Disqus - Latest Comments for snipergirl

Re: Melbourne Tumblr Meet-up

snipergirl — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:22:28 -0000

i'm totally up for it (even though i'm working that night from 10pm in berwick) hehe :D

Re: I’m going away for a while…

snipergirl — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:18:12 -0000

hope all is well, & good luck :)

Re: Here Comes Fun

ninefruits — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:16:08 -0000

Your Murakami reference has made my evening! Thank you.

Re: Here Comes Fun

snipergirl — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:38:10 -0000

HE IS THE NOBORU WATAYA TO YOUR TORU OKADA.

plus being the guy with the world's most punchable face?

Re: (via kanyegate) SHE MAKES ME THINK OF MEAGAN... | If you tumble with the sniper...

snipergirl — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:11:04 -0000

Yes or perhaps Megan Connelly?

Re: betashop, The Big Idea behind learning styles is that kids...

snipergirl — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 04:02:42 -0000

Lolzy AND unfortunate!

Re: An average man spends a year ogling women - and other crowd sourced steals

snipergirl — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:55:56 -0000

Another point is just how much dang repetition there is in news sources. People just reprint the AP or Reuters version without any thought, editing or original journalism. Scary.

Re: Not impressed with the Google Reader Power Readers

snipergirl — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:51:46 -0000

ugh. I agree with you.

I once believed that programmers, tech commenters, people of opinion, and 5.7billion other people lived outside the US.

I'm very glad that google has informed me that those beliefs are in fact a massive hallucination

Re: REAL OR FAKE: One Woman’s Embarrassing Facebook Message

snipergirl — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:10:37 -0000

1) clearly fake
2) wtf is @mashable posting this trash?!

Re: 27 Firefox Addons For Power Blogging

snipergirl — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:30:28 -0000

bah! none of these are specific to blogging at all!

I mean, I agree with having firebug there, for example, however, adblock?! download status bar?! they might be awesome, but they're not exactly "blogging power tools"

How about scribefire or zemanta?

Re: Dear America

snipergirl — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:45:04 -0000

bwahaha stupid americans.

Re: http://www.refinery29.com/the_goods/grow_a_mini_lawn_on_your_finge.php

snipergirl — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:47:44 -0000

wtf? Seriously, wtf?!

This is bizarre and makes no sense... why would you wear that?

Re: Epic Win

snipergirl — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:55:54 -0000

Woohoo!

Re: Twitter turns brain dead

snipergirl — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:38 -0000

This post is as brilliant as twitter is retarded/lazy/stingy/determined to piss people off!

Re: Kakuteru.com, Shake that Cocktail!

snipergirl — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:57:09 -0000

This is fucking schweet! good work matey, love it!

Re: RSSmeme | xkcd - A Webcomic - Friends

snipergirl — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:55:15 -0000

Omg so like many of my exes/obsessed weirdos who tried to follow me around... and a little like the last girl who liked me...!

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

wolfsbayne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:19:18 -0000

lol. nice ad hominems...not really. i'm thinkin you're giving yourself way too much credit for thinking you know things. but on this issue, you really don't know that you don't know.

so, you're not american and you don't know our history or laws as well as you think you do. i know history even that which occurred outside this country, but we're talking about america and i'll keep bringing us back if you keep straying from point.

we're not talking about stringing up queers. so homo behavior isn't being debated. well, you keep doing it for some reason. i'm pointing out that americans are not ready for queer marriage and may never be. nothing you state is supported by the facts regarding queer marriage in america. 41 states codified the definition as between a man a woman. 27 states, with 3 more on the way, have inserted the definition of marriage as one man and one woman into their respective constitutions. and all that state movement occurred since 1996.

here's the beauty of debating someone who doesn't know american law:
the feds did pass a ban on queer marriage regardless of whether or not you were aware of it! lol. it happened in 1996.

btw, even if obama likes parts of the queer agenda, he's *against* gay marriage and has stated that many times.

quick clarification since you don't know context as well as you think you do. you mentioned something about indians as being an influence on our view of queers here in america. i pointed out that assertion was invalid because ppl back then considered them savages, not me. reread that section if you need to.

i don't know why you're obsessed with europe to the point that you keep getting sidetracked from our america conversation. the uk has nothing to do with us on this issue. here's why...those early americans left england because the retarded (and probably queer) king distorted the christian doctrine. ppl didn't like it and they came here to get away from the bastard and the crappy (at the time) church of england. plenty of history books on the subject. maybe you didn't get one of those versions but instead got a redacted uk version at whichever uk influenced school you attended.

aquinas? cmon now, let's stay focused. i'm not here to debate the entire christian history and how some periods may have been affected by the karesh's of their day. i've been talking about the american view on queer marriage. your eu and uk points are just irrelevant. please stay on topic.

please present the parts of american history i ignored that pertains to queer marriage. there really hasn't been ANY movement in this area until the last 20 years or so. i have provided the reasons why queer marriage isn't gonna happen here. i'm here giving you the insight as to why america is the way she is and you're ignoring that to attack me. if you take a step back and read both blogs' comments you'll see that i'm trying to educate ppl who don't understand. sure i can be cheeky, but i try to amuse myself without getting too tastless or disrespectful.

don't let your bias cause you to miss what i'm trying to say, which is basically this, if ppl push the queer agenda too hard and too fast they are gonna get shut down - not by a few bunker dwelling right-wing loonies, but rather the majority. and the effect of the shutdown is likely a constitutional amendment in every state that may never be repealed. mess with the "moral" majority in america at your own peril.

i won't respond to the rest since it was mostly irrelevant, factless and bordering on a tirade. maybe tone down the rhetoric and stick to actual facts that are relevant to the topic. you might believe you're the most enlightened intellectual to ever walk the secular progressive walk, but you're not gonna win any converts engaging ppl in that manner. i am part of the majority in america. i don't need your side's approval on this issue - you need my side's. if you don't want the majority's approval, then be prepared for the status quo, or maybe even worse, a backlash, if you push with too much vitriol.

Re: Google’s Gay Agenda

snipergirl — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:39:10 -0000

congratulations fuckwit. First you whine on duncan's blog then you go over to a clearly pro-gay site in order to troll because you're losing over there.

You go on about how people have the right not to have things shoved down their throat yet you harrass and shove your agenda down everyone else's

how old are you again? 15?

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

snipergirl — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:22:40 -0000

let me put my earlier post in a form that you are less likely to misinterpret due to an inability to read:

how come:
1) homosexual behaviour has been legalised in most states in america since the 70's
2) gay marriage and civil unions are present in several of your states
if america is so devoutly anti-gay/queer/whatever as you claim?

surely if that were the case wouldn't they be outlawing homosexual relationships rather than the opposite? surely you wouldn't have a democratic nominee who is pro gay rights? surely the federal bill to ban gay marriage would have passed?

in fact, SURELY, you wouldn't have a wide variety of opinions about the whole issue represented throughout various areas and states in america! Like, say the fairly liberal north-east, california and other fairly educated areas of the US.

also:
how come:
1) you refer to native americans as savages
2) ignore the fact that american/judeo-christian culture has its roots in Europe, in particular in the UK
3) also conveniently ignore the fairly benign history that christianity had with homosexuality before St Thomas Aquinas
4) seem to pick and choose your american history to prove your point while ignoring the flagrantly obvious points which discount your ideas and prejudices
5) lump all non-straight activists under the same label when they often are campaigning for a different set of rights- i bet you don't even realise that some gay/queer activists are against gay marriage, do you?
6) persist in making an ass of yourself by completely misinterpreting context, wording and the finer points of debating
7) have such a stubbornly US-centric view when most of the (even WASP) world lives outside the US
if you are not in fact an uneducated, history-ignoring, backwards, incapable of logic, bigoted hick who has let himself be provoked into revealing himself as exactly the kind of person who the religious US right is stereotyped to be, within the US and outside it.

Let me repeat that: you have shown yourself to be an ignorant, bigoted stupid hick to the world. And you walked straight into that trap. Congratulations for furthering your cause!!

NEXT!

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

wolfsbayne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:02 -0000

Ooo trollin' for colon? You're kinda classy...or not.

Queer marriage is mostly *not* legal here in the U.S., contrary to your foreign misunderstanding. 41 states now have language defining marriage as between a man and a woman and 27 now have constitutional amendments defining marriage as such. A few more states have current ballot initiatives that will define marriage as between a man and a woman per their respective constitutions.

Nearly all of these states passed these resolutions since 1996. Prior to 1996, only 3 states felt they had to define marriage because back then people just inherently understood what marriage has always been here - between what? Oh yeah, a man and a woman.

The problem you and other secular progressives have with America is the worldview that goes along with 200+ years of judeo-christian morals. America is still "under God" in the minds of most of my fellow Americans, or they just don't like supporting queer marriage, or both.

Your comments simply don't follow the facts. Since you revert to name calling, and your statements use weak substance, this doesn't surprise me.

Arguing against an American with knowledge AND understanding (context is everything ain't it) of American law, history and traditions probably isn't your strong suit. Maybe you're used to dealing with Canadians pretending to be Americans. They always want to be like us. Who can blame them? Just kidding my Canadian friends, or am I?

Next please...

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

snipergirl — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:10:59 -0000

How come homosexuality is mostly legal and several of your states even have gay marriage and civil unions then? Seems like it's getting easier to be gay in America by leaps and bounds quite contrary to all of your posts about just how much America "hates the gays"

There's a hint hidden in here Wolfsbayne- it's "you can come out of the closet and take it up the ass too!"

Don't be shy now...

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

wolfsbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:42:50 -0000

again with the non-sequiturs? this is america we're talking about. we're not talking about any of the countries mentioned. but i think it's funny you threw in countries like luxembourg, as if that was your big "gotcha". i think you're inferring things that aren't stated in my posts. you can call me names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of americans are against the queer agenda. for the record, i'm not part of the religious right. don't assume that only the religious right isn't supportive of the queer agenda.

i don't have to agree with you. this is called disagreement. your secular progressive views may cause you to think anyone without your views is stupid, but i assure you, we're not. we're the majority in america and we still have the strongest and most innovative country in the history of the planet. do any of you secular progressives ever wonder why that is?

if you don't like america, don't live here or visit here. maybe you should all consider helping build up the empire of luxembourg.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

snipergirl — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:47:28 -0000

I keep thinking that I really love their "we'll do what we like thanks" attitude... but being disappointed that they don't actually apply that philosophy to other areas of their business practice- like say censoring search results in China.

I guess there are far less people in the religious right than there are in China. (sorry Wolfsbane but you really ARE in the minority as far as the western world is concerned. We're mostly secular, have a low birth rate and don't have neurosyphilis)

So I guess I'm kinda cynical on this one in a way...

... but hell it's still fucking awesome regardless

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

snipergirl — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:42:43 -0000

So Canada, the UK (where your esteemed culture is originally from), Spain, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, various US states, parts of Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Switzerland, Uruguay, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Switzerland have all legalised same sex unions.

Sorry dude, you're losing this one ;).

Oh and thanks for posting your last 2 comments- you've proved the point about your own stupidity which I think Duncan was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt about by removing. Nothing like a particularly stupid person from the so-called "religious right" making their case even more pig-headed and retarded.

*claps*

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

wolfsbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:02:35 -0000

i'm talking about anyone trying to negate standard "accepted" values. not queers specifically. largely, it's the whole of the secular progressives that push the queer agenda. your examples don't follow since they don't have anything to do with America, the nation. the american indians were deemed savages by almost every white person back then so they weren't really looked at as role models. and the ancient greeks weren't known for their morality either. bottom line, there are more ppl against homosexuality in this country than are for it, and that's just something you'll have to get used to. as much as you hate that fact, the majority doesn't like the gay agenda.