Oh you mean hydrogen hydroxide? Good ole' HOH. Chemistry wouldn't really exist without it.
Or that some people like to fool others. Anyways, more facts:
...I'm just speechless
Oh you mean hydrogen hydroxide? Good ole' HOH. Chemistry wouldn't really exist without it.
This sounds a lot more like conspiracy to me. Where did you get the information from?Smokey the bear actually did more harm for the environment and caused more trees to catch on fire than without him existing.
You see forests generate underbrush which is what easily spreads fire and without idiots occasionally lighting a small part of a forest on fire and killing the underbrush the underbrush spreads really far and fast thus causing huge AF wild fires like the one going on now.
Think of it like this, oil is basically being produced from trees and if the tiny puddles don't get set on fire every now and then it becomes one huge Fing lake. Now instead of oil it's underbrush we're dealing with.
Scientists can pinpoint the massive fires that have started happening to the exact year that smokey the bear commercials started airing.
Cracked.com it's amazing the stuff you find in it as long as you shy away from photoplasty and blog sections and you'll be fine. It's sort of like steven colbert meets a discovery documentary, they cite scientific papers and everything. I'll post the link in a minute.This sounds a lot more like conspiracy to me. Where did you get the information from?
Smokey the bear actually did more harm for the environment and caused more trees to catch on fire than without him existing.
You see forests generate underbrush which is what easily spreads fire and without idiots occasionally lighting a small part of a forest on fire and killing the underbrush the underbrush spreads really far and fast thus causing huge AF wild fires like the one going on now.
Think of it like this, oil is basically being produced from trees and if the tiny puddles don't get set on fire every now and then it becomes one huge Fing lake. Now instead of oil it's underbrush we're dealing with.
Scientists can pinpoint the massive fires that have started happening to the exact year that smokey the bear commercials started airing.
I honestly don't think Cracked.com is a reliable source from reading a bit of their articles and a quick Google search shows they are certainly not considered creditable.Cracked.com it's amazing the stuff you find in it as long as you shy away from photoplasty and blog sections and you'll be fine. It's sort of like steven colbert meets a discovery documentary, they cite scientific papers and everything. I'll post the link in a minute.
I highly doubt this. The article you posted in the werewolf thread was completely wrong besides the minesweeper section, as I pointed out to you then, and with the massive amounts of articles (I would think hundreds) being posted each day I'm pretty sure at this point the admins just scroll through to make sure there's no porn and then approve it. Hell, SilverSilent (who clearly knows a lot about this bear campaign) already just proved another of your articles wrong, and I've noticed other facts you've posted earlier in this thread are wrong too after doing a bit of research -- I just didn't say anything at the time.Here's the mental floss article I meant to post.
http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=12492
Also bbninjas cracked's photoplasty and blogs are about as fact checked as crap posted on 4chan, their articles and life experience sections however are fact checked and they cite their sources.
Thank you, and CRACKED WAS A MAGAZINE AT ONE POINT?!?!?!? *insert Hyperbole image saying "BUY ALL THE MAGAZINES" here*, and I can confirm that they are occasionally wrong just like ANY OTHER WEBSITE IS, even mental floss did not do their math in all of 2 articles and they got CHEWED THE HELL OUT IN THE COMMENTS. Oh and I forget where I learned this, I don't think it was cracked.com for once, people in general learn more when there's something funny or interesting in between learning like a dirty joke which how I have memorized so much stuff from cracked.com.From experience, I can tell you that Cracked fact-checks their sources extensively, even for their image macros (which is what I assume empoleon means by "photoplasty", since photoplasties don't require fact checking at all). The editing process is grueling and very demanding, both in facts and in appeal. For example, sites open to public edition (like wikipedia) are not accepted without a book scan or the word of an actual professional or professional site, which is a standard harder to meet than you might think; most of the internet is outright rejected as a source. All the fact-checking happens primarily in the writing and editing process, though, so in the end, they will most likely link to wikipedia since (if checked) it is bound to have all the necessary information in an easier to grasp format. Similarly, the amount of articles they have is not due to drops in quality, but the sheer amount of writers the site has; seriously; anyone can write there, which is why the publication standards are so strict.
The reason they're classified as a humor site by wikipedia and others is because they originally were (and still are) a humor site (it started in print as a competitor to MAD magazine before being revived as an internet comedy site). However, dismissing them when they make valid points because they try to be funny at the same time is fairly short-sighted; wikipedia and other places (like, for example, silversilent's presentation (I'm not challenging it, really, since he might as well be right, but he didn't really give the valid sources you say cracked lacks, didn't he?) might present their points in a more formal way, but they don't necessarily give you much more confidence.
Don't get me wrong, though; they can certainly make mistakes, and they have made mistakes; fortunately, those occurrences are rare enough that you can have a certain confidence in what they say.
The blogs, however, are personal opinions by the editors and columnists, though, and they're not the same as articles; many people make the mistake of conflating them. Blogs are just funny and, in many cases, food for thought, but they don't have the same investigative rigor.
Oh, just, look how neatly this connects with my previous point about DHMO! which only serves to further prove it, of course: the more formally and wordily you present knowledge is directly proportional to how easily it will be taken as truth and left unexamined by the populace. However, put some richard jokes in it, and anything you have to say doesn't matter. Don't judge a book by its cover, kids, be smarter than that.
Hell, How many of you have posted sources for your "random interesting facts" here at all? I know all of empoleon's facts come from cracked even despite the lack of paragraphs and proper punctuation, and I already proved one of them to be a result of mass ignorance and memetic paranoia; who is to say there aren't more that just didn't ring my alarms like that one did?