Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Smudge

Phunny (Funny) Photos / Pictures

By Smudge, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Len Finsbury

Len Finsbury

Posted
Posted

I knew someone would say that, but since Jesus was not, rather inconsiderately, born on 1st Jan, he was actually born late 2 BC-ish (cos nobody thought to include a year 0 history (at least using the Gregorian calendar) goes 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, etc.)

History lesson over.

Anyway, regardless, he certainly wasn't a bloke with a beard, which kind of ruins the picture as a piece of intellectual satire.

History? or Myth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted

Yeah, Homer Simpson doesn't have a goatee.

lol - very good (and something I didn't want to pick up on).

Woooooah!! I get a bollocking from DB11 for replacing the traditional u with ü in the word f**k and yet my mind has now been permenantly scarred by Homer Simpson with a goatee!!

WTF!

for anti-censoring?

I go for one of υ or μ - thank you Greek letters that look like u but don't get flagged by swear filters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stix

stix

Posted
Posted

for anti-censoring?

I go for one of υ or μ - thank you Greek letters that look like u but don't get flagged by swear filters.

Yeah. I mean i get the point he was trying to make, kids may well be looking over their parents shoulders at the screen etc, but thats not my fault-tell your kid to stop being so nosey.

The best bit was that i was replying to another post, which also had the same word in which was spelt fvck, but that was fine!! Nobody will know what that means apparantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilyBoy

NeilyBoy

Posted
Posted

I knew someone would say that, but since Jesus was not, rather inconsiderately, born on 1st Jan, he was actually born late 2 BC-ish (cos nobody thought to include a year 0 history (at least using the Gregorian calendar) goes 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, etc.)

History lesson over.

Anyway, regardless, he certainly wasn't a bloke with a beard, which kind of ruins the picture as a piece of intellectual satire.

History? or Myth?

The Gregorian calendar's a myth?

Police have begun a large sweep of the Leicestershire area for a missing point. We can reveal it was last seen travelling in the direction of a Mr "Trav Le Bleu" but reports confirm that it never reached its destination. Illiteracy has not yet been ruled out as the culprit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted

Police have begun a large sweep of the Leicestershire area for a missing point. We can reveal it was last seen travelling in the direction of a Mr "Trav Le Bleu" but reports confirm that it never reached its destination. Illiteracy has not yet been ruled out as the culprit.

I understand the point - the fact is that the dates given are based upon the life of Jesus - real or fictional doesn't come into and therefore the point rebounds.

I was going to post a youtube of Eddie Izzard's joke about BC calendar makers getting worried about "what happens when we reach 0?" but couldn't find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilyBoy

NeilyBoy

Posted
Posted

I understand the point - the fact is that the dates given are based upon the life of Jesus - real or fictional doesn't come into [it] and therefore the point rebounds.

I was going to post a youtube of Eddie Izzard's joke about BC calendar makers getting worried about "what happens when we reach 0?" but couldn't find it.

You know, you should stop treating the Bible like gospel (pun very much intended). :rolleyes:

Just in case you incorrectly mean the dates are based on some non-biblical record, a quick trip to wikipedia shows that the date arguments are very much based on gospel accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ajthefox

ajthefox

Posted
Posted

You know, you should stop treating the Bible like gospel (pun very much intended). :rolleyes:

Just in case you incorrectly mean the dates are based on some non-biblical record, a quick trip to wikipedia shows that the date arguments are very much based on gospel accounts: http://en.wikipedia....nology_of_Jesus

Telling someone not to treat the bible as gospel and then using wikipedia as a source of information? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilyBoy

NeilyBoy

Posted
Posted

Telling someone not to treat the bible as gospel and then using wikipedia as a source of information? Really?

I wouldn't use wikipedia as an academic source but you can't seriously be saying it's on a par with the bible for reliability. If your opinion's based on the fact that you can edit wikipedia and add any information you want then you haven't tried doing so recently and are out of date with their publication process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

I understand the point - the fact is that the dates given are based upon the life of Jesus - real or fictional doesn't come into and therefore the point rebounds.

You know, you should stop treating the Bible like gospel (pun very much intended). :rolleyes:

Which bit of "real or fictional" didn't you understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tielemans63

Tielemans63

Posted
Posted (edited)

Is this actually genuine?

I wondered the same. I really hope not. The 'Toolooz' thing is very suspect. The rest is depressingly plausible.

They've upset these French news websites so maybe they really are genuine:

http://www.24heures.ch/monde/Fox-News-atelle-place-Toolooz-en-Roumanie-et-Gueant-au-poste-de-president/story/29800108

http://mediatv.divertissement.sympatico.ca/2012/03/buzz-m%C3%A9dia-tv-toulouse-devient-toolooz-%C3%A0-fox-news-gaffe-monumentale-ou-photomontage.html

Edited by Paddy Akinbiyi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted

Which bit of "real or fictional" didn't you understand?

I love you again :)

I wasn't talking about Jesus, I was talking about the origin of the calendar we use in the western world. The argument put against me was similar to saying that Thursday isn't Thursday because you don't believe in Norse gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilyBoy

NeilyBoy

Posted
Posted

Which bit of "real or fictional" didn't you understand?

Let's backtrack a bit:

I knew someone would say that, but since Jesus was not, rather inconsiderately, born on 1st Jan, he was actually born late 2 BC-ish (cos nobody thought to include a year 0 history (at least using the Gregorian calendar) goes 3 BC, 2 BC, 1 BC, 1 AD, 2 AD, etc.)

History lesson over.

Anyway, regardless, he certainly wasn't a bloke with a beard, which kind of ruins the picture as a piece of intellectual satire.

History? or Myth?

SG's clearly referring to the labelling of the study of Jesus' chronology as history, not disputing the point about the calendar, but Trav's response was:

The Gregorian calendar's a myth?

So I chime in with:

Police have begun a large sweep of the Leicestershire area for a missing point. We can reveal it was last seen travelling in the direction of a Mr "Trav Le Bleu" but reports confirm that it never reached its destination. Illiteracy has not yet been ruled out as the culprit.

I understand the point - the fact is that the dates given are based upon the life of Jesus - real or fictional doesn't come into and therefore the point rebounds.

Given that I now think Trav's back on the same page vis-a-vis the Jesus discussion, this seems to me a lot like he's saying there's no disputing that Jesus was around at roughly the time the gregorian calendar started. Hopefully my response makes more sense to you now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeilyBoy

NeilyBoy

Posted
Posted

I wondered the same. I really hope not. The 'Toolooz' thing is very suspect. The rest is depressingly plausible.

They've upset these French news websites so maybe they really are genuine:

http://www.24heures..../story/29800108

http://mediatv.diver...otomontage.html

Those French sources aren't upset at all: They're talking about how it's clearly a "photomontage" (photoshop). The 2nd link even has the original picture in the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Len Finsbury

Len Finsbury

Posted
Posted

Let's backtrack a bit:

SG's clearly referring to the labelling of the study of Jesus' chronology as history, not disputing the point about the calendar, but Trav's response was:

So I chime in with:

Given that I now think Trav's back on the same page vis-a-vis the Jesus discussion, this seems to me a lot like he's saying there's no disputing that Jesus was around at roughly the time the gregorian calendar started. Hopefully my response makes more sense to you now.

I wish I hadn't said anything now :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...