Yes, oh Loki of infinite wisdom and answers to all questions. How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop? That fucking owl in the commercial cheated and BIT THE POP!!!! Owls are cheaters and have misled the population with their "3" answer.
EDIT: If loki can keep this up, I vote for him having his own thread dedicated to providing answers to the tough questions we all have and are sometimes afraid to ask. Hey, can't be any worse than Moose's Weekly* Rant.
* May or may not be weekly. Currently running over a week. May need to change the thread title to Moose's Bi-Weekly Rant or Moose's Whenever I Fucking Feel Like It Rant.
Ask and you shall receive. Feel free to U2U me your questions and I shall attempt to answer them.
Special Bonus: Those that include the line "Psychofish is a bastard", or something to that effect at the end of their question(s) will get preferential treatment. Be creative!
u roxors!!11!!1! i want to no why sponges are yellow.
peace out,
tk1011026
p.s. sychofish sucks
p.s.s u r awesum
p.p.s.s psychofish is teh gay
Good question, tk! (And yes, psychofish is teh gay.) The answer is that not all sponges are yellow. Some are, but sponges can come in a variety of colors: red, green, brown, blue, yellow – even purple.
The fact that sponges are usually portrayed as yellow is deeply upsetting to some people, however. Pastor John Hagee of John Hagee Ministries tackled this and other deeply disturbing sponge related issues in his online commentary “Spongebob Squarepants: Satan’s Ploy For Your Child’s Soul”.
Dear Partners, You know that recently I have taken on the Harry Potter phenomenon and have revealed how Harry and his friends are leading our children into witchcraft and sorcery. But now I have a far more urgent message that I need to share with you. Perhaps, like me, you have become concerned about the little yellow cartoon character named SpongeBob Squarepants. On the surface, this show may seem innocent enough, but after talking with leading occult experts and people who actually work in the cartoon industry, I need to share what my ministry has uncovered. Consider, first of all, that your children are watching a sponge that can walk, talk, and breathe. But we know this is impossible. Sponges (according to several leading botanists we interviewed) are actually one of the lowest forms of animal life. I mean, these things can't even tie their own shoelaces. Most sponges do not even appear yellow in their natural habitat. So what is a yellow sponge doing teaching your children about frying hamburgers, dancing the two-step (also a no-no!), and driving a car? Given the moral decay of our nation today, it is easy to see, however, why most parents have abdicated their parenting responsibilities to SpongeBob. Satan has twisted their minds and is battling for the souls of their progeny. A recent review of some thirty random SpongeBob episodes also revealed the following morally decadent messages: · In one episode, SpongeBob pulls down his squarepants and reveals his square buttocks. · An underage SpongeBob is shown driving a car while receiving morally questionable guidance from a dumb Starfish named Patrick. · SpongeBob frequently lies and cheats to get out of trouble. · Many of the sea creatures shown in these episodes are not wearing pants of any kind (square, or otherwise). · The show promotes a belief in Neptune, god of the sea – a clear message to children that they should be polytheists. · SpongeBob talks in a high, falsetto voice (do I need to say more about the homosexual threat to America?). · All of these sea creatures are depicted as single and available for reproduction. · None of these shows depicts an underwater church or house of worship. · None of these shows make any clear reference to Jesus Christ as the Savior of the World – and this includes the sea and all that is in it. As part of our undercover expose, John Hagee Ministries is now offering a video tape titled: Pulling Down SpongeBob's Squarepants – Exposing Satan's Yellow Bellied Plan. I am pleased to offer this 45-minute tape for $29.95 (plus S&H). We hope that parents might watch this video with their children and talk to them about the evils of this animated show. In addition, for those of you who watch my regular telecast and can actually read, we are offering a companion volume ($15.95, 456 pages) titled: Squarepants for Parents – An Insider's Guide to the Most Satanic Show on Television. This is an in-depth book, detailing the thousands of magical, occult and pagan practices my ministry uncovered in this little program. The chapters and topics include: · Patrick and Sandy: What kind of relationship do they really have? · The Sexual Practices of an Everyday Sponge: Asexual reproduction and your child. · What's Really Cookin' at the Crusty Crab? · Mrs. Puff and the Absent Husband. · Why Squidward Plays More Than the Clarinet. · Beyond the Cutting Room Door: Where the Character Voices Really Come From. · Why the Pineapple House Built on Sand Will Not Last. I urge you to talk to your pastor and your children about this show before it is too late. Satan has already claimed the hearts and minds of millions through Harry Potter, and now the Lord of Darkness is coming into your home through an animated sponge. Please join me in this crusade to squeeze the life-giving water of Jesus into this little sponge, that he might be born again. As always, your continued contributions and support are appreciated. We are praying for you.
Pastor John Hagee
So there you go. Sponges are not always yellow, and Spongebob Squarepants is the creation of the Lord of Darkness.
Feel free to U2U me more questions! And remember, kids, those with the best psychofish insult will get their questions answered first!
Post by Outback Frito Pendejo on Oct 16, 2006 12:27:52 GMT -5
Dear Loki,
What kind of tractor did you drive in Cleveland? Did it have a radio so you could listen to country music? How big was the gun rack on your pickup truck?
No rush to answer these questions. I'll be off to Dunkin Donuts now. Too bad people from Cleveland aren't sophisticated enough to have Dunkin.
Yeah, I know this place pretty good. I went to law school here.[My5:]
And today's question comes to us from WilliamSSL, who was the first to ask AND who has insulted fish boy.
I would like to repose my original question about the damn tootsie pops and how long it does take to get to the center. The OWL continues to traumatize me.
I have heard that psychofish is neither psycho nor a fish. He's got some 'splaining to do.
williamssl
It turns out that this issue has been of insterest to various optarded types in the scientific community and some with WAY too much time on their hands have dedicated time and effort to answering this question.
1) A group of engineering students from Purdue University recorded that their licking machine, modeled after a human tongue, took an average of 364 licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. They tried the same licking test on 20 volunteers and found that the average licks to the center were 252 licks.
2) A chemical engineering doctorate student from the University of Michigan recorded that his licking machine required an average of 411 licks per Tootsie Pop.
3) It took psychofish 8972 licks and he still hadn't finished it yet, until it was discovered that he had painted a face on his ass and was using the lollipop as a stand in for a broom handle. A picture from his my space account is here:
4) A group of students at Swathmore School used human lickers in a scientific experiment and determined it took an average of 144 licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.
5) A group of Ethiopians managed just 4 licks apiece before they all died of concentrated sugar overdose.
So there you have it. The world may never know. And for those interested, storyboards for the various Tootsie Roll commercials can be found here.
Post by williamssl on Oct 17, 2006 12:22:57 GMT -5
Exalt! Exalt! Oh wise one. Thank you! Not only have you wisely addressed what was plaguing me, your timeliness far exceeds that of Moosehead and his alleged "weekly" rant. Exalt!
Now about this licking machine.....
A side benefit of this thread is the google ads at the top of the page that key off thread title, in this case "loki". There was an ad for this:
Loki Cast in Chocolate Norse God Cast in Fine Chocolate The Buddha, Tara, and Power Animals www.chocolatedeities.com
Last Edit: Oct 17, 2006 12:28:02 GMT -5 by williamssl
Post by salmonjunkie on Oct 17, 2006 13:27:26 GMT -5
Oh, I need to insult psychofish to get my questions answered? (check your U2U, rice-hater!)
Psychofish... As someone who is a connesuier and addict of delicious fish, I can tell you that psychofish is far from delicious. In fact, he tastes like dirt!
So, an insult for psychofish, huh? Well, I did insult him in my post, but I'll admit that it was a bit half-hearted. And I can't boast the personal knowledge of psychofish that salmonjunkie has to base my insult on. But one thing I know about Psychofich: he likes Thor. A lot.
And Thor sucks cock.
Seriously. Thor is a big, gay, long-hair Superman knockoff.
Post by williamssl on Oct 17, 2006 14:30:35 GMT -5
sergeial said:
Thor is a big, gay, long-hair Superman knockoff.
With a hammer. A big gay long-hair Superman with a hammer. Don't leave yourself open to a rebuttal. "But Thor has a hammer and Superman doesn't so you're wrong."
Post by The Canadian Content on Oct 17, 2006 14:57:00 GMT -5
Well, he does have a hammer. And, actually, since Thor's a mythological figure dating back to the time of the Vikings and Supes is from the 30s? 40s? I'd have to say Supes is the knockoff. Also, Superman sucks, whereas Thor doesn't.
Post by williamssl on Oct 17, 2006 15:09:14 GMT -5
The people must decide on Thor vs. Superman! A new poll has been created over in the Entertainment thread (where comics are generally discussed). Voice your perspective now!
I almost broke my "first come - first served rule" after Serg typed this
But one thing I know about Psychofich: he likes Thor. A lot.
And Thor sucks cock.
Seriously. Thor is a big, gay, long-hair Superman knockoff.
Priceless.
But Sal did post his question first, and he'll cry "You are discriminating against Asians!" and get the ACLU all up in my grill, so I'll answer his first.
salmonjunkie said:
Oh, I need to insult psychofish to get my questions answered? (check your U2U, rice-hater!)
Psychofish... As someone who is a connesuier and addict of delicious fish, I can tell you that psychofish is far from delicious. In fact, he tastes like dirt!
1. Why do the Chargers' powder blues look so damn good?
2. Boxers, briefs, or boxer-briefs?
3. Given today's economic climate, our dependency on oil, and the rather slow progress that we've had with alternative energy, where do you think we will be 10 years from now in regards to our use of energy?
4. What's up with your beef with Thor?
1) The Chargers uniform is an odd thing. In doing my research on the Chargers for your answer I found out some very unusual facts. Turns out the Chargers weren’t founded by Barron Hilton. He was only the public face. The Chargers were actually founded by a secret organization based out of San Francisco. And because they were based out of SF, you know what’s coming next – they were gay. Flaming queers. Every last one of ‘em. Hellbent on world domination, the easiest way to think of them is as Gay Illuminati. They wanted to remake the world in their own image, on paisley scarf at a time.
But how to do it? Realizing that football would become THE American sport was what gave birth to the Chargers. They originally played in L.A., because L.A. was (and remains) the major California city. And the initial plan was all about exposure. Slap the L.A. label on them, whet the appetites, and then move the team to San Diego. This offered maximum exposure to the US (because it was originally an L.A. team and closet gay Mexicans (due to San Diego’s proximity to Mexico).
So why the powder blue? The team officially defines it as “Electric Blue”. But the color is actually “Baby Boy Blue”, which is a subliminal gay color. The shadow group who owns the Chargers realized that this color has special properties. The wavelength it is perceived at by gay males elicits fierce and unwavering loyalty. This only works on gay males, and it takes just the right shade of baby boy blue. If the color is slightly off all you have is a color for baby clothes. Get it right, and you have a collection of loyal followers ready to obey the masters’ every command.
So the Chargers powder blue uniforms actually stimulate a section of the brain in gay males. And, as the shadow group knows, the number of males in the world with homosexual tendencies is much more than the 8% figure that is touted. The actual figure is closer to 40%. The color of the Chargers powder blue unis resonates with gay males everywhere, which accounts for their popularity.
An interesting note: The Chargers being America’s (Gay) Team is the driving force between Raider’s fans immense dislike of the team. The majority of male Raider fans are self loathing homosexuals who either have not come to terms with their sexuality or vehemently try to deny it. And so they go to the other extreme and attempt to prove how “bad-ass” they are. However, the signs are there for those observant enough to notice: those include but are not limited to 1) the extreme attention to costume detail, 2) the excessive face paint and 3) the leather, chains, spikes and masks.
2) For comfort, boxers. But if you have the figure for it, boxer briefs. The ladies dig the boxer briefs.
3) I actually have a serious answer to that one, but you’ll have to wait until I get back to work on Monday.
4) Unfortunately, I am not allowed to say. Father prefers we keep family disagreements private. And I am respecting his wishes.... for now. However, I will say that I agree 100% with Sergei.
That's all for now. Check back next week when I answer Serg's questions!
Post by The Canadian Content on Oct 19, 2006 20:28:03 GMT -5
I never got into the Ultimate line, so I don't know much about that Thor. I don't like the hammer/axe combo, though. Also, I saw the Ultimate Avengers movie, and I'm still curious what his motivation for being on a Greenpeace-esque boat was.
Post by salmonjunkie on Oct 20, 2006 4:45:26 GMT -5
Ultimate Thor is kind of an environmentalist, is anti-corporation, dislikes the way the US government polices the world, and has a cultish following amongst young european hippies. Ultimate Thor is actually pretty badass, and I love his demeanor towards Tony Stark. They, for all intents and purposes, should not get along, but they actually get along quite well. Ultimate Thor also likes beer.
The reason for the axe/hammer thing. The legend of Mjolnir in Norse mythology is that it is a warhammer, not a stone mallet like Marvel Thor carries. A warhammer has one hammer side, and one spike side. Ultimate Thor's Mjolnir is basically a huge-ass warhammer. Like this.
Although some paintings and such show him holding a non-spiked hammer as well.
Thor owns a short-handled war hammer, Mjolnir, which, when thrown at a target, returns magically to the owner. To wield Mjolnir, Thor wears the belt Megingjord, which boosts the wearer's strength and a pair of special iron gloves to lift the hammer.
Post by The Canadian Content on Oct 20, 2006 10:09:10 GMT -5
Interesting stuff, sal. Thanks. I think the reason Marvel went with the hammer they did is that the carvings, statues, paintings, and writings of the Vikings tend to show Mjolnir thus:
I'm just a fan of the original rather than the Ultimate version because it's what I'm familiar with. I have a hard time accepting "new visions" of characters I grew up with.
You guys suck. I spent time crafting an answer to Sal's question about the Chargers and all you want to do is debate whether or not Thor is a homo? I hate you all.
The Other Oil Threat In 2006, OPEC's trade surpluses will match those of developing Asia, at a time when the U.S. is vulnerable to financial machinations.
By Jeffrey E. Garten Newsweek International Oct. 23, 2006 issue - As oil prices continue their steady slide, and as OPEC ministers move to cut production in an effort to halt the decline, all the talk is of how low prices will go, or whether cheaper oil will lessen the threat of inflation, help keep interest rates down and stimulate global economic growth. But despite all this speculation, the dismal long-term trends haven't changed.
In fact, as we pass another anniversary of the OPEC embargo launched on Oct. 17, 1973, the developed world and America in particular are far worse off today in terms of energy security than we have ever been.
In addition to the West's continuing dependence on OPEC oil reserves, a new financial threat is emerging from OPEC's other reserves: petrodollars. In 2006, the cartel's current-account surpluses will reach $240 billion, matching the combined surpluses of Asia's developing countries, including India and China. And while the U.S. economy has become far more streamlined in its use of energy since 1973, and thus in some ways less vulnerable to oil shocks, it has become more exposed to financial shocks. In 1973, the United States was the world's largest creditor, relatively impregnable to an attack on the dollar. But today it owes $3 trillion to overseas creditors, making it much more vulnerable to foreign financial machinations.
Unlike most Asian countries, many OPEC governments camouflage the management of their reserves by farming them out to trusted private investment firms. Also, the central banks in Iran, whose reserves have more than doubled in the past three years, and in Venezuela, whose reserves grew by 30 percent, are both under the thumb of political leaders openly hostile to the United States. If a political confrontation envelops Washington and Tehran, or Washington and Caracas, the two nations could create financial turmoil by, say, asking certain unregulated hedge funds to create a spark to set off a broader investor stampede that would harm the U.S. economy. Yes, this would be an irrational move, because it could devalue their own dollar holdings. But then, extreme behavior, motivated not by economics but by nationalist politics, has characterized both countries' policies for some time now.
While the Middle East remains the huge foreign-policy mess it was in 1973, many more acute geopolitical problems related to energy have also arisen. They include Iran's presumed race to acquire nuclear weapons, Russia's attempts to use its energy industry to bully its neighbors and China's drive to lock up energy supplies by offering trade and aid concessions to states on Uncle Sam's blacklist, such as Iran, Venezuela, Sudan and Burma. Indeed, whereas U.S. oil companies ruled the roost three decades ago, today 80 percent of global oil reserves are managed by emboldened government-owned companies that reflect the political goals of their countries' leaders.
Over the past three decades, U.S. oil imports as a percentage of domestic consumption have doubled to 60 percent. It is hard to envision another successful oil embargo, given the increasing number of petroleum suppliers from the former Soviet Union and Africa, together with U.S. and European strategic stockpiles that have been built up since 1973. But there are other problems, for never before has Islamic radicalism posed such a threat to the security of oil installations, to governments such as Saudi Arabia and to transportation choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the Persian Gulf's oil passes.
OPEC is also in a position to undercut the only good trend—the fact that since 1973, more money has been flowing into alternative energy. Leading venture capitalists such as Kleiner Perkins and private equity and hedge funds such as the Carlyle Group are placing bets on biofuels. Multinational companies such as GE and Toyota are embracing energy conservation to curb greenhouse emissions. But with its sway over the price of oil, the cartel is in a position to render unprofitable alternative-energy projects that were financed on the assumption of a consistently high price of petroleum. And surely this is one motivation of countries such as Saudi Arabia for not allowing prices to stay too high for too long.
Bottom line: neither the age of petroleum, nor our growing dependence on fossil fuels, is about to end any time soon. The International Energy Agency projects a 50 percent increase in global demand for oil over the next 25 years, propelled by the growing industrialization of China, India and other emerging markets. The IEA says that nearly $4 trillion in new investments in exploration and infrastructure will be needed in the next quarter century just to keep oil demand from not outstripping supplies. The implications range from more financial clout in OPEC's hands to more foreign-policy leverage among oil producers, and more humiliating dependence on them by the West. If there's another scenario, I'd love to hear it.