quote:

Op woensdag 5 september 2007 20:26 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Fotosjoppen was niet Gia's sterkste kant.
Dus een actuele suggestie van mijn kant.
Pronk noemde Balkenende gisteren een leugenaar en heeft daar vandaag alweer spijt van.
[afbeelding]

Kunnen we hier wat mee?

quote:

I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Balkenende's flaws -- we all know he has them -- but I am going to say a little about how we can't let biased sociopaths ram Balkenende's rodomontades down our throats. For openers, Balkenende likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: My general thesis is that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to appeal for comity between us and Balkenende. And just let him try and stop me. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I want to give people more information about Balkenende, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I indisputably hope people draw: Censorious ignoramuses like Balkenende are not born -- they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, if we contradict Balkenende, we are labelled stroppy braggadocios. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. If we are powerless to initiate meaningful change, it is because we have allowed Balkenende to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. Guess what? He seems to assume that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible. This is an assumption of the worst kind because it takes more than a mass of uncouth, contemptuous nabobs of colonialism to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. I'm not the first to mention that Balkenende's coadjutors all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them. Similarly, Balkenende would have us believe that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers grungy or invidious. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Balkenende provides none. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- his rhetoric is designed to abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Despite the obvious fact that the above statement is entirely suited to Balkenende, who here, as elsewhere, does not possess a single creative idea for the future, but lives only in the past, I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Balkenende to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Balkenende claims that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. The really interesting thing about all this is not that he speaks with such certainty and self-confidence that his hirelings are totally convinced that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. The interesting thing is that when I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how he expresses insufficient concern about the ozone layer, the Bhopal tragedy, and lesbian theater. That conclusion is not based on some sort of two-faced philosophy or on Balkenende-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Balkenende truly believes that his debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. It is just such overbearing megalomania, nefarious, viperine egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Balkenende to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment.

I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, cheeky world run by the worst sorts of puerile extortionists there are. Balkenende always says the most brain-damaged things. That sounds really vulgar, but I contend that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Every so often, you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue, and vow never again to be so fatuitous. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that he has yet to acknowledge the preternatural wickedness of the blood flowing through his veins. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that if Balkenende continues to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals, I will be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations. I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Balkenende extinguish the voices of opposition. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world.

While I, not being one of the many scabrous agitators of this world, insist that Balkenende has every right to his venom-spouting opinions, he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his criticisms. His methods are much subtler now than ever before. He is more adept at hidden mind control and his techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. Despite what Balkenende says, I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of his writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Balkenende's writings to know that Balkenende says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Balkenende's time has run out. As a general rule, some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with whiney, cantankerous maniacs on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to doctor evidence and classification systems and make combative generalizations to support jealous, preconceived views.

Here's some food for thought: If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Balkenende has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to exhibit cruelty to animals. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that if he continues to foster statism at every opportunity, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.

It's not a question of if but only of when Balkenende will write off whole sections of society. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Balkenende. He never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. Balkenende presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that he decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that Balkenende fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I would like to digress here. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without pugnacious philosophasters? Anyone who takes even a cursory glance at this letter will quickly discover that Balkenende's theatrics were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, Balkenende is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!

An armed revolt against Balkenende is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified. When it comes to his dissertations, I believe that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to dole out acerbic criticism of Balkenende and his phalanx of flagitious secret agents. The sooner we do that, the better, because the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must unmistakably comment on Balkenende's insinuations. The first step in that process is to realize that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I combat the mendacious ideology of propagandism that has infected the minds of so many quasi-disloyal twerps. It may be unfashionable to say so and it may surprise a few of you out there, but Balkenende has announced his intentions to canonize dictatorial chuckleheads as nomological emblems of propriety. While doing so may earn Balkenende a gold star from the mush-for-brains nihilism crowd, if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that he keeps saying that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, at this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that I know some boisterous losers who suspect they once overheard him say, "I want to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately in the near future". However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Balkenende's belief that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking is pure and total fantasy. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that if Balkenende gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of credentialism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that I stand by what I've written before, that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why he definitely dropped a clanger by admitting that he is more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. But the short answer is that by writing this letter, I am honestly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Balkenende will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to crawl under a rock and die, although another possibility is that he will stop at nothing to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of slovenly ideologues. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, Balkenende's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that he wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Balkenende because they saw no other options for change. Once we have absorbed and understood Balkenende's villainous claims, it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to debate the efficacy of Balkenende's rancorous, insincere scribblings.

In essence, by refusing to act, by refusing to get us out of the hammerlock that Balkenende is holding us in, we are giving Balkenende the power to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. At first, you might be unsure as to whether at the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. But on deeper inspection, you'll doubtlessly conclude that he knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. Balkenende is certifiably reckless. And let me tell you, Balkenende sometimes has trouble convincing people that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few jackbooted spivs to constate authoritatively that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that Balkenende wants all of us to believe that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Balkenende has written volumes about how his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he says that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools.

This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that I can reword my point as follows. Everything Balkenende writes is unreadably desultory. He uses big words like "pathologicopsychological" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Balkenende's conclusions may reek like a skunk, the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that fastidious nobodies are easily housebroken.

Balkenende says that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. You know, he can lie as much as he wants but he can't change the facts. If he could, he'd decidedly prevent anyone from hearing that my long-term goal is to halt the adulation heaped upon the worst classes of abysmal scrubs there are. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, the elasticity of Balkenende's interpretation of the Bible shields him from having to take a stand for anything morally correct yet politically (spiritually?) unpopular. More than that, I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke him for trying to force square pegs into round holes. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, Balkenende should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to. If, five years ago, I had described a person like Balkenende to you and told you that in five years, he'd undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, you'd have thought me untrustworthy. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how this is the very source of the parasitism of which I accuse him -- justly, as is now more clear than ever. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. I can easily see him performing the following disgraceful, blasphemous acts. First, Balkenende will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. Then, he will force us to experience the full spectrum of the Balkenende Rainbow of Separatism. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. Still, the issue of what to do about Balkenende's morally crippled editorials is far from settled.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 september 2007 11:57 schreef PAA-053 het volgende:
[afbeelding]

Nieuwe outfit Bassie geen succes

quote:

PAA-053

Nieuwe outfit Bassie geen succes

quote:

Pietverdriet

Jan Pronk wanhopig op zoek naar zijn bril

quote:

HenryHill

Spijt als allebei de haren op zijn hoofd.

quote:

Xith

Even mijn nieuwe speech mentaal voorbereiden

quote:

Op donderdag 6 september 2007 19:30 schreef Gia het volgende:
<winnaar>

quote:

Op donderdag 6 september 2007 20:54 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Ik ben voorstander van een grotere foto. A zijn er meer details op te zien, en B vind ik het esthetisch gezien beter als een onderschrift netjes onder de foto past, en met een ietwat grotere foto zijn er dan dus meer mogelijkheden.
Maar da's mijn mening.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 september 2007 21:45 schreef PAA-053 het volgende:
Wordt de stand ergens bijgehouden, ik bedoel: waar wij het ook kunnen zien?

quote:

May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind, but with the United States of America's latest barrage of conniving, mawkish rantings, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. What follows is a set of observations I have made about morally questionable gauleiters. It is painful to write such truisms, but I've tried explaining to the United States of America's bootlickers that the United States of America's henchmen have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single self-aggrandizing prototype. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that the United States of America's cronies maintain that there should be publicly financed centers of Comstockism. This is precisely the non-equation that the United States of America is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that it intends to create a new social class. Fork-tongued extremists, self-centered vigilantes, and unforgiving recidivists will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their accomplices.

As part of its efforts to gain a mainstream following, the United States of America publishes the Journal of Impractical Mysticism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of the United States of America's plans to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. Do you really think that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy, as the United States of America claims? Wake up! There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If the United States of America finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that the United States of America never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it has declared that it's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to spread the word about its polyloquent metanarratives to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers. The United States of America's revolting all right; the very sight of it turns my stomach. All kidding aside, we need to educate others about the solutions and catch-phrases of caustic pamphleteers. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that the United States of America's sycophants believe that every word that leaves the United States of America's mouth is teeming with useful information. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to deal with the relevant facts. In the simplest of terms, if the United States of America's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Let's just ignore the United States of America and see what it does. When the United States of America hears anyone say that I can't live with cynical tightwads who rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood", its answer is to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to make some changes here. Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe if the United States of America is allowed to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold, the implications can be widespread. Then doesn't it follow that a great many thoughtful people share my concerns about it?

The practical struggle which now begins, sketched in broad outlines, takes the following course: There is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until the United States of America and its vicegerents started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that the United States of America is not just atrabilious. It is unbelievably, astronomically atrabilious. One of the United States of America's apostles once said, "A richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that the United States of America can fool some of the people all of the time. It can fool all of the people some of the time. But it can't fool all of the people all of the time. If you think about it, the United States of America has an ego of galactic proportions. I mean, think about it.

It's easy to tell if the United States of America's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that the United States of America's true goal is to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. All the statements that its attendants make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of the United States of America's unrealistic accusations. The United States of America has delivered exactly the opposite of what it had previously promised us. Most notably, its vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, the United States of America's vows of equality did little more than convince people that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially the United States of America's censorious form of it -- is.

If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, I, not being one of the many flighty indecent-types of this world, have noticed of late a very strong undercurrent of insecure-to-the-core alarmism among predatory sociopaths. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, the United States of America is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to the United States of America is anarchism. Why? I once asked the United States of America that question -- I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that the United States of America is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for it to inure us to resentful metagrobolism. Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. If you can make any sense out the United States of America's spiteful beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that the United States of America is a perpetual victim of injustice. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that the United States of America evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of its intended victims. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation.

You've heard me say that the United States of America's forces are all the worst classes of pernicious, repressive lamebrains there are. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often, they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that the United States of America exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. The United States of America has been trying for some time to convince people that the sky is falling. Don't believe its hype! The United States of America has just been offering that line as a means to ignite a maelstrom of larrikinism.

What the United States of America doesn't realize is that I once managed to get it to agree that the spirits of our ancestors grieve as they watch it make its witticisms a key dynamic in modern chauvinism by viscerally defining "piezocrystallization" through the experience of apolaustic, indelicate fascism. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that. In asserting that the majority of chauvinistic doomsday prophets are heroes, if not saints, it demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. The United States of America distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. The bulk of amoral hedonists are at least marginally tolerable, but not the United States of America. The United States of America is not only immoral, but amoral. If I weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that if one believes statements like, "No one is smart enough to see through the United States of America's transparent lies," one is, in effect, supporting ill-bred buggers.

We wouldn't currently have a problem with feudalism if it weren't for the United States of America. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, the United States of America insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, many people who follow the United States of America's teachings have come to the erroneous conclusion that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. The stark truth of the matter is that it has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Sure, some of the United States of America's disquisitions are valid, but that's not the point.

Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe the United States of America's illiberal vaporings. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that the United States of America's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "the United States of America-ism". It is an untoward and avowedly contumelious philosophy that aims to dress up the United States of America's profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. The United States of America's reports cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that the United States of America's views won't be used for political retribution. The surest way for the United States of America's emissaries to succeed is for them to lure the obdurate into the United States of America's little empire. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

quote:

Op donderdag 6 september 2007 22:26 schreef Gordon_Shumway het volgende:
[afbeelding]

FOK! meets Afghanistan: Ben Laden! Schenk wat te drinken in en probeer het nog eens.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 16:26 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Zo hé wat zijn er veel mensen zonder humor hier, schrikbarend.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 16:44 schreef ruud_fr het volgende:

[..]

als jij het denkt beter te kunnen moet je dat vooral doen

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:00 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Lees het topic eens, ik heb al meegedaan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:04 schreef Rumille het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind die van jou nou niet bepaald grappig...

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:09 schreef Rumille het volgende:
Of jij bent gewoon arrogant. Tip: Hou je grote mond.
Succes.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:17 schreef Rumille het volgende:
Ik prefereer eigenlijk mijn eigen gang te gaan. Dus bedankt, maar nee bedankt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:19 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Je eigen gang is de centrale gang en die loopt dood.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 16:26 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Zo hé wat zijn er veel mensen zonder humor hier, schrikbarend.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 15:56 schreef PAA-053 het volgende:
[afbeelding]

Click 'Pictures' for the more revealing continuation of this photo series

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:04 schreef Rumille het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind die van jou nou niet bepaald grappig...

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:22 schreef Rumille het volgende:
Dus ik neem aan dat mijn gang niet doodloopt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:39 schreef Gia het volgende:

[..]

Er zijn leukere, maar ik vind die van Baajguardian best ook grappig, hoewel de oversight-kwestie al wel genoeg aandacht heeft gehad.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:43 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Doet er niet toe of ie grappig is. Commentaar op andere onderschriften wegens 'gebrek aan humor' tolereren we niet. Da's een van de ongeschreven regels, die indien nodig een geschreven regel word.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:22 schreef Rumille het volgende:

[..]

Niet logisch voor een centrale gang. Een zijgang, ok. Maar een centrale gang is vaak de belangrijkste gang en die lopen vaak niet dood. Dus ik neem aan dat mijn gang niet doodloopt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:45 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Wie is we?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:49 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Lees het topic eens.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:56 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Jij bent de enige die dat zegt. Of post je met meerdere accounts in dit topic?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:06 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Dit topic stamt af van het VBL-topic: Voetbalfoto-Onderschriftcompetitie #91: Trage humor
Daar is al 91 delen lang nagenoeg niemand die anderen een gebrek aan humor verwijt.
Dat draagt mede bij aan het succes van dat topic. En dit topic zal precies hetzelfde zijn wat dat betreft, anders zal het zeker een vroege dood sterven. De users die zowel aan het VBL-topic als aan dit topic bijdragen zijn die 'we' waar ik het over had.

Jij mag gerust een eigen competitie starten met alleen maar in jouw ogen humorvolle deelnemers.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:06 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Dit topic stamt af van het VBL-topic: Voetbalfoto-Onderschriftcompetitie #91: Trage humor
Daar is al 91 delen lang nagenoeg niemand die anderen een gebrek aan humor verwijt.
Dat draagt mede bij aan het succes van dat topic. En dit topic zal precies hetzelfde zijn wat dat betreft, anders zal het zeker een vroege dood sterven. De users die zowel aan het VBL-topic als aan dit topic bijdragen zijn die 'we' waar ik het over had.

Jij mag gerust een eigen competitie starten met alleen maar in jouw ogen humorvolle deelnemers.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:43 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Doet er niet toe of ie grappig is. Commentaar op andere onderschriften wegens 'gebrek aan humor' tolereren we niet. Da's een van de ongeschreven regels, die indien nodig een geschreven regel word.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 17:00 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Lees het topic eens, ik heb al meegedaan.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:15 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Okay, zal ik doen, mag ik nog wel meedoen met deze reeks die oh zoveel nut heeft?

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:20 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Lees het topic eens.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:23 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Zullen we dan vrienden worden? Je mag me soms pmen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:29 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Misschien als je je commentaar achterwege laat, en je ook mee gaat doen aan het VBL-topic.
En als je dan de voetbalcompetitie 2 half jaren achter elkaar gewonnen hebt kom ik een keer bij je fonduen.
Ik zal je echter nooit pm-en, nou misschien na het fonduen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:33 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:

[..]

Ik vind voetbal stom.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:37 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Voetbalfoto-Onderschriftcompetitie #91: Trage humor

quote:

thunderdiz

Audities 'So You Wannabe an Islam' lopen uit de hand.

quote:

BaajGuardian

Oversight kwam zijn nieuwe kaart weer eens ophalen.

quote:

Gordon_Shumway

FOK! meets Afghanistan: Ben Laden! Schenk wat te drinken in en probeer het nog eens.

quote:

Rumille

'Allein umdat iek ein baard hib und ein tulband und ein joerk draak, joellie mij arrestieren? Joellie diskriminatien mei!'

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:46 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
[afbeelding]
Bin Laden als Jurielid bij wie heeft de grootste piemol wedstrijd.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:45 schreef HenryHill het volgende:
-uitslag-

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 18:43 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Je hebt gelijk, Martijn_77, de discussie was toch al beeindigt.

Desondanks is er de regel: een onderschrift per persoon, jij had al meegedaan. Je kan altijd je eerdere onderschrift wijzigen.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 19:01 schreef HenryHill het volgende:
Zeg 'ns, wordt er hier altijd zoveel gebakkeleit over hoe goed iedereen het zelf heeft gedaan en hoe slecht de rest wel niet was?

Daar zie ik de humor dan weer niet van in.

@Gordon_Shumway: U mag de volgende ronde beginnen

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 21:55 schreef Pietverdriet het volgende:
[afbeelding]
Kate kan nauwelijks op haar benen staan nadat het gehele Portugese politiekorps haar geholpen heeft een nieuw kind te krijgen.

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 00:31 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Ik kan dit keer niks bedenken, ik ken de situatie niet en ik ken dat wijf ook niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 00:31 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Ik kan dit keer niks bedenken, ik ken de situatie niet en ik ken dat wijf ook niet.

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 11:39 schreef Rumille het volgende:

[..]


Jij moet blijkbaar jureren aangezien Gordon weg is.

quote:

Op vrijdag 7 september 2007 23:20 schreef Gordon_Shumway het volgende:
Gordon heeft een verjaardag, maar bedankt hoor jury. Goede dag vandaag. Foto is leuk.

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 11:53 schreef Rumille het volgende:
Nou:
[..]

Ik dacht dus dat je vanavond weg was.
Mijn fout

quote:

-Thelonious-
-Kate realiseert zich dat de politie beet heeft als ze de hengel voor het kantoor ziet. -

quote:

-Pietverdriet-
-Kate kan nauwelijks op haar benen staan nadat het gehele Portugese politiekorps haar geholpen heeft een nieuw kind te krijgen. -

quote:

-ruud_fr-
-Judi en Ria van de CIA bemoeien zich ook met de zaak-

quote:

-Martijn_77-
-Shit die Char had echt haar mond moeten houden nu ben ik genaaid-

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 19:41 schreef Rumille het volgende:
Die 1e was inderdaad heel leuk.
_{Had stiekem gehoopt op een podiumplaats, maar de top 3 was leuker.}

quote:

Op zaterdag 8 september 2007 19:12 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Ik had trouwens beloofd vandaag de eerste tussenstand te plaatsen. Bayswater had me een bestandje toegestuurd, alleen heb ik geen enkele ervaring met excel. Dus ik heb wel een soort zijwaartse tussenstand, maar niet een goede opeenvolgende zeg maar.
Ik heb Bayswater al gemaild om hulp, maar waarschijnlijk is ie er niet.

quote:

Waaghals

Varkenspest blijkt toch gevaarlijk voor mensen

quote:

HenryHill

Actievoerder tegen de agenten: "And you thought you were the only pigs around here..."

quote:

Rocho

Als Osama Bin Laden kwam hij makkelijker door de linie

quote:

Rumille

'How do you mean this protest is not for the movie A.PIG?

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 19:02 schreef ruud_fr het volgende:
[afbeelding]


Pietverdriet had op het podium gekomen als hij z'n 1e onderschrift had vervangen door de 2e

quote:

Op woensdag 5 september 2007 20:05 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
PUNTENTELLING:
+1: Jurering
+1: Deelnemen levert altijd 1 punt op,
+2: Derde plaats
+3: Tweede plaats
+5: Eerste plaats
-2: Poedelprijs (Concreet betekent dit overigens dat de 'winnaar' van de poedelprijs 1 punt aftrek krijgt (deelnemen 1, aftrek -2 = -1 punt)).

Diegene die de uitslag krijgt krijgt automatisch 1 punt voor het doen van de uitslag. De winnaar kan zo de schade inhalen voor de ronde die hij hierna niet mee kan doen vanwege deze jurering. Zo loopt de winnaar dus 2 punten uit op de nummer 2, 3 op de nummer 3 en 4 op de andere deelnemers, gezien over twee rondes. Als de winnaar niet de jurering doet, maar iemand anders, krijgt deze natuurlijk het jurypunt.

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 19:32 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Ik kan de OP niet wijzigen, er staat geen wijzigingsknop bij de OP.

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 15:47 schreef Gordon_Shumway het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij sta ik best hoog.

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 21:38 schreef Dunckie het volgende:
Dan komt het vast wel in de volgende OP.

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 21:48 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Best wel tragisch, ik lig dubbel om mn eigen onderschrift.

quote:

Op zondag 9 september 2007 21:40 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

[..]

Gedeeld 2e stond je.

quote:

Op maandag 10 september 2007 11:22 schreef Rocho het volgende:
Uitslag rond 19.30, want tussen 20.00 en 22.00 kan ik effe niet online zijn.

quote:

Op maandag 10 september 2007 16:20 schreef ruud_fr het volgende:

[..]

dan doe je het prima volgens de regels

quote:

Ruud_Fr

Rugbyers proberen Bush te verdrijven uit Ocenanie

quote:

Thelonious

Erica Terpstra rent het veld op om The All Blacks veel succes toe te wensen.

quote:

Dunckie

The AXE-effect: BOEMCHICKEWHAWA...

quote:

Thunderdiz

Nieuwe musical Van den Ende geen succes, publiek voelt zich genaaid.

quote:

Op maandag 10 september 2007 19:36 schreef ThaMadEd het volgende:
Jammer dat mijn variant weer niet in de prijzen viel. Vond deze wel goed namelijk, hoewel die ook wel op die van Thelonious leek

quote:

Op maandag 10 september 2007 19:33 schreef Rocho het volgende:

_{De opmerking van Thelonious had ik ook enigszins in m'n hoofd, alleen dan niet met Terpstra. Maar de opmerking van Dunckie verraste me en kreeg ik een glimlach van... vandaar. De opmerking van Thunderdiz zal ik wel de achterliggende gedachte niet van snappen.....}

quote:

-Beschouw-

-"Hé. Erica, gezien? Hier pas jij niet meer in hè?!"-

quote:

-Thunderdiz-

-Idols bereikt nieuw dieptepunt.-

quote:

-Gia-

-Als jullie moeten plassen, ga ik er wel even voor staan, okay?-

quote:

-Martijn-77-

-Links probeert een nieuwe manier van politieke discussie uit-

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 september 2007 20:37 schreef Dunckie het volgende:
Ik vond het een matige ronde. De winnaar vondt ik erg sterk, de rest niet zo. De poedel was wel bedroevend.....

Volgende ronde beter!

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 september 2007 19:29 schreef Martijn_77 het volgende:
[afbeelding]

Links probeert een nieuwe manier van politieke discussie uit

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 september 2007 22:19 schreef ruud_fr het volgende:
[afbeelding]

U wilt hier parkeren, mag dat (in Bagdad)?

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 september 2007 20:37 schreef Dunckie het volgende:

Ik vond het een matige ronde. De winnaar vondt ik erg sterk, de rest niet zo. De poedel was wel bedroevend.....

Volgende ronde beter!

quote:

Op dinsdag 11 september 2007 20:47 schreef Thelonious het volgende:

A woman stands at the entrance of her house, near a damaged vehicle, after a raid by U.S. soldiers in Baghdad's Sadr City September 11, 2007.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 06:44 schreef Gia het volgende:
_{Ben eigenlijk best benieuwd naar de tussenstand}

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 09:50 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Ik had hier een leuke bij bedacht maar ik weet de naam van dat spelprogramma niet waarin je zon auto kapot moet meppen als iemand fout antwoord op vragen... dus laat maar zitten.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 10:32 schreef Gia het volgende:

[..]

Zou het ook zo gauw niet weten, maar weet wel welke je bedoelt.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 10:32 schreef Gia het volgende:

[..]

Zou het ook zo gauw niet weten, maar weet wel welke je bedoelt.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 12:35 schreef ruud_fr het volgende:
ik ben zo vrij om even een tussenstand te posten (dit is de stand na 11 ronden, is dus niet helemaal bijgewerkt)

3 Gia 21 / 2,62 / 8 / 1

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 13:50 schreef PAA-053 het volgende:
Zou de persoon met het hoogste gemiddelde niet bovenaan moeten staan, met een minimum van 5 deelnames ofzo?
Zo voorkom je enerzijds dat een one-hit-wonder bovenaan staat, maar staat wel de kwalitatief beste user het hoogst

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 17:07 schreef Gia het volgende:

[..]

Wow, derde!! En dat na slechts 8 rondes. Had ik die drie rondes ook meegedaan, zonder een poedel te hebben, dan had ik bovenaan gestaan.

Vooral dóóóórgaan, dus.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 19:44 schreef Beschouw het volgende:
8 voetbalfoto-onderschriftmakers in de top 10

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 19:49 schreef Gia het volgende:

_{'t Bad was zo lekker warm, daarom iets later}

quote:

ruud_fr

U wilt hier parkeren, mag dat (in Bagdad)?

quote:

BaajGuardian

Slecht gesteld met basiskennis in irak blijkt uit uitslag eerste opnames rat van fortuin bagdad.

quote:

Dunckie

"En toen pakte Dikkie Dik zijn Magnum .48...."

quote:

ThaMadEd

Erica Terpstra boekt als wegblokkade groot succes in Irak

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 19:52 schreef Beschouw het volgende:

[..]

Heb je daar geen foto van? Verzinnen wij wel een onderschrift.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 17:01 schreef BaajGuardian het volgende:
Die score zegt zoveel nieteens, het is maar de mening van een handjevol mensen.
Dus wat maakt het uit... het is gewoon voor de lol.

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 21:27 schreef Thelonious het volgende:
Hoezo, ben jij Belg?

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 21:25 schreef Dunckie het volgende:
Wrang dat ik nu niet mee mag doen Hier had ik wel raad mee geweten

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 21:25 schreef Dunckie het volgende:
Wrang dat ik nu niet mee mag doen Hier had ik wel raad mee geweten

quote:

Op woensdag 12 september 2007 21:25 schreef Dunckie het volgende:
Wrang dat ik nu niet mee mag doen Hier had ik wel raad mee geweten