Upload
Login or register

hukedonfonics

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:11/23/2010
Last Login:12/08/2016
Stats
Content Thumbs: 807 total,  939 ,  132
Comment Thumbs: 2905 total,  3148 ,  243
Content Level Progress: 40% (4/10)
Level 66 Content: FJ Cultist → Level 67 Content: FJ Cultist
Comment Level Progress: 0% (0/100)
Level 225 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 226 Comments: Mind Blower
Subscribers:0
Content Views:46565
Times Content Favorited:30 times
Total Comments Made:348
FJ Points:3239
Favorite Tags: i (2) | Love (2) | of (2) | You (2)

latest user's comments

#274 - Your criticisms on the article are well founded. I had that ar…  [+] (1 reply) 09/17/2015 on Current News 0
#287 - AnonymousDonor (09/18/2015) [-]
no problem brah
[i was pretty drunk when i wrote that ramblestorm up there so you're in good company ]
#93 - Well organic meat has to have had zero antibiotics throughout …  [+] (4 replies) 09/17/2015 on Current News -1
#102 - AnonymousDonor (09/17/2015) [-]
*she*

excuse me

i assumed with the flood of feminism and the naive assumption that a woman in a workplace so dominated by male influence would be smart enough to do her job; thus i assumed failure was male that only a male could write such idiotic drivel, and by so calling the author a cunt, i apparently inadvertently introduced an angle of sexism to an otherwise neutral comment on how supremely idiotic this article was

of course i really hope she was fired anyway (i mean NY times?? i was under the impression they had standards, not panders..).....but i nonetheless retract the statement that referred to her as a 'cunt'
---'retard' will substitute just fine
#100 - AnonymousDonor (09/17/2015) [-]
okay so it was the conclusion i thought...

but dude the whole article was talking about how those statistics were.....well honestly from what i read it was really just an article on statistics issues -- the article begins by shoving this figure that a much higher percent of all recalled foods are organic, and then spends way too long pointing out the obvious fact that the only reason that the 7% of recalled foods being organic is 'so high' is because more people are buying organic and thus the recalls that were bound to happen anyway are becoming more noticeable as they happen to more people

the whole article, as i understood it, was a discourse on idiot statistics followed by an attempt to prove the very obvious point that people are now buying more organic foods today
[seriously, if i was the editor this cunt would have been fired long before he was ever hired; damn fool even had to print a recall]


stupidity of the article notwithstanding, I will first mention that i wholly agree with the comment you first provided -- that the members of the bandwagon for health nuts whether or not you meant to imply the following, which was not explicitly said are so confined to their immature psycho-state of rebellion that they will latch onto anything that goes against the socio-industrial norm ---- their unfulfilled need to rebel flying so strongly ahead of reason that they completely dismiss the origin of the antibiotics themselves (and arguments therein)
.................................
...............yes.. this argument i certainly agree with -- assuming that's what you meant


but your linking of that particular article just did not appear to support the argument that i assume you were giving
i just want to reiterate here that i can easily see how you can jump from that article to the concept of your comment; i'm only pointing out that, by citing/linking the article with said comment over the internet, where people get angry just at looking at things they have to read, it might be wiser to bridge the gap a little with some supplemental train-of-thought comments
#274 - hukedonfonics (09/17/2015) [-]
Your criticisms on the article are well founded. I had that article saved to read and just skimmed over it before I posted.... I am embarrsed by that I posted it without fully vetting it.

With the comment you made I assumed we were on the same side, which I do mirror your feelings on the health nut bandwagon, and I can see how it wasn't really understood. I'm happy you understood me though when I didn't explain really myself too well in my defense I was a little high and was just trying to make a quick little joke .
#287 - AnonymousDonor (09/18/2015) [-]
no problem brah
[i was pretty drunk when i wrote that ramblestorm up there so you're in good company ]
#92 - Sure, if they are mistreated for health growth and not used pr…  [+] (1 reply) 09/17/2015 on Current News -5
#146 - anon (09/17/2015) [-]
I don't think that's the issue here though.
#70 - Because "health nuts" actually want their food to be…  [+] (9 replies) 09/17/2015 on Current News -1
#86 - AnonymousDonor (09/17/2015) [-]
im having a very difficult time linking your comment to the link you provided....
User avatar
#93 - hukedonfonics (09/17/2015) [-]
Well organic meat has to have had zero antibiotics throughout it's life, and other organic foods have a high rate of recalls because of refusal to use other safety practices because they aren't "natural".
#102 - AnonymousDonor (09/17/2015) [-]
*she*

excuse me

i assumed with the flood of feminism and the naive assumption that a woman in a workplace so dominated by male influence would be smart enough to do her job; thus i assumed failure was male that only a male could write such idiotic drivel, and by so calling the author a cunt, i apparently inadvertently introduced an angle of sexism to an otherwise neutral comment on how supremely idiotic this article was

of course i really hope she was fired anyway (i mean NY times?? i was under the impression they had standards, not panders..).....but i nonetheless retract the statement that referred to her as a 'cunt'
---'retard' will substitute just fine
#100 - AnonymousDonor (09/17/2015) [-]
okay so it was the conclusion i thought...

but dude the whole article was talking about how those statistics were.....well honestly from what i read it was really just an article on statistics issues -- the article begins by shoving this figure that a much higher percent of all recalled foods are organic, and then spends way too long pointing out the obvious fact that the only reason that the 7% of recalled foods being organic is 'so high' is because more people are buying organic and thus the recalls that were bound to happen anyway are becoming more noticeable as they happen to more people

the whole article, as i understood it, was a discourse on idiot statistics followed by an attempt to prove the very obvious point that people are now buying more organic foods today
[seriously, if i was the editor this cunt would have been fired long before he was ever hired; damn fool even had to print a recall]


stupidity of the article notwithstanding, I will first mention that i wholly agree with the comment you first provided -- that the members of the bandwagon for health nuts whether or not you meant to imply the following, which was not explicitly said are so confined to their immature psycho-state of rebellion that they will latch onto anything that goes against the socio-industrial norm ---- their unfulfilled need to rebel flying so strongly ahead of reason that they completely dismiss the origin of the antibiotics themselves (and arguments therein)
.................................
...............yes.. this argument i certainly agree with -- assuming that's what you meant


but your linking of that particular article just did not appear to support the argument that i assume you were giving
i just want to reiterate here that i can easily see how you can jump from that article to the concept of your comment; i'm only pointing out that, by citing/linking the article with said comment over the internet, where people get angry just at looking at things they have to read, it might be wiser to bridge the gap a little with some supplemental train-of-thought comments
#274 - hukedonfonics (09/17/2015) [-]
Your criticisms on the article are well founded. I had that article saved to read and just skimmed over it before I posted.... I am embarrsed by that I posted it without fully vetting it.

With the comment you made I assumed we were on the same side, which I do mirror your feelings on the health nut bandwagon, and I can see how it wasn't really understood. I'm happy you understood me though when I didn't explain really myself too well in my defense I was a little high and was just trying to make a quick little joke .
#287 - AnonymousDonor (09/18/2015) [-]
no problem brah
[i was pretty drunk when i wrote that ramblestorm up there so you're in good company ]
#73 - trickytrickster (09/17/2015) [-]
It's not the use of antibiotics. It's the blanket antibiotic use for an entire herd when none of them are sick to begin with. It can breed antibiotic resistant bacteria.
User avatar
#92 - hukedonfonics (09/17/2015) [-]
Sure, if they are mistreated for health growth and not used properly they are dangerous. But there are people that are pushing for absolute zero antibiotic use the in food supply which would be bad as well.
#146 - anon (09/17/2015) [-]
I don't think that's the issue here though.
#20 - What a coincidence  [+] (4 replies) 07/20/2015 on Bonding, +109
User avatar
#55 - psykobear (07/20/2015) [-]
See post.
Look up episode on Netflix.
Take picture.
???
Profit.
#58 - hukedonfonics (07/20/2015) [-]
Like I care enough to stage it.
User avatar
#24 - dragonzard (07/20/2015) [-]
bro same.!
User avatar
#27 - elijie (07/20/2015) [-]
Pics or it didn't happen.
#18 - Picture 07/14/2015 on 4me2pn2? +21