The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread

[Hades]

This is how I start my day.

[SimSim]

That is awesome. I wish I had a cat that'd give me a high-five.

[Cataclysm]

[Hades]

[VirtualStranger]

LOL Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists

From the talk page:

Keep in mind that this page itself could be on a list of lists of lists of lists. And if we split that page up into two sub-lists, then we can enter those sub-lists into a list of lists of lists of lists of lists. Clearly, this is the best page since Disambiguation (disambiguation). Cakedamber (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a list of lists (of lists). Therefore, it should be included on a list of lists. Thus, this article should link to itself. 130.207.70.171 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we create an article named List of lists of lists that don't include themselves? 201.66.171.62 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At minimum, I think we can agree that this page is itself a list of lists of lists. It follows that our list of lists of lists is incomplete since it doesn't include itself in either the list of lists nor the list of lists of lists page. 141.156.47.45 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that this page does include itself, the question becomes this: can we prove that it is a comprehensive list of lists of lists? Cakedamber (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[Yla]

LOL Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists

From the talk page:

Keep in mind that this page itself could be on a list of lists of lists of lists. And if we split that page up into two sub-lists, then we can enter those sub-lists into a list of lists of lists of lists of lists. Clearly, this is the best page since Disambiguation (disambiguation). Cakedamber (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a list of lists (of lists). Therefore, it should be included on a list of lists. Thus, this article should link to itself. 130.207.70.171 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we create an article named List of lists of lists that don't include themselves? 201.66.171.62 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At minimum, I think we can agree that this page is itself a list of lists of lists. It follows that our list of lists of lists is incomplete since it doesn't include itself in either the list of lists nor the list of lists of lists page. 141.156.47.45 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that this page does include itself, the question becomes this: can we prove that it is a comprehensive list of lists of lists? Cakedamber (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's...
...
That's utterly stunny. I can't decide whether that's utterly stupid or utterly funny, so I hereby declare it stunny. It's like mainpage fundie quotes, it's horrible how people take this seriously and yet one can't look away and laughs at the absurdity of it.

[Captain Jack Harkness]

LOL Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lists_of_lists

From the talk page:

Keep in mind that this page itself could be on a list of lists of lists of lists. And if we split that page up into two sub-lists, then we can enter those sub-lists into a list of lists of lists of lists of lists. Clearly, this is the best page since Disambiguation (disambiguation). Cakedamber (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a list of lists (of lists). Therefore, it should be included on a list of lists. Thus, this article should link to itself. 130.207.70.171 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a computer science problem. Stevage 01:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we create an article named List of lists of lists that don't include themselves? 201.66.171.62 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At minimum, I think we can agree that this page is itself a list of lists of lists. It follows that our list of lists of lists is incomplete since it doesn't include itself in either the list of lists nor the list of lists of lists page. 141.156.47.45 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that this page does include itself, the question becomes this: can we prove that it is a comprehensive list of lists of lists? Cakedamber (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's...
...
That's utterly stunny. I can't decide whether that's utterly stupid or utterly funny, so I hereby declare it stunny. It's like mainpage fundie quotes, it's horrible how people take this seriously and yet one can't look away and laughs at the absurdity of it.

So it's like a Dolan comic?

[SpaceProg]

Yeah!  That's it!

[The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

Nooooooooooooo!

From the deletion page:

Strong keep per WP:LISTPURP and unanimous keep !votes at previous AfDs.

Christ, Wikipedia has it's own dialect now.

[Art Vandelay]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion.

Nooooooooooooo!

From the deletion page:

Strong keep per WP:LISTPURP and unanimous keep !votes at previous AfDs.

Christ, Wikipedia has it's own dialect now.

It's the internet, people'll initialise any phrase they use more than once a month, no matter how incomprehensible it makes things.

[Askold]

(I think it would be better without the "fuck the police." but that's just my opinion.)

[nickiknack]

This is a very tough decision, part of me wants to choose Star Wars, the other part wants to choose MLP:FIM

[Askold]

This is a very tough decision, part of me wants to choose Star Wars, the other part wants to choose MLP:FIM

Hmmm.... Event though I like many of those games/series/books/whatever I'm not sure if I'd like to live in those worlds as many of  them are hellholes. Constant warfare and threat of death, or even the extinction of your species. Some of those worlds don't even have indoor plumbing. Then again, even though Star trek is mostly an utopia I think choosing it would be taking the easy mode. (Especially since with the holodeck I could play in any of those other realities without the danger or other downsides.)


Hmm... Maybe One piece just because I like the utter insanity and awesomeness included.

[Kristine]

someone needs to carry this sign at every Westboro protest

[Captain Jack Harkness]

This is a very tough decision, part of me wants to choose Star Wars, the other part wants to choose MLP:FIM

Hmmm.... Event though I like many of those games/series/books/whatever I'm not sure if I'd like to live in those worlds as many of  them are hellholes. Constant warfare and threat of death, or even the extinction of your species. Some of those worlds don't even have indoor plumbing. Then again, even though Star trek is mostly an utopia I think choosing it would be taking the easy mode. (Especially since with the holodeck I could play in any of those other realities without the danger or other downsides.)


Hmm... Maybe One piece just because I like the utter insanity and awesomeness included.

Hey, if you're not an important character in Star Wars, you're likely to randomly die for no reason.  Especially if you're a generic Enterprise crew memeber.   That's not safe at all.