I can't possibly be the only one that finds them incredibly funny.

My all time favorite though, has to be the singing cowboy. I would've been laughing uncontrollably during filming of that commercial to the point I would be asked to leave.

Cowboy - I laugh every time I see it.

Body Bags - I keep imagining a cop writing them one hell of a ticket for littering.

I couldn't find a video of the newer dancing cartoon commercials, and underweight babies but it's just as hilarious. Does it make me want to stop smoking? Definitely not. Does it bring a smile to my face? Most assuredly.

It's ironic that I hate PETA, and anti-smoking campaigns but one of the same ads debunks the claim by PETA that dairy cows are spooked by humans, and covered in shit. In the ad it shows a dairy farm, the basis of the commercial is a memo by big tobacco that compares cigarettes to milk. In the video you clearly see calm cows in the background(despite all the people, bright lights, camera equipment, sound equipment, etc present during filming) and not a single one of them is covered in their own feces.

My favorite jokes about advertisement are from the book "Milking the Rhino", which is a conglomeration of comic lists.

Here's the list:

Examples of Thruth in Advertizing You are Never Likely to see.

1.- A new breakfast cereal for kids called Sugar 'N' Shit

2.- Bottled water called Jersey Water Hose

3.- Eye makeup that states on the label, "it only blinded some of the rabbits"

4.- Tuna fish that states on the label, "enough mercury to kill a shark"

5.- A pet store that claims, "Our goldfish have a twenty-four-hour lifetime guarantee"

6.- An army recruiting commercial that states, "Be all you can be... unless you get killed"

7.- A drug company commercial that says, "Ask your doctor if this product is for you, because you don'tknow squat and are just responding to the pretty colors and the catchy tune in our ad. And yet, we pitch directly to you, because we're greedy bastards".

The new underweight dancing babies reminds me of the prom night dumpster baby song and dance from Family Guy.

In fairness to marketers, that's true of just about everything and everyone.

I'm a relatively educated guy but when ads started promoting cereals for having a high GI I could only assume it's a good thing from tone and context. I have friends who knew off the top of their head that a GI is a Glycemic Index and we do want a high one. And yet people don't harangue the marketers of cereal or toothpaste for pitching at the consumer. Hell, when I bring it up people seem to be opposed to the idea of training some sort of government sponsored individual whose job it was to make all your decisions for you.

Btw, I posted this elsewhere and before anyone jumps all over me for making fun of these ads.



Yes, though in a robotic sounding voice. "Commencing Laughter Sequence .... Ha ... Ha .... Ha"

Not to mention I would have the best Stephen Hawking impression out of everyone I know, I would just need to pull out the wheelchair in my shed and glue a fake keypad to it for a halloween costume. Maybe have a copy of The Universe In A Nutshell lying in my lap so people fully get the reference.

You can't get depressed over something like that, take it in stride and laugh at yourself. I've never met an amputee that's upset when people give them the nickname "Stumpy", or make jokes. They laugh along with those people. It's not a handicap if you can laugh at it, it's a comedic prop.

There is even an organization of comedians with disabilities which help spread awareness. Just because they were meant to shock people doesn't mean they're not funny also, and if it gets the point across through shock, or guffaw it's still served it's purpose. I just choose not to stop.

8. - Firearms that would state "You know, someone just may get hurt."

The Best Anti-Smoking Ad Ever.

Yay musical!

"Just stay focused on the- POSITIVE!"

I don't smoke, but I believe smokers get a lot of crap because this kind of advertisement is borderline propaganda. In California, they just added ANOTHER tobacco tax. As if that'll encourage people to quit.

There's enough cigarette-related information available out there. Everyone knows it's bad for your health. What about all the anti-alcohol or anti-gun ads, where are they? If there's any, they're FAR outnumbered.

Personally, I'd rather see someone smoking while driving than intoxicated while driving.

Funny thing is: if everyone, I mean EVERYONE decides to stop smoking, the whole economy will just drop down on his (or her) ass....same with gas/fuel....

Better living through chemicals! YAY!

@the musical one... oh mah gawd! I want to rip that to an MP3 and dance around my house to it. Why? Because I am sick. And it was catchy.

I don't smoke and I'm violently and disgustingly allergic to smoke... however I'll fight for someone's right to fuck up their own life. Less mess for the rest of us later on!

Smoking is a relatively harmless vice. Just about everything in the modern world will give you cancer anyway. If it wasn't an addictive habit (I have addiction issues) and it wasn't ridiculously expensive, I'd probably smoke anyway.

But on a somewhat related note, I'm terribly tired of the "anti-chemical, all-natural" approach that is so very popular with the idealistic youths I have to deal with. I can't wait for more of them to sink closer to my depth of cynicism. Because there are not enough all-natural resources on this planet to support six billion humans and yet the billions who'll die to starvation and inadequate water supplies due to the lack of chemical interference don't seem to matter.

Then again, I imagine the campaigners figure that most of them will be black or brown or yellow. Things are often much more remote when you can have the filter of skin-colour as well as distance.

What does PETA have to do with anti-smoking campaigns?

In the grand scheme of things I guess it's relatively harmless. Anything taken to excess could destroy a human easily and quickly. My only beef is that just wandering around I can be affected by someone else's vice. If someone drinks I have a way better chance to avoid them. If someone eats so much they become gross I can avoid that. If someone does drugs I can also avoid them. But smoking is prevalent enough that I would be hard pressed to walk down the street and not run into it. And that bothers me since my only option to avoid that is to... not go outside. Or buy one of those awesome plastic bubbles (like a giant hamster ball but for humans!).

I like the all natural idea. HOWEVER I'm also keen on the idea of people making their own food and supporting themselves. I have a paranoid streak that thinks "How would my family survive if there was some kind of breakdown of society? If tech stopped working? Where would we go? How would we get seeds? And water? And fire?" I may have read too many sci-fi stories...

Either way the lack of knowledge about the natural way of life for many people today is mind boggling. Their survival in the "natural way" would be very very short I think.

It's not harmless. I know somebody who dosen't smoke who has developed cancer. And nothing gives lethal cancer with the surety that smoking does. Sure my mother has had dozens of skin cancers removed but that can't hold a candle to lung cancer.

It effects you the same way rising obesity effects you. It causes health problems which weigh down the Health service which could be spending their time fighting afflictions we DIDN'T do to ourselves. Hospitals are overcrowded, weight lists for surgery are getting longer, nuses are in short supply, and shit we do to our selves makes it worse.

Another way to look at smoking is a man made natural selection process. Cruel as that sounds.

one of my friends, who's very logical, calculated about how many years smoking would take off his life, then how long social security was meant to last, then said, "yep, works out about right, i'm taking one for the team."

Smoking does not give everyone cancer, that's the most annoying aspect of the ads. They hope to convince people if you smoke, you have a 100% chance to die from it when it's just bs. The majority of my family smoke, and have had zero health problems because of it.

Genetics more than anything determines your risk factors for cancers, and diseases(we're prone to alcohol addiction, liver disease, etc). I am not saying cigarettes are the healthiest things on the planet, but they are not as dangerous as people make them out to be.

The Surgeon General knows nothing, throughout history SG's have not practiced medicine or been in a lab for 10-25 years, and have become antiquated in their studies by focusing on political power.

Several presidents deaths were blamed on both the assassin, and the surgeon general who once acted as presidential doctor. Using their dated techniques they'd make the wounds worse, or as suspected kill the president due to malpractice. It's why modern presidents have a practicing physician as the presidential doctor, and the surgeon general is just a figurehead(who will lie, cheat, and steal just like a regular politician to get his way).

Psh.

You breathe in and ingest more toxins than you can count. It's in your food, your water, your toothpaste (toothpaste is full of all sorts of industrial engine degreasers ). It's in the air you breathe. The difference for the average non-smoker due to second hand smoke is almost negligible. There are very few (only one or two, from memory) studies that actually show any significant effect to second-hand smoke at all and mostly they require you to be hanging around heavy smokers all the time.


Suppose you're against cities and schools and education then. After all, if you need to grow your own food you can't live in an urban environment. Nowhere to grow. And you can't afford to have your kids going off just to learn. Need to put food on the table or we'll all starve.

And hey, like you said, it's not like that many of us will survive anyway. After all, untold generations of natural human behaviour being that we specialise to maximise the effect to manpower ratio aren't really natural. It's more natural for us to let half the global population starve due to there simply not being enough natural resources to feed us all. And let's not count the extra millions who'll die because we simply haven't had to do things like farm and secure water to feed us and our families for so long the skills have fallen into disuse.

The Luddite paranoia that our technology will fail or turn against us despite there being absolutely zero evidence that such a thing is even theoretically possible is enough to justify the biggest manslaughter that has ever happened. After all, it's only natural we turn our backs on our natural advantages. All the other animals are sacrificing massive swathes of their population for kicks, too.


Sweet. I'll let the folks in Chernobyl and Hiroshima know they've been overreacting all this time. I mean, they could have taken up smoking instead of suffering nuclear fall-out.

Face it. If smoking cigarettes was even remotely as dangerous as the propaganda would have you believe then why would you support any government that makes them legal? They already ban other drugs for "public safety". Smoking can give you cancer. And marijuana can trigger psychotic episodes in people. And alcohol can and will poison you to death if you drink too much of it. Funny how the only one of those three things that's illegal is the one that doesn't and can't kill you.

Nobody forces you to smoke. People who do smoke are, in this day and age, making an educated decision. They know what might happen to them and they choose to smoke. It's almost [acronym="Or hilarious or boring depending on my mood"]sickening[/acronym] that people are allowed to condescend and even verbally attack them for making that decision. Just about everybody who's ever driven a car has, at one time or another, chosen to drive faster than the speed limit. Why not focus on them, eh? They're directly endangering other lives.


And yet people who are obese or are smokers (or drinkers or drug addicts of any kind) don't get life-saving surgeries when there's somebody who isn't addicted to something on the list.

But if we're not treating people who do things to themselves I suppose all drug addicts and homeless people can just die in the streets where they fall. And good luck if you get something stuck up your rectum, eh? That can go from humiliating to fatal given enough time, I reckon. And hell, while we're at it, let's stop treating people who've been convicted of crimes. That'd really free up the hospitals for other people I'm guessing.

We do skin cancer to ourselves too. We all know the risks of UV light these days. Go outside without sufficient sun protection and you're just asking to get skin cancer. My dad's had four or five suspicious things cut from his back and I know for a fact he knew better than to keep going to the beach without a shirt on. He really shouldn't have been treated at all. You know, we're probably doing wonders for the strain on medical systems by excluding all these people from treatment. Hell, when you get right down to it we can probably stop training all kinds of medical staff.

Sarcasm aside, you treat everybody or you treat nobody. You ever wonder why there are so many plastic surgeons available if hospitals are so desperately understaffed? Because a plastic surgeon gets paid a lot more to do a lot less. Why don't you spend your time ranting at the people who don't want to sacrifice their lives for jobs where they get treated poorly and underpaid and disrespected. I think you'll find nurses and teachers right there along a lot of those hospital doctors. Especially in America, land of the easy law suit. And it's perfectly reasonable to blame people who make stupid decisions for the fact that most people don't want to martyr themselves.

There's no chance in hell I would ever be a teacher in America. I'm pretty damn good at teaching people things and I can pretend to be a decent human being without too much work. Except in America, the people who go into these professions sacrifice huge parts of their lives. They put in effort and time and doctors especially go into debt to be able to help people. They get sued and disregarded for their trouble all too often. Blaming people who make stupid decisions is fun - who doesn't like to ridicule the fifty year old woman working in the local McDonald's? - but that's not even close to the source of the problem.

Weight isn't always a contributor to health issues, there are plenty of chubby, or even fat people that are in good health. The health food, and diet industries push alot of the propaganda because they stand to make billions of dollars convincing people it's better to be skinny.

Brainiac used to have a segment called Fat vs. Thin.

Floating Test, Blizzard Test, Heatwave Test

Hurricane Test, Coldness Test, Earthquake Test

Any company that tells you either A. You don't need to watch your weight at all, or B. You need to loose as much weight as possible, or my personal favorite C. certain heights should be certain weights, obviously do not have your best interests at heart. Everyone's metabolism is different, everyone's ideal body-fat ratio is different, everone's ideal height-weight ratio is different; you just have to find out what it is that will keep you healthiest, no generic diet or exercise regimen will ever give you the best you can get...

I'll mention that while my views on "all-natural" things are probably quite heavily influenced by my severe dislike for the Great Outdoors, I'm also aware that there've been four or five times in my life when doing things "naturally" would have killed me. While I'm sure the thought is pleasing to some, my death [acronym="I was cut from my mother like a cancer. I was slightly too large and turned sideways so any attempt at a "natural" birth would have been fatal for both me and her. "]during birth[/acronym] is not something I'll support even indirectly. It generally sickens me about as much as the disgusting notion of a noble savage, seeing as pretty near every "noble and primitive" people are just as responsible for extinctions as white people. They only stop when it becomes a critical issue for them.

But hey, my cynicism is bone deep. Anybody seriously defending any kind of romantic ideal tends to make me taste bile in the back of my throat.


I know they're trying to make science fun and accessible but I've watched them downright lie a few too many times to really enjoy some of their more amusing and subtle plays.

I have to say the time they compared a psychic's predictions against those of a chimp was genius because even by winning, the psychic was discredited by the competition.

They are no worse than Mythbusters, who have so many shows revisiting "myths" because they did the experiment totally wrong. The bullet shot through an opponents scope for instance was documented U.S. military history(the first time they tried it they said it was busted, but then revisited they got the result), and they even had a doctor tell them falling bullets can kill people or injure them yet they said the myth was busted.

The pirate episodes pissed off alot of people also, they loaded knives into a cannon by way of a cardboard cartridge to hold them in place(nevermind not using an authentic cannon) and they did horrible damage to the dead pig, but then busted the forks and spoons when they didn't do the same thing(no cartridge to hold them in place, they just poured them down the barrel).

Their testing of the splinter effect on pirate ships was poorly done also, a few planks of wood on top of each other doesn't represent a pirate ship in my opinion.

Brainiac is worse than Mythbusters.

Mythbusters are far from perfect, admittedly, but they do actually attempt some sort of scientific test. Some days it's better than other days. But then, Mythbusters never had to air a retraction of their absolutely clear, "Nobody can lick their own elbow" because thousands of people sent pictures of them doing just that. A lot of the stuff in that show isn't even attempting to test anything. They have dramatised and awfully acted scenarios to emphasise whatever they want to say without even the vaguest attempt to test it.

And to the credit of Mythbusters, they have more than once reopened experiments when viewers correctly questioned their methodology. So at least they try to look scientific.

Mythbusters have copied several experiments from Brainiac though, from the cellphone at the gas pumps to walking on custard.

I can't see them as anything more than childish, simplistic sensationalism masquerading as science and wisdom.

Mythbusters will frequently make errors and use flawed judgment but I've yet to see them lie outright. This may be because I haven't seen much of it but I never watched much of Brainiac either and I certainly spotted three or four flat lies. Who knows? Maybe some of my animosity is because my country tends to be very dismissive of the works of British people. I just know I nearly hold it in as much contempt as I do your average news network - because it's such poorly designed propaganda.

I just want to see more artistry in the misdirection.

As for the "well there's dangerous stuff in the air we breathe every day, so why you get so hyped up on cigarettes"
Hard facts: 90% of lethal lung cancer in men and 80% in women is from smoking.

Over 40 chemicals inside a cigarette are known carcinagens. These cause a range of other cancers besides just lung cancer (such as cancer of the esophogus which kills over 12 thousand in the US alone /year, and various mouth cancers, even cancer in the bladder and other midsection organs! In the UK, cancer is the second largest killer and lung cancer is the leading killer cancer.

Furthermore 90% of the US population's exposure to benzanine, a known cause of acute myeloid leukemia, is from cigarettes.

As per the rate of lung cancer death in smokers, this varies so greatly due to incorrect data, it is greatly accepted that these numbers are insufficient to generate a correct estimation of your percent chance to die of smoking-induced lung cancer. Some nations boast death rates 7 and a half times larger than others!

Additionally, the point of organ donating is raised. Yes, it is not permitted to receive organs as a smoker, as organs are a rare commodity to begin with and hard to match up perfectly to a receiver. However, the care of a person with cancer is costly, even if they don't receive transplants. The US estimates they spend $9.6 billion per year on treating lung cancer, making it one of the costlier cancers.
Furthermore, a personal example to back. My father's lungs were donated when he died. The person who received them recovered well and is now alive and living a fuller life than he ever knew when otherwise he would now be dead. Had my father been a smoker (even though smoking was not at all related to his death) his lungs would have been deemed unusable, and his lungs would not have saved the life of another human being.

Edit: Sources:

CDC
Cancer Research UK
Surgeon General's report 2004
Personal correspondance through the Donor Network of Arizona

Emi, what about smoking a pipe? Most of the dangerous chemicals in cigarettes come from the paper and the glue that is used to keep it rolled.

So, how about smoking a pipe?

And a ridiculous percentage of road-fatalities are directly linked to alcohol.

The hardest fact is that people will die no matter what you do. Healthy, active people who eat well and live a balanced life can drop dead from an aneurysm. You can be hit by a bus. It's more likely that somebody else who chooses to drive under the influence will hit you. Cancers, tumors, organ failure, the list of things that will kill you is very, very long. The list of the things that let you live forever is quite short.

Best case scenario, we see eighty or ninety years and manage to stay active and mentally fit. More realistic scenario, our body or our brain fails us a good decade or two before the other kicks it. Random chance could snatch life from your fingertips at any second and that's something we all deal with - mostly by ignoring it.

People know that smoking increases their risk for cancer. People have been screaming it at each other for a long time now. It's so ingrained, in fact, that I know three kids under ten who are convinced that cancer is going to kill their smoking parent in the next five years. If, in the face of all this education, people decide that they'd rather smoke than not then they're making an informed decision.

See, being allowed to choose a stupid path for yourself is one of the perks of these free societies people keep telling me are so great. But I suppose I'm being too literally minded again. It's a flaw of mine, I know. A society ought only be free if people are only going to do what makes you happy.


So stop treating them.

Honestly, I really do struggle to meet people half-way on [acronym="Not fooling myself to thinking it's even close to half the issues, though. I am a contrary little bugger"]some[/acronym] of these issues but you either get to play pragmatic or you get to play ideology.

Pragmatism is easy. Prisoners, particularly those with life-sentences, are a drain on prison resources. Pragmatically? Either use them as slave labour or put a bullet in their head. Either option is cheaper - killing them being the cheapest option. Hospitals don't have enough resources to treat everyone? Stop treating people who don't meet a designated criteria. Want to decide on the legality of abortion? Prior to birth is okay to kill it, after is not. There may or may not be an ideological difference between an unborn child and a born one but practically speaking, birth is a nice, clear marker. Hooray, our system works but we're all horrible assholes who literally put a price on human lives and suffering.

Ideology isn't too hard either. You get to wring your hands and wail and moan about how everything would just be swell "if only" and then you continue to do nothing. Or maybe you campaign and have a lovely strike wherein you preach to people, to teach them the glory of your wonderful way and you never have to actually solve any of the little problems/

But you don't get it both ways. I do but that's because my belief is centred around brutal law enforcement and meeting pragmatic goals. I'm a romantic like that.

Keeping to the issue in discussion, smoking is legal. So long as smoking is legal, it is officially an acceptable behaviour. Enjoy the burden on your medical system. You want the burden gone, outlaw cigarettes. Alcohol would be a smart move too, really, but let's stick to the task at hand. Like you did, there's all sorts of statistics you can quote to say cigarettes are the devil themselves. Why aren't they illegal again?


Well, either way there's about six billion more of them.

If we want to really claim to be humanitarians, though, people really oughtn't have a right to their corpse. If you just took any useful bits off everybody who died and suddenly organs would be a lot more plentiful.

While I find most of your argument unrelated, I'll agree that I sort of wish people ddn't have the right to choose not to be an organd donor. You're dead, for god's sake, and you could save lives either directly or indirectly through research.

Somehow I feel I support free choice, though. I like to think one day people will be educated and make the right choices, either to become organ donors, to quit smoking, to use marijuana for responsible reasons, etc. But more so, I feel that making things illegal isn't the right solution. It just leads to illegal practices. The UK wised up to this when they legalised abortions after the horrifying portrayal of backstreet abortion practices was brought to public. Another example of this would be prostitution. Illegalising it only leads to unsafe practices and puts prostitutes in dangerous situations with no protection. Supporting abortions and not supporting prostitution, or whatever your beliefs may be, is inconsequential.

So the solution isn't government intervention in many cases, it's education. And while these Truth ads you speak of (I don't watch television so I cannot say I know them) may not have been done correctly, it was an attempt in the right direction.

Define "right choices".

Because what you are talking about is "Choices that you think are right", not choices that would inherently be right for any reason whatsoever.

There's a joke going around.

"I quit smoking, drinking, gambling, sex and eating meat. In 2 weeks I lost 14 days of my life."

Don't get me started on that. I am 6'2" and 250 lbs. According to BMI, I should weigh between 145 to 195 lbs. I have 24% body fat, meaning my lean mass is 190. So, to have a BMI of 25, I need a body fat percentage of about 3%. This is why BMI stinks. Everyone should shoot for a Body Fat Percentage of 8 to 19% if male and 21 to 33% if female. My goal is to get my weight to about 225 lbs, giving me a 15% body fat percentage. I am doing it by changing my diet and execising 4 days a week.



Problem is with your statement is that you violate personnal choice with that idea. I want to be buried in a pine box and not embalmed. Not only that, but working in the medical community has led me to not trust the harvest teams as far as I could throw them.

Wish someone WOULD implement that. I know I'd be a damn sight happier.

I only whine about the smoking because I have a gross yicky reaction to it. Cig smoke causes me to react like severe cat allergies... but with phlegm. Not only does everything close up and I start hacking like a hacking thing, but my body tends to want to shut down. It's REALLY not pretty. I pop some happy pills for it but I can't hang out in smokey places. And staying at my in-laws (who smoke heavily and always have) is misery. And they call me nasty names for wanting to stay at a hotel. Oh well!

As for the naturalist thing... it's all speculation. Our society wouldn't turn it's back on tech now if it WANTED too. We'd be sitting ducks for everyone who disliked us. Not to mention our lack of knowledge. Nothing is wrong with tech but completely abandoning the knowledge of what came before is a HUGE mistake. In fact forgetting any of our past and our actions is foolish... doomed to repeat and all that jazz.

As for eliminating our population... sometimes I wish it. Sometimes I think the masses are morons and should all just go away. Survival of the fittest. But I realize that is foolish since fittest really means the craftiest and meanest and most wiling to do whatever it takes to survive. And that does not necessarily mean the smart people. I only speculate on it after reading a sci-fi series by S.M. Stirling who covered that. He had a very interesting view on it and how people flocked to religion afterward.

I think having people take a course in survival (not only outdoor but food survival and plant differentiation) would be a good thing. Same with a course on "How to eat and how not to eat". Being big does not make you unhealthy. It all depends on what you're putting in and what you're putting out. If you eat well and get enough general movement during the day you are fine. The rest is genetics.

FYI I am not an organ donor. My body is going intact into the great fluffy cotton candy in the sky. Selfish? Maybe, but I don't know who or what is getting the parts and I like to keep mine with me.

To me, it makes no difference if they use my heart, pancreas, kidneys, etc, or not, after I die. Not like I'll be around to care about it. I do however retain the right to have rendered one or more of my internal organs unusable by that time.

I've already debunked the Surgeon General as a legitimate source of information, he's also been found to hugely exaggerate on the subject of secondhand smoke(claiming it was far more deadly than it is).

Surgeon Dumbass

Your personal correspondance is hearsay.

Cancer Research UK is dependent on funding, it's in their best interest to exaggerate the numbers. "The UK's Leading Cancer Charity"

CDC Website says smoking in african american, hispanic, white kids, etc has all dropped in recent years.

It boils down to free will, it's my will to smoke. Only 3,000 people per year die of "suspected" exposure to secondhand smoke, now combine other elements of homelife. Overdoses on cough, cold medication due to bad parenting, fast food, or even alcohol since being raised in a family with someone who drinks makes the child more likely to want to try it, and become an alcoholic himself.

Hell I bet a few kids die each year overdosing on Flintstones vitamins. Everyone is so f*cking health crazy, just like the industry wants. Stop Smoking Gum, Patches, Audio Programs, etc. Look at all the money rolling around and it's hard to believe some of the "scientific research" wasn't doctored to push the market.

This is a capitalist society, not a democracy.

The problem is when the State views your organs as a commodity and decides you can't do anything that would be bad for said organs.

I'll need all my organs for when I come back to life, either alive or undead doesn't matter. I would need my organs as a zombie for added dramatic/comedic effect by throwing them at people or dropping them like banana peels in the old cartoons.

"They say smoking takes ten years off your life. Well Y'know what? They're the ten worst years of adult diapers and reading assistants!"

Verbose feeding on logic holes.


That was them being very very specific. The myth, as they took it, was a bullet fired straight up into the air, while the bullets the doctor showed them as fatal were fired at an angle.


Explain how you half-kill a person.

I am curious.


This happened to a guy my parents knew a couple weeks ago. He picked a pretty bad time for it, too. I missed part of a birthday party for his memorial service.

Jerk.


*stabstabstabstab*

it wasn't half a person, it was multiplying whatever original number, by 7.5, and that was the other places death rate.

but i think destroying someones body so they're a veggy counts as killing half a person. am i wrong?

Yeah, that's something that most high school misanthropic wannabes don't get.

I'm a hell of a lot smarter than one of my cousins but if it came down to it, he'd probably be able to kill me and take what I had. Especially since a gang of tough but dumb guys is going to beat a fractious gang of competing intellects.


I know, right?

Some people really need to grow up.

I'll get there when I get there, no need to rush.

It's not [acronym="THIS time..."]you[/acronym]. It's just so childish to not plan your aneurysms out properly.

Oh, they're not sure it was an aneurism. He just dropped dead and they decided to leave it at that.

Imagine if a gang of intelligent strong guys came about... *mental twitching*

OK right that wouldn't work. *snickers*

Percentages of various countries death rates are for crap. We have different populations and different work ethics and different lifestyles. Hell you could even break it down by state if you're just looking at the US. Either way, it's comparing apples to oranges. Or Italians to Americans.

I thought they meant midgets.

It could but it would be very malicious.


Nah, midgets make up a small percent of the population.