Dizzle, how did your teacher get their degree? <_<

 

1. Cram in a bunch of random, mostly pointless, information for a set duration of time

2. Show off to gain credibility

3. "Make it" in the world

4. Revert back to original lazy state, but still hold high position in power

 

And here we are.

Sounds like a nice "recipe for success".

 

Nice to know the college degree was worth it.

When my room mate won't let me play TF2. Pissin' me off with playing Skyrim every second he isn't at class or asleep.

Idiot teachers. This was my chemistry teacher explaining nuclear power.

 

"Does anyone know Chernobyl in Russia, where an atom bomb blew up the power plant?"

Not knowing one specific fact doesn't make your teacher an idiot.

Idiot teachers. This was my chemistry teacher explaining nuclear power.

 

"Does anyone know Chernobyl in Russia, where an atom bomb blew up the power plant?"

Not knowing one specific fact doesn't make your teacher an idiot.

 

Well. Think of it like this.

 

If one were to say that President George Bush freed the slaves, would that NOT make them an idiot?

Not really, I don't really think ignorance on a single topic or event constitutes someone as being an idiot, no matter how significant the error.

I think for the most part, when someone calls someone an idiot, they mean in that specific context they were being an idiot - not that every move they make is completely void of all logic.

They don't mean to call him an idiot just because he doesn't know the one fact. If people miss such basic/key facts like that (especially a professor, especially of chemistry) then they are probably in general somewhat stupid/lazy/whatever. I could have told you Chernobyl wasn't in Russia and wasn't hit by an atom bomb when I was like 11.

Picking up a game that I used to be good at and realizing that I'm now terrible. In this case, Soul Calibur 3.

"Nek Minnit"

People who replace, remove or add unnecessary letters to words. Example; "Yhuu ah so qorqeous baybeh"

Rap music, judgemental I know, but I hate rap with a passion.

Drama queens.

Girls with hourglass bodies. (I know it's not their choice, but I hate them.)

Over use of make-up when they look fine without it.

High pitched girls voices... AGAIN I know they don't chose how their voices sound, but it annoys me.

People who don't know the difference between their, they're and there.

 

I have plenty of annoyances but I can't be bothered to post it.

I find increasingly that the largesse of international bodies such as the UN is a source of great irritation.

I find increasingly that the largesse of international bodies such as the UN is a source of great irritation.

 

Political parties is a good place to start if you want irritation. A great example would be BNP's policies on immigration:

 

Given current demographic trends' date=' we, the indigenous British people, will become an ethnic minority in our own country well within sixty years – and most likely sooner.

 

All the signs are there:

 

- At least 84 percent – and likely more – of all current UK citizenship applications are from the Third World;

- Fourteen percent of all primary school children do not have English as a mother tongue;

- At least 316 primary schools in England have a large majority of children whose first language is not English;

- Non-indigenous births will soon account for more than half of all the babies born in Britain;

- Over the next twenty five years, immigration will account for forty percent of all new households set up in this country;

- Some 3.7 million legal migrants have entered this country since 1997 – and 2.5 million are from outside the European Union; and

- At least twenty percent of the currently resident population were either born overseas or are descendants of foreign-born parents.

 

The vast majority of these foreign-born residents are of Third World extraction. According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics, at least eleven percent of all people living in Britain today were born overseas. This figure does not include their second or third generation children.

 

All these facts point inexorably to the overwhelming and extinguishing of Britain and British identity under a tsunami of immigration. To ensure that this does not happen, and that the British people retain their homeland and identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the immediate deportation of criminal and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary resettlement whereby those immigrants who are legally here will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for individuals and for the countries in question.

 

We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the flood of ‘asylum seekers’, all of whom are either bogus or can find refuge much nearer their home countries.

 

The BNP’s policy is to:

 

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

 

Immigration is out of control. Britain’s population is now over 60 million and rising, solely due to immigration. Not only is Britain increasingly overcrowded, but the fact is that a country is the product of its people and if you change the people you inevitably change the nature of the country.

 

We want Britain to remain – or return to – the way it has traditionally been. We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.

 

The current open-door policy and unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration is leading to higher crime rates, demand for more housing (driving prices out of the reach of young people), severe extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income taxes, lower wages, higher unemployment, loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a more atomised society.

 

India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?

 

Can anyone imagine Saudi Arabia allowing the mass immigration of Christians, so that in a few decades it would no longer be an Islamic country?

 

Each nation has the right to maintain its own identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations “hate” anybody else.

 

All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

This is all the British National Party seeks for Britain – the right to be British.

This is not an extreme demand – it is actually just perfectly normal and completely in line with the rights granted to every other nation and with international law.

 

All the other parties shy away from this issue, because they are the ones who have caused the problem in the first place.

 

Only the British National Party has the reasonable, sensible, fair and just immigration policy which will guarantee that Britain remains British.[/quote']

 

Oh, and here's the source: http://www.bnp.org.uk/policies/immigration

The arrogant British stereotype must be true somehow. :razz:

Mostly what pisses me off is unnecessary bullying and ignoracne, and people who argue about things when they know they are wrong.

Mostly what pisses me off is unnecessary bullying and ignoracne, and people who argue about things when they know they are wrong.

Mostly what pisses me off is unnecessary bullying and ignoracne, and people who argue about things when they know they are wrong.

 

It's the human condition. We're actually programmed to continue arguing even when presented with indisputable evidence. (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html)

 

 

Or they're just trolling.

My roommate playing music from his laptop loudly. I like him and I generally don't hate the music (although one of the songs was just [bleep]ing awful and I honestly almost left the room), but it makes it difficult to concentrate on anything. Especially since I'm trying to do important things like play minecraft :lol:

My roommate playing music from his laptop loudly. I like him and I generally don't hate the music (although one of the songs was just [bleep]ing awful and I honestly almost left the room), but it makes it difficult to concentrate on anything. Especially since I'm trying to do important things like play minecraft :lol:

 

Why don't you ask him politely to put in some headphones? Dumb on both of your parts.

1) When sites force you to use at least one number or letter in passwords <_<

OR

2) When sites say you have a weak password that is pure numbers.

 

Guess social security numbers are terrible safeguards eh. Oh and PIN numbers.

People who site cracked as a legitimate source.

 

Last year, there was a speech I watched that used Cracked at least twice. I wanted to stop him, be like, "Cracked is not a legitimate source," and make him go rewrite his speech. :/

People who site cracked as a legitimate source.

 

Last year, there was a speech I watched that used Cracked at least twice. I wanted to stop him, be like, "Cracked is not a legitimate source," and make him go rewrite his speech. :/

If the comments are to be believed, they're frequently wrong. And not "Wrong because the truth isn't as funny", but "Go read a [bleep]ing history book" wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/arts/people-argue-just-to-win-scholars-assert.html?_r=4

 

They cite this and other sites multiple times in the article.

Getting an article accepted for Cracked is pretty hard and requires reputable sources for each claim. The editors will shoot down anything that they see as an exaggeration/twisting of the truth, and they'll sometimes read all the sources to make sure that nothing the writer's saying is bullshit. Sure, Cracked occasionally makes mistakes, but so do newspapers.

And if it's on cracked, it's a simple google search to find a more reputable source (or if you're lucky, they'll cite it for you in the middle of the article, which they frequently do).

I kind of equate Cracked with wikipedia, except a little worse because the writers are allowed to be more biased and skew facts more. It's ok to read for entertainment, or to cite for an internet argument, but for something like a speech or a paper, you shouldn't be using Cracked.