I wonder if I could get to some god like status as an artist and cut my scrotum off and sell it on eBay. I wonder how much I would get for that, sans testicles, those are separate.

Vote this up if you occasionally smell your own testicle musk after scratching?

Actually I'm with gwiz on this one. I couldn't help but picture those lips wrapped around my......Anyways they must serve some useful function in this world.>> ^razzyl:

Jesus Christ that is horrible! That made my testicles ascend. Gahhh!

Jesus Christ that is horrible! That made my testicles ascend. Gahhh!

First things first, anal leakages of VideoShit. My name is thinker247, which means that I don't take time off from thinking, even when I'm sleeping. And in my sleep I could roast all of you like the testicle-kabobs that you are.

I told you motherfuckers to keep Blankfist away from the children, and now he's balls-deep in the kids and religion channels. Soon he'll be strutting around, preaching the virtues of anal deflowering as a method of salvation. Just like Oprah.

BeggedmetoPeeonher tells a yawn-inducing story worthy of some podunk Arkansas town's ratty news dish, and we're all supposed to fawn over it like Perez Hilton falling into punji stakes made of cocks.

The "Jester" pops his head in to make some serious announcement that he's made a million times, without even saying a word in jest. Hey Jester, you're as funny as rottenseed is relevant.

Speaking of rotten.cum, his appearance was as necessary as ovarian cancer and not nearly as comical. He couldn't buy a joke if he was Carlos Mencia. But enough of Flavor Flav's oreo baby...

It's time to fuck MrFisk. And unlike your dad, I'm not going to use a condom and I don't care if you tell your mom.

Where to begin with someone whose career hasn't begun? Seriously, of all your articles that I never read, they were terrible. And why pick the Nebraska paper? It's not like any of you can read more than the E at the top of the eye test. And that's only because you all guess.

Some of the fellow sifters mocked your employment at a porn shop, but it doesn't bother me that you were a blow-up sex doll. I just don't understand how you could stand having random semen forced into you every day. You had more douchebags grabbing your vinyl than a hipster music store.

I would write more, but I'm kind of bored...like anyone in Nebraska at any given time of the year.

Also, everyone at this roast has disappointed me. Except for thinker247. What a comedy stud. All of you should take a lesson from him. Seriously, give me money, assholes. I'm the king and I get this kind of worthless response? MrFisk, I'm sorry you had to be here for this. Mainly because there's a cow with a broken heart and an intact rectum, somewhere in Omaha.

Fuck you all.

LOL....ha. And thank you for the promote!

In reply to this comment by Fusionaut:
This is what will happen if you put your coffee on a piano. Either this or some pianist will turn your testicles into book ends.

This is what will happen if you put your coffee on a piano. Either this or some pianist will turn your testicles into book ends.

I was waiting for her to kick those big ol' ice testicles and then I was going to laugh really hard but 't nevah app'end!

Okay, I'll throw my testicles into the ring. First, Amanda Marcotte is a staunch feminist and modern liberal. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note when considering the source of the above article. Not sure why DFT is posting it here as if it was anything but a biased article.

Second, I like how NetRunner tried to completely disqualify GeeSussFreeK's comment by pointing out I'm not part of the national media. That was classic. Apparently NR has never heard of BNN. It's only the smallest national news outlet in all the world.

Third, and most importantly, why does the Democratic fight against "privatization" take precedence over their fight against the civil rights violations? Honestly this comes back to bipartisanship. Going along with the party and all that.

The truth is the TSA is under the purview of the Obama Administration so it opens this entire discourse up to bipartisan rhetoric, and that's all we're seeing here with NR and DFT. I believe if the porno-scanners and the enhanced gate rape pat downs were implemented under the McCain Administration (shudder) then the Republicans would be saying the exact same shit the Democrats are saying now, "These are the times we live in" and "The number one priority is safety" and so on.

And the Democrats would be in the streets protesting them for their civil rights violations. What hypocrisy. Where are our civil liberties loving Democrats? Oh, that's right, they're too busy defending their saintly leader to fight the good fight. Maybe later when a Republican gets in office we'll see the "Party of Peace" rear their pretty Code Pink faces again. Wouldn't that be something?

Gravity doesn't affect this man. That's not why he fell... It was the sheer mass of his gigantic testicles dragging him down.

DERP DERPDITY DERP. I repair TV broadcast antennas, therefore radio waves are safe.

You do realize X-ray equipment can be dangerous? You do realize that these backscatter X-rays are nothing like what you are used to. They are low energy and only pass a few mm into the skin. I would say the backscatter isn't generally harmful to adults, but no one has studied effects on testicles, corneas or children, and all credible experts agree this will lead to increased skin cancer especially on the top of the head.

What if you fly daily? What if you are a cancer patient?

Why x-ray anyone when it can't detect anything in your rectum? What is the point? There is not safety in it.
You realize backscatter cannot detect someone wearing a diaper full of powder. The ONLY reason for any of this is the DHS director is making money for every new machine installed. PERIOD. The groping is only to make sure everyone "willingly" goes through the new machines, so as to justify buying more. PERIOD.
>> ^bobknight33:

I agree the radiation aspect is a non issue. I have been repairing X-ray equipment for 1/2 my professional life. >

sure, except backscatter is the reasons radiology techs take the precautions they do with their own bodies and wear lead and stand behind walls. it's not high energy, but it isn't entirely benign either. a 60 year old flying once or twice a year, i would not worry about at all.

but like you said, the cornea's of a child who flies a decent amount and grows up to be a business traveler, i'm more concerned.

you still get exposed to more radiation during your flight.

but since this is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to fight terrorism, i hate it. and additional exposure to radiation is one of the reasons.

>> ^joedirt:

You can't compare backscatter to equivalent dosage. This isn't high energy X-rays that pass through the body. This isn't like high atmospheric solar radiation that passes through the body.
Backscatter X-rays work by being such low energy, they only penetrate a few mm into the skin then ionize and scatter X-rays to make the image. There is ZERO studies on what this does to children, corneas, or testicles.

yes, potentially harmful.

but not my number 1 issue at the moment. i'm waffling around with which issue is number 1.

oops sorry, didnt mean to to make this a profile reply.
In reply to this comment by nock:
So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

even still, i'm not too terribly worried about the radiation issue for most of the general population. you will be exposed to far more radiation during your flight.

but on top of this being a 4th amendment issue, i don't think needlessly exposing the entire flying population of the US to some extra radiation is an effective way to fight terrorism.


>> ^nock:

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.