hellomynameisbill
Rank #417 on Comments
Level 343 Comments: Sold Soul Online
Send mail to hellomynameisbill Block hellomynameisbill Invite hellomynameisbill to be your friend flag avatar
| Last status update: | why is the first order called the first order when it's the third leading government in the series?comment |
| | |
| Personal Info | |
| Date Signed Up: | 6/23/2013 |
| Last Login: | 1/13/2016 |
| Location: | Australia |
| FunnyJunk Career Stats | |
| Content Ranking: | #3188 |
| Comment Ranking: | #417 |
| Highest Content Rank: | #992 |
| Highest Comment Rank: | #36 |
| Content Thumbs: | 3137 total,
3387 ,
250 |
| Comment Thumbs: | 57841 total,
62800 ,
4959 |
| Content Level Progress: | 13% (13/100) Level 123 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 124 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry |
| Comment Level Progress: | 81.2% (812/1000) Level 343 Comments: Sold Soul → Level 344 Comments: Sold Soul |
| Subscribers: | 5 |
| Content Views: | 147190 |
| Times Content Favorited: | 142 times |
| Total Comments Made: | 12058 |
| FJ Points: | 15528 |
| Favorite Tags: | the (2) |
.
latest user's comments
| #42 - By mathematic definition, infinity is a number too large to as… [+] (21 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on fixed | +3 |
 Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept, it can't actually exist. The word you are looking for is told of in legends and folklore... "big".  The Stephen Fry example isnt certain either, but it is all but certain, given what we know. True, we dont know what triggers life to appear on a planet suitable for it, but we know there are millions of planets which can harbor life of the kind we know from our own. You claim you arent a pessimist, yet dont believe that the trigger that sparked life could have happened more than once on all these potential planets? Doesnt sound very optimistic. False, we know that there are many planets that have similar conditions to earth, but life didn't form under those conditions. And once again, since we don't know HOW IT WORKS we can't know for certain exactly what it needs. It's perfectly possible, but I don't base my understanding of reality on the possibility of something, I base it on the evidence, of which there is NONE. "but life didn't form under those conditions" How would you know, I thought we didnt know? So im guessing you dont believe in the placebo effect? We know the conditions around the time life first formed (theoretically), see the Miller-Urey experiment for why we don't know everything. Of course I "believe" in the placebo effect, since it's demonstrable. But theres no proof of the placebo effect, just people getting better. Its our best guess, theres no evidence that people are getting better because of it. The proof is that no medicine was administered and measurable effects occurred. The evidence is that when tests are done with a drug, a placebo and no prescription, the placebo group performs better. So? We dont know why, we just know that it happens. Theres no data to actually tell us why it happens. Er, yes there is... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Mechanism_of_the_effect Bottom line, life happened once, the universe is insanely vast, uncountable stars, even more planets, and you honestly think theres not life anywhere else? To quote Black Science Man from the video, thats amazingly arrogant. No it isn't, it's what is to be observed from the facts that we have. I will defend to the death the idea that science is not based on speculation, but observation. But no fuck it, obviously if it's physically possible it must exist right? Like white holes, for instance; we've never seen one but mathematically they're possible. I mean how could they not exist? They're so LIKELY Im not talking about proving anything, im talking about statistical certainty. It doesnt prove anything, it just makes the, in my opinion, rather likely argument that there is almost certainly life somewhere else. I just told you you don't know how certain it is because you don't have all the parameters. You want life to be out there, and the idea is nice, but the universe is under no obligation to conform to your fantasies.  People much smarter than us disagree with you, ill leave it at that. It's not a matter of opinion. His example of the whales is actually evidence against you, since it demonstrates the folly of believing without evidence. You cannot make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life without some evidence, of which you have none, because none exists. This indicates a lack of life, but does not prove it. Just like life on our planet and by extension the very real theoretical certainty of life on other planets. Please locate me a rough probability for how likely life is on a random planet... Oh that's right it's 1/ how ever many planets there are in the universe, because WE HAVE ONE SINGULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PHENOMENON. That is not enough to base a theory off, and definitely not enough to start going on about "certainty". Nothing is certain no matter how likely it is. Just because we don't know the ins and outs of everything doesn't mean it's not real... | ||
| #36 - Leprechauns and infinity are two different things. The existen… [+] (34 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on fixed | +3 |
| Currently alien life is also fiction, is it not. Just because you can't see the edges of something doesn't make it infinite...Plus I've already said you can't have infinite energy in a system without it being evenly distributed, and thus every point would have infinite energy, which is clearly not true. Aliens in movies are fiction, sure, but life is not. We know the parameters for life on earth, and given the size of the observable universe, the likelihood of life somewhere else approaches 100% We don't know how life formed at all, we do have some strong hypotheses though! We don't know how likely it is because we do not know how it works. Almost no matter how unlikely it is, given the sheer number of planets, its still all but certain it has happened somewhere else. Again, im not saying it has, because I dont know, but statistics alone makes it more probable that it has than it hasnt. Its the same reason Stephen Fry can say this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLIvwtIuC3Y No. There is no evidence for that and believing it is silly. I like the idea of it, but it's not scientific to base your theories on what might be true. Yes, it's true that is is perfectly possible to have the same shuffle as someone else, but extremely unlikely. Still, we know that the cards exist and can exist in any of the combinations. Life, on the other hand, has no such obligation. Neither side of the argument has any proof one way or the other. In the absence of proof, the best one can do is look at the data we have. Probability is in favor of life elsewhere in the universe, what do you present that is not in favor? No it doesn't. You're like the people who say "god MUST exist, the universe couldn't have just popped into existence, it's TOO UNLIKELY" Nothing is too unlikely. White holes are theorised to exist mathematically, but we have never observed one. So whilst it is theoretically possible in that regard it is not ok to start going on about how "the universe is so big they must exist out there". That's not how it works. Its not the same, because there isnt any data to support a being like God. There is pretty convincing data to support the existence of life (well duh) and data outlining atleast one set of parameters in which life can exist. Again, we don't know why life happened. For all we know our specific location in the universe could matter. We do not know. But what we know for certain is that we can't yet replicate it, and so we don't know how probable it is. Which again puts us back at what we DO know about life, and in turn why with our current data, life somewhere else is all but certain. When you find out our position is relevant to the development of life, present it and disprove the probability as it currently is with what we know. It fucking isn't "certain" you idiot. There is zero evidence of the existence of life on other planets, so acting like there is is stupid and counter-productive. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. I do not have to prove there isn't life (especially since that's not my argument anyway) you have to prove that there is. By mathematic definition, infinity is a number too large to assign any number or quantity to. That is the definition I'm using when referring to the size of the universe. It may not be never ending, but my argument still applies. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept, it can't actually exist. The word you are looking for is told of in legends and folklore... "big". The Stephen Fry example isnt certain either, but it is all but certain, given what we know. True, we dont know what triggers life to appear on a planet suitable for it, but we know there are millions of planets which can harbor life of the kind we know from our own. You claim you arent a pessimist, yet dont believe that the trigger that sparked life could have happened more than once on all these potential planets? Doesnt sound very optimistic. False, we know that there are many planets that have similar conditions to earth, but life didn't form under those conditions. And once again, since we don't know HOW IT WORKS we can't know for certain exactly what it needs. It's perfectly possible, but I don't base my understanding of reality on the possibility of something, I base it on the evidence, of which there is NONE. "but life didn't form under those conditions" How would you know, I thought we didnt know? So im guessing you dont believe in the placebo effect? We know the conditions around the time life first formed (theoretically), see the Miller-Urey experiment for why we don't know everything. Of course I "believe" in the placebo effect, since it's demonstrable. But theres no proof of the placebo effect, just people getting better. Its our best guess, theres no evidence that people are getting better because of it. The proof is that no medicine was administered and measurable effects occurred. The evidence is that when tests are done with a drug, a placebo and no prescription, the placebo group performs better. So? We dont know why, we just know that it happens. Theres no data to actually tell us why it happens. Er, yes there is... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Mechanism_of_the_effect Bottom line, life happened once, the universe is insanely vast, uncountable stars, even more planets, and you honestly think theres not life anywhere else? To quote Black Science Man from the video, thats amazingly arrogant. No it isn't, it's what is to be observed from the facts that we have. I will defend to the death the idea that science is not based on speculation, but observation. But no fuck it, obviously if it's physically possible it must exist right? Like white holes, for instance; we've never seen one but mathematically they're possible. I mean how could they not exist? They're so LIKELY Im not talking about proving anything, im talking about statistical certainty. It doesnt prove anything, it just makes the, in my opinion, rather likely argument that there is almost certainly life somewhere else. I just told you you don't know how certain it is because you don't have all the parameters. You want life to be out there, and the idea is nice, but the universe is under no obligation to conform to your fantasies. People much smarter than us disagree with you, ill leave it at that. It's not a matter of opinion. His example of the whales is actually evidence against you, since it demonstrates the folly of believing without evidence. You cannot make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life without some evidence, of which you have none, because none exists. This indicates a lack of life, but does not prove it. Just like life on our planet and by extension the very real theoretical certainty of life on other planets. Please locate me a rough probability for how likely life is on a random planet... Oh that's right it's 1/ how ever many planets there are in the universe, because WE HAVE ONE SINGULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PHENOMENON. That is not enough to base a theory off, and definitely not enough to start going on about "certainty". Nothing is certain no matter how likely it is. Just because we don't know the ins and outs of everything doesn't mean it's not real... | ||
| #25 - Still, the size of the universe is to us is incomprehensibly l… [+] (36 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on fixed | +4 |
| That's the same logic that people use to justify all sorts of bullshit. "Well you can't prove that leprechauns don't exist, so they must exist!". Aha, "life sustaining" is not the same as "life producing". There are many life sustaining planets, all you need is a planet about the size and composition of earth. #36 -
hellomynameisbill (12/27/2015) [-]  Currently alien life is also fiction, is it not. Just because you can't see the edges of something doesn't make it infinite...Plus I've already said you can't have infinite energy in a system without it being evenly distributed, and thus every point would have infinite energy, which is clearly not true. Aliens in movies are fiction, sure, but life is not. We know the parameters for life on earth, and given the size of the observable universe, the likelihood of life somewhere else approaches 100% We don't know how life formed at all, we do have some strong hypotheses though! We don't know how likely it is because we do not know how it works. Almost no matter how unlikely it is, given the sheer number of planets, its still all but certain it has happened somewhere else. Again, im not saying it has, because I dont know, but statistics alone makes it more probable that it has than it hasnt. Its the same reason Stephen Fry can say this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLIvwtIuC3Y No. There is no evidence for that and believing it is silly. I like the idea of it, but it's not scientific to base your theories on what might be true. Yes, it's true that is is perfectly possible to have the same shuffle as someone else, but extremely unlikely. Still, we know that the cards exist and can exist in any of the combinations. Life, on the other hand, has no such obligation. Neither side of the argument has any proof one way or the other. In the absence of proof, the best one can do is look at the data we have. Probability is in favor of life elsewhere in the universe, what do you present that is not in favor? No it doesn't. You're like the people who say "god MUST exist, the universe couldn't have just popped into existence, it's TOO UNLIKELY" Nothing is too unlikely. White holes are theorised to exist mathematically, but we have never observed one. So whilst it is theoretically possible in that regard it is not ok to start going on about how "the universe is so big they must exist out there". That's not how it works. Its not the same, because there isnt any data to support a being like God. There is pretty convincing data to support the existence of life (well duh) and data outlining atleast one set of parameters in which life can exist. Again, we don't know why life happened. For all we know our specific location in the universe could matter. We do not know. But what we know for certain is that we can't yet replicate it, and so we don't know how probable it is. Which again puts us back at what we DO know about life, and in turn why with our current data, life somewhere else is all but certain. When you find out our position is relevant to the development of life, present it and disprove the probability as it currently is with what we know. It fucking isn't "certain" you idiot. There is zero evidence of the existence of life on other planets, so acting like there is is stupid and counter-productive. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. I do not have to prove there isn't life (especially since that's not my argument anyway) you have to prove that there is. By mathematic definition, infinity is a number too large to assign any number or quantity to. That is the definition I'm using when referring to the size of the universe. It may not be never ending, but my argument still applies. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept, it can't actually exist. The word you are looking for is told of in legends and folklore... "big". The Stephen Fry example isnt certain either, but it is all but certain, given what we know. True, we dont know what triggers life to appear on a planet suitable for it, but we know there are millions of planets which can harbor life of the kind we know from our own. You claim you arent a pessimist, yet dont believe that the trigger that sparked life could have happened more than once on all these potential planets? Doesnt sound very optimistic. False, we know that there are many planets that have similar conditions to earth, but life didn't form under those conditions. And once again, since we don't know HOW IT WORKS we can't know for certain exactly what it needs. It's perfectly possible, but I don't base my understanding of reality on the possibility of something, I base it on the evidence, of which there is NONE. "but life didn't form under those conditions" How would you know, I thought we didnt know? So im guessing you dont believe in the placebo effect? We know the conditions around the time life first formed (theoretically), see the Miller-Urey experiment for why we don't know everything. Of course I "believe" in the placebo effect, since it's demonstrable. But theres no proof of the placebo effect, just people getting better. Its our best guess, theres no evidence that people are getting better because of it. The proof is that no medicine was administered and measurable effects occurred. The evidence is that when tests are done with a drug, a placebo and no prescription, the placebo group performs better. So? We dont know why, we just know that it happens. Theres no data to actually tell us why it happens. Er, yes there is... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Mechanism_of_the_effect Bottom line, life happened once, the universe is insanely vast, uncountable stars, even more planets, and you honestly think theres not life anywhere else? To quote Black Science Man from the video, thats amazingly arrogant. No it isn't, it's what is to be observed from the facts that we have. I will defend to the death the idea that science is not based on speculation, but observation. But no fuck it, obviously if it's physically possible it must exist right? Like white holes, for instance; we've never seen one but mathematically they're possible. I mean how could they not exist? They're so LIKELY Im not talking about proving anything, im talking about statistical certainty. It doesnt prove anything, it just makes the, in my opinion, rather likely argument that there is almost certainly life somewhere else. I just told you you don't know how certain it is because you don't have all the parameters. You want life to be out there, and the idea is nice, but the universe is under no obligation to conform to your fantasies. People much smarter than us disagree with you, ill leave it at that. It's not a matter of opinion. His example of the whales is actually evidence against you, since it demonstrates the folly of believing without evidence. You cannot make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life without some evidence, of which you have none, because none exists. This indicates a lack of life, but does not prove it. Just like life on our planet and by extension the very real theoretical certainty of life on other planets. Please locate me a rough probability for how likely life is on a random planet... Oh that's right it's 1/ how ever many planets there are in the universe, because WE HAVE ONE SINGULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PHENOMENON. That is not enough to base a theory off, and definitely not enough to start going on about "certainty". Nothing is certain no matter how likely it is. Just because we don't know the ins and outs of everything doesn't mean it's not real... | ||
| #21 - The universe as we know it is infinite in size. That means tha… [+] (40 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on fixed | 0 |
| The jury's still out on the scale of the universe, but an infinite universe is impossible, as a finite object cannot expand to be infinite. Still, the size of the universe is to us is incomprehensibly large. And since life manages to exist on one tiny marble in the vast expanse of the cosmos, it's not at all strange to say that there's life out there. We may never meet these life forms, but statistically, the system of near infinite entropy we call the universe is bound to have more than one life sustaining planet. That's the same logic that people use to justify all sorts of bullshit. "Well you can't prove that leprechauns don't exist, so they must exist!". Aha, "life sustaining" is not the same as "life producing". There are many life sustaining planets, all you need is a planet about the size and composition of earth. #36 -
hellomynameisbill (12/27/2015) [-] Currently alien life is also fiction, is it not. Just because you can't see the edges of something doesn't make it infinite...Plus I've already said you can't have infinite energy in a system without it being evenly distributed, and thus every point would have infinite energy, which is clearly not true. Aliens in movies are fiction, sure, but life is not. We know the parameters for life on earth, and given the size of the observable universe, the likelihood of life somewhere else approaches 100% We don't know how life formed at all, we do have some strong hypotheses though! We don't know how likely it is because we do not know how it works. Almost no matter how unlikely it is, given the sheer number of planets, its still all but certain it has happened somewhere else. Again, im not saying it has, because I dont know, but statistics alone makes it more probable that it has than it hasnt. Its the same reason Stephen Fry can say this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLIvwtIuC3Y No. There is no evidence for that and believing it is silly. I like the idea of it, but it's not scientific to base your theories on what might be true. Yes, it's true that is is perfectly possible to have the same shuffle as someone else, but extremely unlikely. Still, we know that the cards exist and can exist in any of the combinations. Life, on the other hand, has no such obligation. Neither side of the argument has any proof one way or the other. In the absence of proof, the best one can do is look at the data we have. Probability is in favor of life elsewhere in the universe, what do you present that is not in favor? No it doesn't. You're like the people who say "god MUST exist, the universe couldn't have just popped into existence, it's TOO UNLIKELY" Nothing is too unlikely. White holes are theorised to exist mathematically, but we have never observed one. So whilst it is theoretically possible in that regard it is not ok to start going on about how "the universe is so big they must exist out there". That's not how it works. Its not the same, because there isnt any data to support a being like God. There is pretty convincing data to support the existence of life (well duh) and data outlining atleast one set of parameters in which life can exist. Again, we don't know why life happened. For all we know our specific location in the universe could matter. We do not know. But what we know for certain is that we can't yet replicate it, and so we don't know how probable it is. Which again puts us back at what we DO know about life, and in turn why with our current data, life somewhere else is all but certain. When you find out our position is relevant to the development of life, present it and disprove the probability as it currently is with what we know. It fucking isn't "certain" you idiot. There is zero evidence of the existence of life on other planets, so acting like there is is stupid and counter-productive. YOU have the burden of proof, not me. I do not have to prove there isn't life (especially since that's not my argument anyway) you have to prove that there is. By mathematic definition, infinity is a number too large to assign any number or quantity to. That is the definition I'm using when referring to the size of the universe. It may not be never ending, but my argument still applies. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept, it can't actually exist. The word you are looking for is told of in legends and folklore... "big". The Stephen Fry example isnt certain either, but it is all but certain, given what we know. True, we dont know what triggers life to appear on a planet suitable for it, but we know there are millions of planets which can harbor life of the kind we know from our own. You claim you arent a pessimist, yet dont believe that the trigger that sparked life could have happened more than once on all these potential planets? Doesnt sound very optimistic. False, we know that there are many planets that have similar conditions to earth, but life didn't form under those conditions. And once again, since we don't know HOW IT WORKS we can't know for certain exactly what it needs. It's perfectly possible, but I don't base my understanding of reality on the possibility of something, I base it on the evidence, of which there is NONE. "but life didn't form under those conditions" How would you know, I thought we didnt know? So im guessing you dont believe in the placebo effect? We know the conditions around the time life first formed (theoretically), see the Miller-Urey experiment for why we don't know everything. Of course I "believe" in the placebo effect, since it's demonstrable. But theres no proof of the placebo effect, just people getting better. Its our best guess, theres no evidence that people are getting better because of it. The proof is that no medicine was administered and measurable effects occurred. The evidence is that when tests are done with a drug, a placebo and no prescription, the placebo group performs better. So? We dont know why, we just know that it happens. Theres no data to actually tell us why it happens. Er, yes there is... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Mechanism_of_the_effect Bottom line, life happened once, the universe is insanely vast, uncountable stars, even more planets, and you honestly think theres not life anywhere else? To quote Black Science Man from the video, thats amazingly arrogant. No it isn't, it's what is to be observed from the facts that we have. I will defend to the death the idea that science is not based on speculation, but observation. But no fuck it, obviously if it's physically possible it must exist right? Like white holes, for instance; we've never seen one but mathematically they're possible. I mean how could they not exist? They're so LIKELY Im not talking about proving anything, im talking about statistical certainty. It doesnt prove anything, it just makes the, in my opinion, rather likely argument that there is almost certainly life somewhere else. I just told you you don't know how certain it is because you don't have all the parameters. You want life to be out there, and the idea is nice, but the universe is under no obligation to conform to your fantasies. People much smarter than us disagree with you, ill leave it at that. It's not a matter of opinion. His example of the whales is actually evidence against you, since it demonstrates the folly of believing without evidence. You cannot make the claim that there is extraterrestrial life without some evidence, of which you have none, because none exists. This indicates a lack of life, but does not prove it. Just like life on our planet and by extension the very real theoretical certainty of life on other planets. Please locate me a rough probability for how likely life is on a random planet... Oh that's right it's 1/ how ever many planets there are in the universe, because WE HAVE ONE SINGULAR EXAMPLE OF THE PHENOMENON. That is not enough to base a theory off, and definitely not enough to start going on about "certainty". Nothing is certain no matter how likely it is. Just because we don't know the ins and outs of everything doesn't mean it's not real...  What about you search up the Big Bang Theory instead of making up your own? The big bang theory states that the universe is undergoing an expansion from a single point to it's current scale. It makes no claims about the current scale, which is unknowable. | ||
| #12 - Yes | 12/27/2015 on Reese Cooks | +2 |
| #10 - it's funny because her "correction" is even worse | 12/27/2015 on Engrish Teacher | +1 |
| #2 - You clearly are not trying hard enough | 12/27/2015 on you may fap to this | +12 |
| #20 - but his hand is not scarred. he shows kanye the hand and it sh… [+] (2 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on MAYJIC | 0 |
| | ||
| #7 - It would be expensive and waste time. As would the content… [+] (3 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on Concrete 3D Printer. | +7 |
| | ||
| #6 - because bricks are rectanglular prisms and rectangles do not n… [+] (4 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on Concrete 3D Printer. | +7 |
| #7 -
hellomynameisbill (12/27/2015) [-]  As would the content, if it were not an art/tech project. | ||
| #24 - Stories don't have to make sense to be canonical. It's a story… | 12/27/2015 on Vader's motivation to... | +19 |
| #22 - Comment deleted | 12/27/2015 on Vader's motivation to... | 0 |
| #19 - The prequels were created by the original creators They ta… [+] (18 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on Vader's motivation to... | +29 |
| #21 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] they aren't part of the same story because then the story itself wouldn't even make sense  The word you're looking for is Retcon. A lot of the Prequel stuff fucked up the lore of the original trilogy. It was either retconned(Said it never happened essentially) or made new lore based on gaps in the original trilogy. The prequels are created by George Lucas, and therefor canon. Anything NOT created by Lucas is now retconned and not considered canon outside of JJ-Abrams . #47 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] They're not paert of the original Star wars. they're George Lucas wet dream which he decided to put on film.That's it. Any sane person can look at them and know they're not really Star Wars You know George originally planned on three trilogies right?  Holy fuck I have MET people diagnosed as autistic and still haven't met anyone as bad as you. #130 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] Well, look at yourself in the mirror. you've lost the ability to differentiate between art and shit. Whether it's art or shit is irrelevant. It's canonical, and you disliking it doesn't change that #129 -
anon (12/27/2015) [-] As an Autist and a human being I take offense to autism being brought up to compare to this guy... There's lunatics out there who are better than this guy Stories don't have to make sense to be canonical. It's a story about wizards in space for gods sake. The meaning of the story belongs to the writer. Your opinion on it does not change that. That is why copyright law exists, so writers hold the exclusive right to what is and isn't canon in their own stories. #20 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] "original creators" there were more people than just George Lucas involved in the original trilogy | ||
| #6 - he got way too into character | 12/27/2015 on Scrubs porn | 0 |
| #16 - i want your legitimate definition as to what you think canon means [+] (21 new replies) | 12/27/2015 on Vader's motivation to... | +6 |
| The prequels were created by the original creators They take part in the original timeline of events Within the original universe. They are a different part of the exact same story. Why do you say they aren't canon? #21 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] they aren't part of the same story because then the story itself wouldn't even make sense The word you're looking for is Retcon. A lot of the Prequel stuff fucked up the lore of the original trilogy. It was either retconned(Said it never happened essentially) or made new lore based on gaps in the original trilogy. The prequels are created by George Lucas, and therefor canon. Anything NOT created by Lucas is now retconned and not considered canon outside of JJ-Abrams . #47 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] They're not paert of the original Star wars. they're George Lucas wet dream which he decided to put on film.That's it. Any sane person can look at them and know they're not really Star Wars You know George originally planned on three trilogies right? Holy fuck I have MET people diagnosed as autistic and still haven't met anyone as bad as you. #130 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] Well, look at yourself in the mirror. you've lost the ability to differentiate between art and shit. Whether it's art or shit is irrelevant. It's canonical, and you disliking it doesn't change that #129 -
anon (12/27/2015) [-] As an Autist and a human being I take offense to autism being brought up to compare to this guy... There's lunatics out there who are better than this guy Stories don't have to make sense to be canonical. It's a story about wizards in space for gods sake. The meaning of the story belongs to the writer. Your opinion on it does not change that. That is why copyright law exists, so writers hold the exclusive right to what is and isn't canon in their own stories. #20 -
selfdenyingbeggar (12/27/2015) [-] "original creators" there were more people than just George Lucas involved in the original trilogy | ||
| #39 - Darth Llib that oughta strike fear. [+] (1 new reply) | 12/27/2015 on rip | 0 |
| #41 -
tehflamintaco (12/27/2015) [-] U fookin' wot m8, Trying'a steal my Darth Name? I'll fookin' force rip out ya fookin' spleen and feed it to yer dog, ya hear me? | ||
| #7 - Quality Journalism | 12/26/2015 on Spanisj | 0 |
| #2 - if you want to | 12/26/2015 on Fallout 4... | 0 |
| #40 - that's probably the shadow of the smoke particles. | 12/26/2015 on cool shit | +2 |
| #85 - the average length of time that one can hold their breath is a… [+] (1 new reply) | 12/26/2015 on Think about it | 0 |
| #135 - she figured out how to use the force during her years on Jakku… | 12/26/2015 on This article infuriates me. | 0 |
| #118 - I love you non platonically | 12/25/2015 on Scary | 0 |
| #28 - it's funny because she's actually one of the good guys in the … | 12/25/2015 on really niqqa? | +6 |
| #67 - Finn is an ex storm trooper who ran away and joined the rebel … [+] (2 new replies) | 12/24/2015 on Loyal trooper | +6 |
 yeah i know i saw the film MASSIVE spoiler btw, you should have probably spoilered that | ||
| #15 - >brony >wiseman | 12/24/2015 on Bill Nye Reaction Gifs | +30 |
Anonymous comments allowed.
77 comments displayed.
#317
-
konradkurze (01/12/2015) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll cah answer*"**
**konradkurze rolls Poopsicles.**
what kind of badass is Billy
**konradkurze rolls Poopsicles.**
what kind of badass is Billy
#315
-
konradkurze (01/08/2015) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll cah answer*"**
**konradkurze rolls Duct tape.**
what makes bill a badass
**konradkurze rolls Duct tape.**
what makes bill a badass
#316 to #315
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (01/08/2015) [-] Duct tape solves everything. It's like instant leather.
#313
-
konradkurze (01/07/2015) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll cah answer*"**
**konradkurze rolls Vehicular manslaughter.**
why is billy crazy
**konradkurze rolls Vehicular manslaughter.**
why is billy crazy
#311 to #310
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (01/01/2015) [-] there it goes again, someone's messing with me
insert loop of oblivious stealth videogame enemy dialogue
insert loop of oblivious stealth videogame enemy dialogue
#309 to #308
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (01/01/2015) [-] hmm. all I see is the darkness of the text box, yet no discernible text.
I guess it was nothing.
I guess it was nothing.
#303
-
konradkurze (12/23/2014) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll Magic 8-Ball*"**
**konradkurze rolls Very doubtful**
will bill **** the hensel twins
**konradkurze rolls Very doubtful**
will bill **** the hensel twins
#300
-
konradkurze (12/22/2014) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll Magic 8-Ball*"**
**konradkurze rolls Cannot predict now**
is bill alive?
**konradkurze rolls Cannot predict now**
is bill alive?
#299
-
konradkurze (12/19/2014) [-] **konradkurze used "*roll gender*"**
**konradkurze rolls Trans Person**
bills gender
**konradkurze rolls Trans Person**
bills gender
#296 to #295
-
konradkurze (12/13/2014) [-] got a troll lurking around redthumbing me
can you please green thumb a bunch of my comments to shoo him away
can you please green thumb a bunch of my comments to shoo him away
#298 to #297
-
konradkurze (12/13/2014) [-] hmmm just any you see from my profile that can be thumbed
*brofists*
*brofists*
#273
-
konradkurze (11/22/2014) [-] *dresses bill up in full combat kit and paradrops him into iraq*
#274 to #273
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/22/2014) [-] you wanna know how i got out of the middle east?
iran
iran
#284 to #283
-
konradkurze (11/22/2014) [-] you are such a conformist
wanting everyone to be like you
wanting everyone to be like you
#285 to #284
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/22/2014) [-] A conformist is someone who wants to be like everyone else
#286 to #285
-
konradkurze (11/22/2014) [-] well you copied bumsnachers pic....so yeah
conformist
now you want me to conform too
conformist
now you want me to conform too
#290 to #289
-
konradkurze (11/22/2014) [-] admitting "yours is smaller"
no shame in that bill.....its not about size but how you use it
no shame in that bill.....its not about size but how you use it
#291 to #290
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/22/2014) [-] Aye, but guess who's account is still active
#293 to #291
-
konradkurze (11/22/2014) [-] the conformist
********* is dead and youre still conforming to his picture
********* is dead and youre still conforming to his picture
#268 to #267
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/17/2014) [-] dude, bumsnatcher finally found out that I stole his profile picture
#253 to #252
-
hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/14/2014) [-] who is it? Oh, Conrad. come right in! how did you find my address? we live on opposite hemispheres of the world.
