Semi related, I've always wanted to replace the praying Calvin on those window stickers with the urinating Calvin. There, I said it.

My quick summary:
Religion will always tell you that "God" is responsible for anything that science can't currently explain, and then will furiously and shamelessly backpedal when science advances far enough to invalidate something.

Science, on the other hand, will basically spill the beans when it has no answers to some question. But it might obfuscate that truth with some scary big words -- "big bang singularity", for example.

Pick your poison.


As a final note, record my vote for an alternate name as the "Horrendous Space Kablooie".

/thanks Calvin

Your video, Calvin and Hobbes: Gritty Reboot, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I'm glad they didn't have Calvin speak. I feel like, no matter what voice they gave him, it would have been wrong.

I wonder what BW thinks or would think of this. He was generally opposed to having C&H in any form or format besides comic strip.

I can't believe that Romney not only got the party nomination, but that it is still even considered that he may win.

It just goes to show that all you have to be is white, mid 50's, semi-attractive (with a dash of salt and pepper hair), be anti-gay rights, anti-Obama and anti-abortion and most Republicans will blindly support you no matter your name, stance on issues (other than the three above), economic plan (or even a vague one), and a consistent, verified, proven history of lies, flip-flopping and deception.

It is pathetic. It is like those Calvin peeing on Ford/Chevy stickers that everyone had on the car a few years back. Blind loyalty and devotion to anything is such a bad thing.

Next election, I sure hope that the third party candidates get the time in the spotlight. If the media actually showed more on Gary Johnson or Jill Stein Or Virgil Goode and the like, I promise you that there would be a lot more people willing to support them over Romney/Obama.

>> ^hpqp:

promote, and thanks for another musical discovery!
(the clip is kinda cinematic, dontcha think?)


Thanks for the promote. I understand the video now, had time to actually watch whats going on instead of rocking out. The guy in the back paid the guys to beat the shit out of an abusive boyfriend of the girl on stage he is in love with.

Thats what I got out of it.

Anybody that says they've built a perpetual motion machine should be viewed with the same skepticism as somebody who claims they've built a time machine.

Saying that, Calvin (and Hobbes) built some very interesting machines out of cardboard ;3

I have a feeling that by "real" @Enzoblue meant that the Teddy bear was alive and had thoughts and desires, like most of us projected onto our stuffed animals as children, not that there was any question whether the toy physically existed in the world, like how Calvin believes Hobbes is "real".>> ^PalmliX:
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?

>> ^bareboards2:

What is kind of funny about this sift talk --
If the nemesis shows up to neme, Mr Sandwich won't know.
Which is delicious. It is like some sort of superpower -- being slashed at by a sword and you don't even hear the swish of the blade as it fails to connect.
I never used to use the Ignore feature -- I had a Calvinist streak that said I must suffer in payment for my pleasure.
Now I use it all the time, and my pleasure has just increased.
Fie on you, Calvin! Your hold on me is waning.


I have a bunch of people ignored, but I almost always click to read their comments anyway. I'm weak/a masochist.

There should be an achievement. Most Ignored Comments Read.

What is kind of funny about this sift talk --

If the nemesis shows up to neme, Mr Sandwich won't know.

Which is delicious. It is like some sort of superpower -- being slashed at by a sword and you don't even hear the swish of the blade as it fails to connect.

I never used to use the Ignore feature -- I had a Calvinist streak that said I must suffer in payment for my pleasure.

Now I use it all the time, and my pleasure has just increased.

Fie on you, Calvin! Your hold on me is waning.

@lucky760, Well, I resptfully submit that your view is mistaken. The contest was set up in such a way that the community here would decide on what video was the winner of this contest. By taking that away from the community you've effectively dis-enfranchised those who voted for the video in the first place. This violates the established principle of Estoppel, meaning you've changed the rules half-way through the game. This might be acceptable when playing "Calvin Ball", is hardly fair otherwise.

edit- There is nothing "incidental" about Louis' need for coffee in the context of this video. It might be seen as incidental if one had seen the entire episode, which is not what we see here. What we see here is simply a man seeking a cup of joe, going to a coffee shop, and buying said cup.

Today we are adding another rule: No suggestive or sexual content featuring minors.
we have banned all subreddits that focus on sexualization of children ...
We're concerned about the slippery slope from banning one specific type of content to banning other types of content.

The problem isn't the slippery slope leading to banning some other type of content, but rather how do they define what they're banning now? How many debates have we had here about different posts that may or may not be considered pornographic. Now throw in another variable about the age of the people in the video. Are they kids? Do they look like kids? Are they acting childish? And those are the easy ones.

Do they prohibit certain Calvin Klein ads? Or movies like Hard Candy, Lolita, and Kids? What about novels like Shardik, or even clinical textbooks on how to deal with issues of child molestation? All of the examples I mention in this paragraph probably fall under the ban they've described, though it's hard to say because they are fairly vague about defining the proscribed content ("suggestive"? wtf does that mean?).

I'm definitely not suggesting that Reddit allow itself to be a network hub for child pornographers. They claim that they did not "make this policy change lightly or without careful deliberation." I imagine they did struggle with the decision, but it doesn't seem they spent much time figuring out just what it was they were banning.

>> ^oritteropo:

quality


Lovely, thanks angel!!

I guess you need to know Calvin and Hobbes.

I just assumed "brought" was too long and never even tried.

It fits! And fixed.

Thanx! I thot I knew how to spell just fine....


>> ^oohahh:

"brought", not "brot".