|
|
Friday, April 14th, 2006
|
1:39p - we wank at the beginning, and wank on until the end
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) sailor_atma posts in statements. The subject line? "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE". Just like that. "WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE".
savannahjan disapproves of thissailor_atma gripes about it in his lj (locked post, no showee), implying a previous history of wank between himself and savannahjan, and invites his statements friends to assist him in irritating savannahjan -- which he promptly does with several more posts, all with long subject lines.
Things look wankless until savannahjan loses it with this post: "I'm making a statement to help get that terrible subject line off my flist; you all should do the same." sailor_atma and his pals promptly descend on the hapless post with a raging icon war and a great deal of trademark absurdism, leading to 140 comments. Four minutes later, though ...
This sally is ignored with the derision it deserves. From that point on, approximately 1/4 of the statements posted come from sailor_atma's posse, and many of them feature long subject lines. A little later on, sadorange throws around the word faggot in several posts, objecting vehemently to the statements war going on. This would probably be funnier if it weren't well known that sailor_atma is flamingly, flamboyantly gay.
A small, slightly tangy wank.
(20 comments |comment on this)
|
4:19p - Kibbles and Wank: Meets AAFCO Standards for Nutrition
On dog_lovers, katkia22 has encouraged her daughter to email Iams about PETA's favorite bone and posts Iams' response.
Cue the "IAMZ = SUX0RZ" comments. Along comes northwolf to question that assertion. Naturally, like 99.9% of pet community "debate," wank ensues, whipping up ancient vendettas.
There's plenty of "I'm not doing research for you!" and "She wouldn't read them anyway!" Rozae eventually relents, ignoring the fact that several websites that come up are contrary to their position. Some insanely so.
Of course, you also need "attacks" on someone's pet.
Circular arguments rock, but they become especially tasty when folks focus on the easily cross-referenced Wikipedia definitions of logical fallacies.
"Shun the nonbeliever. Shunnnnnn."
(156 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|