🔥 | Latest

Amazon, Drunk, and Internet: old man bangers @FindusPancake My mum was teaching first holy communion class, and a kid asked her "How many communions do vou have to do before you've eaten a whole Jesus?" 24/3/18, 8:48 am 10K Retweets 35.1K Likes sindri42: xanderbot13: gannayev: spiletta42: ragnell: danbensen: exxos-von-steamboldt: ralfmaximus: moogloogle: ralfmaximus: tobaeus: ralfmaximus: nyxetoile: antibutch: thats a valid question A communion wafer, according to the internet, is about .25g. Jesus was a healthy young man, who worked manual labor and walked everywhere. The average male in Biblical times was 5′1″ and about 110 pounds so call it 50kg or 50,000 grams. So 200,000 wafers to make up a whole Jesus. At one wafer a week that’s 3846 to eat a whole Jesus at weekly communion. If you went to Mass daily you could do it in under 550 years. 1000 communion wafers from Amazon costs $15, so acquiring a Jesus load would set you back about $3000 But that’s just the body. Jesus also bade his followers to drink his blood. How much of that Jesus communion wafer supply needs to be replaced with communion wine to account for his blood, and how much of that would need to be consumed to have drunk all his blood as well? The human body contains roughly 5 liters of blood. Communion wine costs about $66 for a case of 12 x 750 ml bottles (9000 ml). So half a case is 4500 ml, or close enough if Jesus was on the small side which is reasonable given what we know of the times. Thus, Jesus’ blood would be about 6 bottles of communion wine, costing $33. How much of his weight was his blood, now? We can bring down the wafer count. Osnap what an excellent question. Water has a specific gravity of 1.0 and weighs 1kg/liter. Wine has a specific gravity if 1.5 thus weighs 1.5kg per liter. 4.5L of wine would weigh 6.75kg or about 15 pounds. Reducing the wafer load by 6.75kg yields 43.25kg so call it 161,000 wafers or $2450 and change. @danbensen Full Metal Eucharist The Unholy Union of Catholic Tumblr and Math Tumblr This is one of those posts I will absolutely email to every pastor I know. @garpfloyd If you just buy a sack of wafers, that’s just bread. To get the transubstatntiation going you need to have a priest perform the full ritual over them. By which I mean an entire Mass for every like, plateful? If you cut out the songs and use pretty short readings you could probably get one churned out every half-hour or so…
Amazon, Drunk, and Internet: old man bangers
 @FindusPancake
 My mum was teaching first holy
 communion class, and a kid asked her
 "How many communions do vou have
 to do before you've eaten a whole
 Jesus?"
 24/3/18, 8:48 am
 10K Retweets 35.1K Likes
sindri42:
xanderbot13:

gannayev:


spiletta42:

ragnell:

danbensen:

exxos-von-steamboldt:


ralfmaximus:

moogloogle:

ralfmaximus:


tobaeus:


ralfmaximus:

nyxetoile:


antibutch:
thats a valid question
A communion wafer, according to the internet, is about .25g. Jesus was a healthy young man, who worked manual labor and walked everywhere. The average male in Biblical times was 5′1″ and about 110 pounds so call it 50kg or 50,000 grams. So 200,000 wafers to make up a whole Jesus. At one wafer a week that’s 3846 to eat a whole Jesus at weekly communion. If you went to Mass daily you could do it in under 550 years.


1000 communion wafers from Amazon costs $15, so acquiring a Jesus load would set you back about $3000

But that’s just the body. Jesus also bade his followers to drink his blood. How much of that Jesus communion wafer supply needs to be replaced with communion wine to account for his blood, and how much of that would need to be consumed to have drunk all his blood as well?


The human body contains roughly 5 liters of blood.
Communion wine costs about $66 for a case of 12 x 750 ml bottles (9000 ml).
So half a case is 4500 ml, or close enough if Jesus was on the small side which is reasonable given what we know of the times.
Thus, Jesus’ blood would be about 6 bottles of communion wine, costing $33.


How much of his weight was his blood, now? We can bring down the wafer count. 

Osnap what an excellent question.
Water has a specific gravity of 1.0 and weighs 1kg/liter. Wine has a specific gravity if 1.5 thus weighs 1.5kg per liter.
4.5L of wine would weigh 6.75kg or about 15 pounds.
Reducing the wafer load by 6.75kg yields 43.25kg so call it 161,000 wafers or $2450 and change.

@danbensen


Full Metal Eucharist

The Unholy Union of Catholic Tumblr and Math Tumblr
This is one of those posts I will absolutely email to every pastor I know.



@garpfloyd 

If you just buy a sack of wafers, that’s just bread. To get the transubstatntiation going you need to have a priest perform the full ritual over them. By which I mean an entire Mass for every like, plateful? If you cut out the songs and use pretty short readings you could probably get one churned out every half-hour or so…

sindri42: xanderbot13: gannayev: spiletta42: ragnell: danbensen: exxos-von-steamboldt: ralfmaximus: moogloogle: ralfmaximus: tob...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Confused, Life, and Radio: l Seven Astronauts describe what it feels like to be in space.. Charles Duke Imagine your body as a potato. Now, imagine no gravity acting on that potato, and bingo: That's what space feels like. Eugene Cernan It's so inspiring to see the entire globe shimmering below you and realize that this is where prog rock started. Bernard A. Harris Jr. The best part was getting your picture taken while deadifting a 3,000-pound barbell. There's no gravity, so it's super easy to lift, but you still look really strong Eileen Collins I was looking forward to being weightless, but gravity still works for me in space. It kind of sucks seeing al the other astronauts floating around while I'm stuck orn the floor. Mae Jemison There are a bunch of extra continents you can only see from space. So far, I've counted 18 continents, but find more all the time Barry Wilmore You never know true beauty until you see Earth from space, or true terror untl you hear someone knocking on the space station door from outside. You look through the porthole and see an astronaut, but all your crew is inside and accounted for. You use the comm to ask who it is and he says he's Ramirez returning from a repair mission, but Ramirez is sitting right next to you n the command module and he's just as confused as you are. When you tell the guy this over the radio he starts banging on the door louder and harder, begging you to let him in, saying he's the real Ramirez Meanwhile, the Ramirez inside with you is pleading to keep the airlock shut. It realy puts life on Earth into Terry W. Virts There's no golf there epicjohndoe: It’s Like Your Body Is A Potato
Confused, Life, and Radio: l
 Seven Astronauts describe what it feels like
 to be in space..
 Charles Duke
 Imagine your body as a potato. Now, imagine no
 gravity acting on that potato, and bingo: That's what
 space feels like.
 Eugene Cernan
 It's so inspiring to see the entire globe shimmering
 below you and realize that this is where prog rock
 started.
 Bernard A. Harris Jr.
 The best part was getting your picture taken while
 deadifting a 3,000-pound barbell. There's no gravity, so
 it's super easy to lift, but you still look really strong
 Eileen Collins
 I was looking forward to being weightless, but gravity
 still works for me in space. It kind of sucks seeing al
 the other astronauts floating around while I'm stuck orn
 the floor.
 Mae Jemison
 There are a bunch of extra continents you can only
 see from space. So far, I've counted 18 continents, but
 find more all the time
 Barry Wilmore
 You never know true beauty until you see Earth from
 space, or true terror untl you hear someone knocking
 on the space station door from outside. You look
 through the porthole and see an astronaut, but all your
 crew is inside and accounted for. You use the comm to
 ask who it is and he says he's Ramirez returning from
 a repair mission, but Ramirez is sitting right next to you
 n the command module and he's just as confused as
 you are. When you tell the guy this over the radio he
 starts banging on the door louder and harder, begging
 you to let him in, saying he's the real Ramirez
 Meanwhile, the Ramirez inside with you is pleading to
 keep the airlock shut. It realy puts life on Earth into
 Terry W. Virts
 There's no golf there
epicjohndoe:

It’s Like Your Body Is A Potato

epicjohndoe: It’s Like Your Body Is A Potato

Gravity, Isaac Newton, and Isaac: Isaac Newton year before he invented gravity (1686, colorized)
Gravity, Isaac Newton, and Isaac: Isaac Newton year before he invented gravity (1686, colorized)

Isaac Newton year before he invented gravity (1686, colorized)

Being Alone, Batman, and Books: LIBRARIAN HUMOR ISEE WHAT YOU DID THERE 0 dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: follow forthefuns for more funny stuff Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga.As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume.But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic.The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture. Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright?First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner.Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book.With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?! Say whaaaat?Well uhmLook at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out.If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text.And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle.Still grasping for straws, Wright?Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others.Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn. Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all. Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.   Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words. I’m sorry Edgeworth.I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory.Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt.And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do?While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction.The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture! Ack.(Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…)Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists!Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture!… I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no?Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture.Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations! Did everyone just ignore the library sticker?
Being Alone, Batman, and Books: LIBRARIAN HUMOR
 ISEE WHAT
 YOU DID THERE
 0
dracophile:

randomthingieshere:

pheenixwright:

invenblocker:

pheenixwright:

invenblocker:

pheenixwright:

invenblocker:

forthefuns:

follow forthefuns for more funny stuff

Your honor! Please direct your attention towards the manga.As you can see there are small pieces of paper sticking out of every volume.But no such paper is sticking out of the Batman comic.The reason? The Batman book doesn’t belong to the library. The photographer put it there to take a picture.

Once again making hasty assumptions, Wright?First of all, I’d like to direct the court’s attention to this particular spot, in the top right-hand corner.Notice how the words are blocking the top of the Batman book.With this in mind, how can you claim that there is “no such paper sticking out of the Batman comic”?!

Say whaaaat?Well uhmLook at the size of the paper pieces, they’re all sticking pretty far out.If there was paper in the batman comic, it would be big enough to stick up over the text.And while gravity does exist, it probably won’t make the paper do a 90 degree turn and just lean horisontally left at the middle.Still grasping for straws, Wright?Hypothetically, if there were a paper there, this picture would not be able to prove its presence. I’ve taken the liberty of drawing a diagram to illustrate my point. We are faced with three possibilities. It is possible that (1) the paper was simply tucked in deeper than the others.Paper is a soft material, Wright. It’s not unreasonable for it to do a (2) 90 degree turn. Or perhaps, (3) a paper does not exist there at all. Either way, you cannot prove your client innocent without sufficient evidence.  

Which, of course, is impossible thanks to the obtrusive words.



I’m sorry Edgeworth.I concede that I can’t disprove theory 1But the image you submited for theory 2 is contradictory.Look at the tilt of the other papers. They clearly prove how much the paper would tilt.And theory 3 is my point! Why would the library’s book not have this piece of paper when the other library books do?While you still have thory 1, there is another contradiction.The books are not in alphabetical order, this proves that the batman comic was placed there specifically for the picture!

Ack.(Perhaps I should’ve left the artistry to the forensic artist…)Now hold it right there! It doesn’t matter which direction the paper is going because it’s impossible to prove it even exists!Those theories are all the same! We do not have enough information to prove them. There could be an infinite amount of papers in there for all we know. I simply presented them only so that the court could better understand your baseless conjecture!… I suppose the order of the books do seem out of the ordinary. However, therein lies not just one possibility. Clearly, those are Japanese graphic novels, also known as “manga”. And the Batman comic book is a graphic novel, too, no?Seeing as it currently has only graphic novels in the shelf, it is possible that any other novels have simply not yet been restocked. Asserting whether or not this effect was deliberate is useless– there is no way of knowing if the photographer and the captioner are the same person, let alone their involvement in this picture.Face it Wright, you can’t prove any of these groundless accusations!

Did everyone just ignore the library sticker?

dracophile: randomthingieshere: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: pheenixwright: invenblocker: forthefuns: ...

Meme, Memes, and Gravity: mgflip.com Shout-out to those that understand the gravity of this meme (via @physmemes)
Meme, Memes, and Gravity: mgflip.com
Shout-out to those that understand the gravity of this meme (via @physmemes)

Shout-out to those that understand the gravity of this meme (via @physmemes)