babble Hall of Fame: version X.2.1

119 posts / 0 new
Last post

In response to the opening of thread no. 5,000,000 about the upcoming 2015 election, Justin Trudeau, etc., JKR intoned as follows:

JKR wrote:

Here are some other non-loaded questions you can "ask" us on many many more of your numerous engaging threads on Babble before the 2015 election:


Is Trudeau going to lose his own seat in the 2015 election?

Will the Trudeau Liberals win any seats in the 2015 election?

When will the pollsters, who are all on the payroll of the Liberals, show us that the vast majority of Canadians think Trudeau is a loser?

Has Trudeau ever read a book in his life?

Does Trudeau secretly admire Harper more than his dad?

Will Sacha Trudeau have to replace Justin before the 2015 election?

Is Trudeau going to replace Ben Mulroney as the host of that entertainment show before or after losing the 2015 election?

Can Trudeau avoid electoral Armagedon during the 2015 election debates without the use of a teleprompter?

Is Trudeau just visiting?

What does Trudeau's I.Q. indicate, that he's a moron, an imbecile, or an idiot?

I was inspired to weakly add:


Was Justin Trudeau actually born in Kenya?

Not saying he was. Just asking.

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Jacob Two-Two (in the Last Drops of Orange Crush thread... although the placement is not important, the sentiment is) responding to those who seek to "strike a balance" between rights and freedoms and security panics.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There is no "correct balance". The correct position on rights and freedoms is standing up for them and denouncing those who would erode them in the strongest terms. [...]


6079_Smith_W wrote:
I'd love to see the list of people whose thought patterns you don't think are clouded by something or other you don't agree with.




piss off you fucking troll.


wth slumberjack. you have issues and better get them in check ffs.


Really? Both of you stow it. Quizzical, I'm getting complaints about you so, like, dial it back.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
Freedom of the press allowed the reporter to ask the question however it seems the barking class in the MSM just can't take it when someone throws their shit back at them. Given that everyone in Canada including foreign visitors are covered by the rights in the Charter it comes down to if you want to be an asshole then don't complain when someone says you are a biased jerk.


The whole context is from a question addressed to Canadian Minister Dion attacking the Chinese government (whose representative was next to Dion in the same meeting). The full quote is as follows ...

The Ambassador's letter highlights why he is the diplomat. It covered it all and was polite.

Asking a negatively phrased question of Dion to get him to talk about the reporters' list of "concerns" was third rate journalism and the fact that it was supposedly a joint question from various MSM outlets highlights just how low Canadian journalistic standards are. If the reporter had asked the Foriegn Minsiter of China about those incidents directly then that would have been good journalism but instead he wanted to presume the truth of his statement in a question to the Canadian Minister. 

Seems to me that if you ask a rudely worded question of a third party while the person being gored is in the room then one should expect to get a snarky response from the person you are trying to embarrass. Freedom of the press allowed the reporter to ask the question however it seems the barking class in the MSM just can't take it when someone throws their shit back at them. Given that everyone in Canada including foreign visitors are covered by the rights in the Charter it comes down to if you want to be an asshole then don't complain when someone says you are a biased jerk.

permanent link is here

Mr. Magoo

[old man voice]

Do you remember when the Hall of Fame was reserved for especially witty, or insightful, or thought-provoking posts?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.



I need to create a sock puppet so I can get some of my posts in this Hall of Fame. 

alfred_mark wrote:
Here's another fabulous post by that great guy mark_alfred ....

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Josh, commenting on the potential demise of CETA.

Josh wrote:

It will only die when a stake is driven through its heart.  It was easier to kill Rasputin than it is to kill these so-called trade deals.


ETA: whoops, I had intened to provide a link


Noops, commenting on Obama's legacy:

I'll always remember him fondly as the one who nuked that slimeball tear-a-wrist Obama Bin Laden in his bed.

God, I wish I had said that! Thanks, Noops.



Just saw this:


November 8, 2016 - 6:38pm #449

Such negativity on such a beautiful evening!

Not a jab at you, NR. I expect a few were surprised.


I asked babblers for help picking a new smartphone, and radiorahim weighed in with great advice as always, but somewhat focused on his prime interest - free non-proprietary stuff and the ability to re-purpose the device.

Magoo somewhat irreverently paraphrased as follows. I'm still laughing. Respectfully, rr!

Mr. Magoo wrote:

babbler:  "Hey, radiorahim, I'm in the market for a decent used car... what do you suggest?  I'm an (occasional) city driver, so I want something that represents good value, has decent fuel efficiency and low emissions.  With a family of five, ample seating and a roomy trunk would be a definite bonus!"

radiorahim:  "You can't go wrong with a 2002 Ford Taurus.  The manifold bolts are very accessible, which comes in handy when you decide to rebore your cylinders.  You'll want to replace the factory windshield wipers, but you can find superior replacements on eBay for a few bucks.  And the hose clamps are held on with plain hex bolts, not proprietary Phillips screws!"


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

We have a winner.

kropotkin1951 - Hits of 2016

What I love about you is that you rightly claim that you are immune to US propaganda and still somehow independently arrive at the same conclusions 99% of the time.

Some Honourable Babblers: Hear, hear! (stormy, prolonged, tumultuous applause).


Catchfire wrote:

The Hall of Fame is not the place for vendettas.

Hey, I found a nice little blast from the past.


Pogo, reflecting on the wild speculation about the violent death of billionaires Barry and Honey Sherman:

While I find discussion a little bit in poor taste, I must say that the one benefit that the ultra rich provide for the 99% is the ability to gossip freely about them.  I personally have had the good fortune of avoiding this problem by avoiding success (it is one of my core competencies).


In reply to the notion that oil extraction might destroy the actual planet, Michael Moriarity had this to say:


Of course, this is ridiculous. Gaia is in no danger at all. A lot of the existing biosphere, including our own species and many others, are facing extinction, but this is no threat to mommy Gaia. She has had litters of children go extinct numerous times in the past. In a few million years, she will have healed the wounds, and be ready to launch more litters of children, who may do better than we and our predecessors have.

Still, we humans have had a pretty good run. We came up with Quantum Field Theory, the Brandenburg Concertos, the Tao Te Ching, Angkor Wat, and many other quite impressive accomplishments. Not bad for a bunch of big, stinky apes.


This is what Meg had to say, in response to a complaint that some babblers were using terms that could be construed as ablist or dismissive of persons suffering from mental illness:


This is a sensitive issue, and I understand it better than most, having lost friends and immediate family to major depressive disorder, something I was diagnosed with after my mother and brother ended their lives within months of each other. Mental illness runs in my family - my sister is bipolar and my niece has been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The rest of us mostly hang on by our fingernails to some semblence of a normal life.

That said, language is fluid and contextual. Words have multiple meanings and context is important. I wouldn't ban someone outright for using offending language without pointing it out and asking for a more sensitive approach. For the most part folks here get the three strikes option before I consider them abusing the priviledge of posting on babble. That's not a hard and fast rule - there are levels of offense and it's a judgement call as to whether someone is either seriously harming the community or if they're just oblivious as to the impact of their posts. I always consider a person's willingness to grow in understanding before writing them off.

I have a soft spot for people who have a willingness to learn about what it means to be progressive, coming from a place that most of us would find anathema. They get a lot of latitude from me because they display a real need to understand the vision of a better world. And then there's the pure dumbfuckery. Less patience for that.

So no. No one is going to be banned for using language that could be construed as mental health ablist, uness they are consistently seen as disruptive and not open to understanding the impact of their language.