cosmohill

Rank #2295 on Subscribers
cosmohill Avatar Level 135 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Offline
Send mail to cosmohill Block cosmohill Invite cosmohill to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:11/27/2011
Last Login:1/27/2015
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#12182
Highest Content Rank:#6172
Highest Comment Rank:#11625
Content Thumbs: 1546 total,  1770 ,  224
Comment Thumbs: 371 total,  474 ,  103
Content Level Progress: 46% (46/100)
Level 115 Content: Funny Junkie → Level 116 Content: Funny Junkie
Comment Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 135 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 136 Comments: Respected Member Of Famiry
Subscribers:36
Content Views:107182
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:164
FJ Points:1943

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 8721
    Thumbs Up 149 Thumbs Down 78 Total: +71
    Comments: 18
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 05/20/12
    Hooked on you Hooked on you
  • Views: 1754
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 3 Total: +17
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 01/27/12
    The perfect excuse The perfect excuse
  • Views: 641
    Thumbs Up 2 Thumbs Down 7 Total: -5
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 10/01/12
    Busted Busted
  • Views: 261
    Thumbs Up 1 Thumbs Down 7 Total: -6
    Comments: 2
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/17/13
    Good guy arceus Good guy arceus
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

youtube videos

latest user's comments

#3418 - The only selfie I've taken this year. Am I sexy yet admin? 01/26/2015 on what does FJ look like? 0
#48 - Was about to downvote, saw your name.... I'm gonna allow it. T…  [+] (1 new reply) 01/20/2015 on Split-Depth Gifs -9
#93 - anonymous (01/20/2015) [-]
>>>/tumblr/
#121 - ....Dude if it bent the hands they'd be pointing at the wrong …  [+] (1 new reply) 01/20/2015 on Cool watch +2
User avatar #125 - amsel (01/20/2015) [-]
not if the face of the watch was bent in exactly the same way (as it would be in the case of natural refraction).

The current watch is actually exactly as you've described - the face bends but the hands don't, so it doesn't point to the right numbers (you just know where it is based on years of looking at watches)
#276 - She got "Celtic" but she still ****** i… 01/15/2015 on But... but racism and shit 0
#78 - I hope your pillow never has a cold side 01/11/2015 on Realistic spite comp +18
#36 - ******* wasn't signed in god ******* dammit 01/01/2015 on DO. WANT. +2
#207 - ************* I READ IT IN A BOOK ONCE ***… 12/29/2014 on Just saw Fury - 0
#139 - The only thing to destroy a British Challenger II tank is anot…  [+] (40 new replies) 12/29/2014 on Just saw Fury - +2
User avatar #207 - cosmohill (12/29/2014) [-]
MOTHERFUCKERS I READ IT IN A BOOK ONCE FUCK THESE PURPLE LINES DAMN
User avatar #145 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
Why? The gun on the challenger 2 is weaker than the gun on Leopard 2 (up to A5) and Abrams (from A1 onwards) and the Leo 2A6 would start shooting long before the Challenger or the older Leos and all the Abramses would.

I fear I may have opened the "3 Tank Shitstorm Thread". Let the battle begin.
#150 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
It was the only kill the chally suffered tank to tank, was a blue on blue. He isnt saying that other tank guns couldnt they just havent!
User avatar #151 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
No... He didn't say a chally shot another chally. How about you read what he said.
#152 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
He said 'to destroy' not 'can destroy'. And the only chally to be destroyed in combat was a blue on blue from another chally.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2#Operational_history
User avatar #154 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
I know that, but you're wrong... read everything he said.


"The only thing to destroy a British Challenger II tank is another British Challenger II..."

"British Challenger II tank is another British Challenger II"

" tank is another "

"is" NOT "was". Therefore he was not talking about what you're talking about.

#155 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
Because it IS the only thing to have destroyed a chally!
User avatar #156 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
Dude, you know you're wrong, just stop.

If he meant what you think he meant, then he would have said:
"The only thing to HAVE destroyED a British Challenger II tank WAS another British Challenger II..."

or

"The only thing to destroy a British Challenger II tank WAS another British Challenger II..."

But he didn't!

And even you sentence "Because it IS the only thing to have destroyed a chally!" is also wrong, you'd still have to say "WAS".
#159 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
Was is past tense, presently the only the thing TO destroy a chally IS a chally.
User avatar #160 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
Congratulations. Now you're implying he said exactly what I said he said.

That a chally is the only thing to destroy a chally, and so I added that it wasn't true.
#162 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
Your argument only makes sense if he said 'can destroy'.
User avatar #163 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
They could both mean the same thing. While your one clearly doesn't as I have explained in about 3 comments!
#165 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
So you argument rests on 'can' and 'to' meaning the same thing?

User avatar #166 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
There you go twisting shit again. In this specific sentence:

"The only thing to destroy a British Challenger II tank is another British Challenger II..." both "The only thing TO destroy" and "The only thing THAT CAN destroy" can mean the same thing. Therefore my argument about what he meant makes perfect sense.
User avatar #170 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
What he meant was "The only thing to have ever destroyed a Challenger II is another Challenger II."

Apparently everyone here knew exactly what he meant except you, or alternatively, perhaps you're seeing some kind of fault in his wording, but you've conveyed your views so poorly that nobody can even tell what it is you're objecting to. You just keep repeating yourself over and over as if what you're saying will suddenly just make sense if you say it enough.
#176 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
i read it too as "the only thing capable of destroying" and not as in "the only thing that has destroyed"...

but i admit it could be read the way you imply too. both variants are possible...
User avatar #182 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
One variant makes a lot more sense than the other. If you compare the two, and you're good at English, you come to the same conclusion that I did. You might also come to the conclusion that he's an idiot, which can be forgiven, seeing as they're everywhere online.

He didn't do the best job, but I really don't see how it's fooling so many people.
#186 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
because you're being a pretty big jerk about it i guess.
i didnt say you are right. just that it can be read both ways...

only the original commenter knows what he implied. you might be right, doesnt mean you have to act the way you do. As i said, i read it that way too that the only thing able to destroy a challenger 2 tank is another challenger 2...

sure, i would have neither reacted like the other one. but still your reaction is meh...
User avatar #191 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
I have a rule when it comes to FJ, and of course you have no obligation to follow it or agree with it, but I think you'd benefit from hearing it all the same.

You can say what you like to who you like; you can be smug or arrogant or rude or a dickhead - but the real fault lies with the dude who starts throwing red thumbs around.

I might be arrogant, but at least I don't think I'm in a position to drop judgment on people.
#203 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
as i said man. i wouldnt thumb you down for having another opinion. and much less so because your opinion seems valid to me and a very likely option (more likely than how i read the sentence at first tbh).

Thats what i didnt like. He was right about it being possible to be read another way. Maybe its not what the commenter meant (we got to ask that person) but it can be read that way. else i wouldnt have read it that way too.
And tbh you made the exact same thing... you assumed from the very get go that your interpretation is the only right solution. i might be a bit too deep into that, but i just think its a shame when people act like theyr solution is the only possible one when one other guy explains why he thinks it means something else, and a second guy admits he read it that way too.

you could have accepted that people read it the other way and just say "i'm pretty sure i'm right." or "i'm 100% i'm right" or "well, keep on believing what you want. i know i'm right". but you insulted the other person for theyr opinion... and i think that insult was uncalled for. even if you might be right about the sentence.

and yeah, i think its alright to thumb people down for that and if other people share my opinion that they thumb it down too. so that people learn to not act like jerks in discussions... imagine how great the world could be if those tumblr tards and sjw's and shit could be thumbed down so they reflect on when theyr behaviour is appropriate and when not.
hail redthumb
#196 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
I just tend to prefer to act like a decent man in discussions. (shittalking is something else, but if its really about a topic i prefer to keep it objective and polite.

the red thumb is to me a sign of thinking something is not alright (the fact rarely, mostly about the attitude) or that its simply not funny/annoying/utter bullshit. because people that act like jerks or are annoying deserve to be thumbed down. simple as that.
also: dropping judgjement is also being done if you insult someone else as a fool. because you judge them as a fool.

but then again, be smug and arrogant and rude and a dickhead all you want. if you feel better doing your discussions like that
User avatar #200 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
It's not so much the judgment, but assigning a numerical value to it. It affects an actual outcome; that red thumb stops your judgment from being mere judgment - it acts as a "look at what I think of this guy, I encourage you to red thumb him too", and that's actually what can happen. We've all seen it.

Look, we're venturing into really subjective territory here. I'd just like to make it known to everyone reading that anything and everything I've said represents my personal views and opinions.

Though I still can't imagine reading that first comment and coming to the same conclusion that you gentlemen did.
User avatar #195 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
You might want to check the coward who's been thumbing me down all my comments and isn't even part of the discussion. That's the kind of people one should hate.
User avatar #173 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
You sure? I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic or the likes that say chally 2s are indestructible, so the only thing to be able to destroy it would be another chally 2.

And even if you're right, then you also prove my point that I'm right about the grammar againt namelessjoe .
#189 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
so just adding 'have ever' to the sentence changed it that drastically for you?

I gave you a source to what he was referring too. He clearly wasnt being sarcastic.


User avatar #192 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
It''s already been talked to other users in this comment section that it could be both ways. Only the original commentator can confirm what he meant. You keep your view, I keep mine, I'll go to my corner, you go to yours. Now go check if it's raining or something.
#193 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
Right fair enough

and its not raining
#198 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
i'm bored and somehow stuck on this thread...
User avatar #197 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
It is here unfortunately... damn TV sat is always going down.
#199 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
That fucking sucks, atleast you have the internet to keep you entertained.
#180 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
see #176
User avatar #175 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
No, what he's saying is that the only time a Challenger II has ever been destroyed was in a friendly fire incident where it was hit by another Challenger II. This is a well-documented incident and a known fact.

You haven't been right about anything in this conversation. You read something wrong and refused point blank to be corrected and simply let it go. You stubbornly clung to your first assumption like a cat to a tree in a hurricane, when you'd have been safer taking the fall and running for cover, and now you've been made to look a fool.
User avatar #184 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
Looks like I'm not the only one who viewed the interpretation as somethign else. kanedam viewed it the same way as I did. Ok, both ways are possible, if you think I feel like a fool, then you're the fool.

I'm still right about the grammar part. You can't deny that.
User avatar #188 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
As I said, he didn't do the best job writing it, but I just don't see how you could consider both options and still think the "Chally is invincible" one is what he meant.

To each his own. At least we got to the bottom of it in the end.
#179 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
and a redthumb for your arrogance... (cause it can be read both ways)
User avatar #183 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
And a red thumb for yours, seeing as you think you can label mine. Thanks for starting up the red-thumb game. I fucking love that petty bullshit.
#190 - kanedam (12/29/2014) [-]
mfw i get a redthumb


nah seriously. i dont really mind, just wanted to point out that your attitude was shitty. especially for someone who thinks he's right. if you really thumb me down just out of revenge i dont really care. just thought i should tell you so you could reflect on it for the next argument you have... but if you prefer to be like that...
it's the internet after all. who gives a fuck?
User avatar #317 - TheHutchie (12/29/2014) [-]
God, what a pointless shitstorm this all turned out to be.
#201 - icedcarbon (12/29/2014) [-]
#169 - namelessjoe (12/29/2014) [-]
Im not twisting anything, you just confirmed it with that post.

In this sentence they dont mean the same thing, you just inferred it and you were wrong to.
#58 - Dude no one gives a **** . I love that show, but o… 12/25/2014 on Legend of Korra 0
#23 - ....Is that from Rescuers Down Under or am I making up childho…  [+] (4 new replies) 12/25/2014 on Merry Christmas +2
User avatar #51 - magicka (12/25/2014) [-]
You sir are correct
#24 - itsmedumbass (12/25/2014) [-]
To be honest I think its from a movie with a talking horse. Like the protagonist is a talking horse. However I may be mixing up my child hood memories.
User avatar #33 - Whatwhat (12/25/2014) [-]
95% sure its the Rescuers Down Under
User avatar #67 - itsmedumbass (12/26/2014) [-]
I wasn't sure what the correct movie was, because its been so long since I saw the movie.
[ 133 Total ]

user's channels

Join Subscribe bendingtime
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 900

Comments(0):

 

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
No comments!
 Friends (0)