has expanded to many more things beyond games. Based on the OP, this thread seems better suited for JFF than General; it’s not asking for discussion of meme-related christmas stuff or anything – it looks more like an image-sharing thread.
Explain why you think it does.
See this thread for explanations about user titles.
Agreed. I see absolutely no reason why ‘69’ deserves an entry. Yes, it is a slang term, but it is not an internet slang term. Thus, it has no relevancy to this site or internet culture as a whole. And it sure as hell is not a meme.
Gaben is not a mod, and entries are never deleted. We just hide them from public view.
Too fast, too furious Edit: I blatantly took my friend’s joke. I love him so much. Edit again: Bob wishes I loved him, but he wouldn’t be able to handle the D. Edit 3: Edit with a Vengeance: Edit party on opspe’s post. Mods all welcome. A Good Day to Edit 4: You edit my post, I edit your ass. You know what I mean. Edit 5: The fourth movie was “Live Free or Die Editing”, you peasant. Fast and Edit 6: I’m just here for the lulz. Final Fantasedit 7: Is this party still going? I brought booze
Rule 0 of the Internet: Where there are comments, there are trolls, who will use anything and everything they can to insult you. Rule 0 of Using the Internet: Don’t let it get to you. KYM is no exception. I don’t think the community here is any worse than that of any other site, and it’s sure as hell better than many (COUGH YOUTUBE COMMENTS COUGH).
Stuff your turkey with latkes, and then stuff yourself with latke-stuffed turkey. …come to think of it, latke stuffing would probably be pretty good. I mean you’d have to fry it after baking it or something, but still.
I sense a strong vein of butthurt. You’ve made your proposal, and the mods have responded. Your proposal has been rejected. We’ve provided rationale and a reasonable alternative, both of which you have rejected. There’s not much else to be said, so I’m going to lock this before the circular logic and shit-flinging gets even worse.
Agreed 100%. You have to be very judicious here. But let me say this: the Deadpool entry will stay deadpooled for as long as I draw breath.
These types of threads are not allowed.
Only mods can do that. You can request that they do it in this thread.
Let’s see. One study, although published in a reputable journal, isn’t enough to sway my opinion on anything. That being said, this study seems well-done. However, this study is reporting correlative predictions only, and does not imply causation. There are a few quotes I wish to highlight: This study found that watching television, videos or DVDs for 3 h or more daily was associated with a small increase in conduct problems between the ages of 5 years and 7 years, after allowing for other child and...