This is a read-only collection of all the posts we could scrape from Archive.org. Pappy deleted the database at some point, and then after he died in 2018 we couldn't retrieve his credentials to obtain the original code. (We also couldn't get into his registrar account to fix the domain registration, so we lost it for a while there.)

Most of the old posts have broken links/images, so it isn't recommended to do more than read (and even then, most posts did not age well). We should have made the design mobile-friendly-ish but there are probably kinks. Feel free to let us know about any big issues. Especially any accessibility issues. For example, Pappy was colorblind, so we think he chose good contrast colors, but we can't be sure, and some users applied their own formatting at times.

Special callout to FlyingTim, who also passed away, at the end of 2021.

And another shoutout to DaBean, who passed in early 2023.

We hate to announce this, since we know many people with them (including some of us), but these "epic" beards are no longer acceptable. (Let's not forget that "epic" is unacceptable on its own.)

One of the two main reasons is that the majority of these guys don't take care of their great-big-bushy-beards or, if they do, they do so horribly. However, the more important reason is this puerile, "real men have beards!" assertion.

Guess what: Real men do whatever the fuck they want with their facial hair and don't brag about it.

Epic Beards: Unacceptable.

You brought it on yourselves, douchebags!

I am utterly ashamed with America right now. On Monday, June 30th, 2014 the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Burwell versus Hobby Lobby case. The result was a 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby et al. The general gist of the situation is kind of like this.

• The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandates that employers provide health coverage for their employees.
• Part of that coverage includes contraceptives which more conservative business owners consider similar enough to abortion as to cross a line dictated by their religions.
• In ruling for Hobby Lobby et al, the Supreme Court has allowed these corporations to opt out of having to pay for contraceptives.

The ruling was made with reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton back in the early 1990's. That act prevents the government from interfering in the exercise of religion.

Monday's decision was seen as a victory by not only the corporations with at least 50% of the controlling interest being held by one family with clear religious beliefs, but also by folks who don't like Obamacare.

Both of those sets of people are assholes.

I don't care about the Affordable Care Act. I don't care about free exercise of religious beliefs. I care about women having access to birth control and other things which are entirely within their scope of what's known to some people as "their own decision."

Some people have made the argument that if you can't afford birth control you shouldn't have sex. Those people are even bigger assholes than the previous two groups. At least for people concerned with religious beliefs and people concerned with sticking it to the Commander in Chief, being a part of either group isn't inclusive of being a dick. If you can honestly say something as cold as, "If she can't afford it then maybe she shouldn't spread her legs," then guess what? You are an exemplary example of a ruthless jerk!

Anyway, while I do support all of the stuff that women are concerned about there's a much simpler reason for my ignominy and it stems from an even more base thing that Americans seem to have a problem comprehending: logic.

These same corporations, during their hiring process, cannot discriminate against potential employees who don't share their religious values. THEREFORE, the very same law that prevents such treatment also prevents the corporation from forcing those values upon said employees since that would be the exact same discrimination.

That's the end of the fucking discussion. That trumps the exercise of religious freedom - which, by the way, is a thoroughly disingenuous rallying cry for anything that anyone does in its name. Want to have a discussion about abortion? That's fine, it's a perfectly acceptable topic. But don't operate a for-profit business in the United States if the issue means that much to you because you're hiring from a diverse crowd who, guaranteed, will not share your views.

There's talk of liberal idiots saying to burn down Hobby Lobby stores and whatnot, as well. If you're a person of sound mind and you see talk of such things, please take appropriate action and report it. This is a tremendously important issue but it certainly doesn't warrant violence or vandalism.

Hey jerks, before I get into things, let me just make it known that I'm aware my choice of title for this rant is kind of counterproductive. It also grabs attention.

Okay: my special lady showed me this article that a friend of hers posted on Facebook the other day. If you don't want to read it, it's an article about public breastfeeding. It contained this sentence:

Anytime the issue of public breastfeeding is discussed, there is always a man who makes the statement that if a woman is allowed to "whip out her breast" in public, he should be allowed to do the same thing with his dick.

It then showed some screenshots of dudes saying pretty much that, and listed some pretty good reasons why penises do not equal breasts. I commend the article for taking on such a ridiculous comparison and they did a fine job explaining why that conflation is absurd. Despite my desire to do so, I could not do a better job. I did, however, wish to have a go at the opposition to public breastfeeding in general, since I have a particularly useful point of view on it.

This is quite clever. I approve.

Aside from my idiotic brethren who spout fallacious arguments like the one I quoted above, there are still innumerable people who are a little less malicious in their wording but nonetheless walking around with asinine views on the matter. One of the most common "less aggressive" things that people tend to say is, "Why don't women just cover up?" They are referring to nursing shawls, pieces of fabric mothers drape over themselves and the baby which allow breastfeeding to occur in a more covert manner. There are many women who prefer to do so and that is perfectly fine but nursing shawls, and the request - sometimes, the demand - to cover up centers around what I consider to be an even bigger fallacy than the penis::breast claptrap.

What you'll hear in almost all instances - be it a woman at a restaurant breastfeeding, a woman on the subway, a woman on a park bench - is that the breastfeeding is either offending someone or making them uncomfortable. "I'm sorry, miss, but your nursing is causing these other people discomfort." I've got two pretty simple words for the people who see a woman nursing and think it's gross or uncomfortable:

Grow up.

You see, I used to feel the same way as recently as five years ago. I hated kids, I hated parents, I hated everything having to do with children. As an extension of those things I so loathed, breastfeeding was just another unacceptable injustice I had to endure from "breeders." Aside from that, I was also of the opinion that it was gross. If I saw it, my internal monologue said, "Yuck, that is disgusting."

Well guess what happened? That's right, per my advice above, I stopped acting like a stupid child and put on my grown up pants. I'll have you know that some things haven't changed: I still don't think babies are cute, I'm still annoyed when my friends with kids post pictures of those kids constantly on Facebook, and I still get annoyed by screaming children when I'm in public. The big difference is that now I just deal with it. I stopped sexualizing everything around me and moved on, like an adult.

That's another part of the problem that society seems to have. There's nothing actually gross or offensive about a baby nursing. If I, a person who does not find babies to be cute, sees no problem with the act then that should probably be a pretty big sign. However, large swaths of people view breasts sexually and that is the only context they can see them in. From that point of view, I guess I can see how they would then jump to such a non-sexual activity being kind of off-putting. You guessed it, though: that's immature.

So mothers, nurse your babies in public. Here's a nice list of the laws and such surrounding the matter.

NORTHRIDGE, CA — In many countries, especially in America, a culture war is being fought over the myriad canines that are considered to be pit bulls. After tragic events like attacks upon children and the now-infamous fighting rings, the animals have gotten a pretty bad name in the press and advocates have long fought to change public perceptions. The most difficult hurdle has been the argument that the breed is violent by nature, and that opinion has often been criticized by owners and allies alike: Don't blame the breed, blame the owners. Proponents of legislation specifically aimed at the breed, however, received some backing on Wednesday as researches at California State University Northridge released a study after having located a gene that looks to cause aggression in pit bulls.

Dubbed the "violence" gene, researchers were able to locate it by collecting DNA samples at the dogs' births and analyzing it for the gene variant. Owners of over 1,500 dogs submitted their pets for the five year test and were required to keep track of its aggressiveness in all kinds of situations. Regardless of training and environment, the animals with the variant of the gene were recorded as having violent outbursts - some even resulting in actual attacks. There were a total of 714 pit bulls submitted to the program and all of them were included in the 722 total instances of the strain.

Charles Snowdon, director of the program's research, said: "Our results would indicate that, unfortunately, this incredibly popular animal is genetically coded to be violent."

He added: "It is still important to look at ownership carefully because dogs who exhibit these aggressive behaviors can still be managed."

Conservative talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, long known for his support of banning the dogs, praised the research. "If it wasn't apparent to the public that these are dangerous animals requiring strict laws, this research proves it." He pointed, also, to information from the city of Boston, which saw 661 dog bites in the last two years - of which 150 were by pit bulls. "When a fourth of the bites come from these dogs, that's a clear indicator."

The ASPCA's science advisor, Dr. Steven Zawistowski, responded to the study: "California State University Northridge is well known for its research on animal behavior. However, if you believe the results of this study I would suggest you probably aren't paying attention."

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two new studies, from the National Institute of Mental Health and Ohio State University, have returned some interesting information about American social media users. According to the research, scientists were able to find a correlation between enjoyment of articles like, "23 Soul-Crushing Problems Only Left-Handed People Will Understand," and quizzes like, "Which 'Avengers' Character Are You?" that are commonly found on web sites like Buzzfeed.com and Distractify.com with things like lower than average IQ and mental disorders.

In one study, Ohio State's Chien-Liang Lin and Dr. Douglas Sharre observed the daily habits of 148 participants who routinely shared links to articles from such sites with their friends on platforms like Facebook or Twitter. They were able to analyze this data for any commonalities and found that 141 of those study subjects had an IQ of less than 70.

"This kind of result generally would indicate that these web sites gear their articles toward people bordering on having mild intellectual disability," Dr. Sharre explained. Their findings were backed up by a control group of 148 users known to have higher than average IQs. "We noticed that all but one of those control subjects expressed frustration by simply viewing the title of the link," Sharre indicated.

Scott Stroup, the author of the NIMH study, revealed further illumination on the topic. According to their findings, an overwhelming number of the participants in their study had been diagnosed with depression. In many cases, Stroup said, "the people for whom depression was marked experienced a euphoric state when taking the quizzes these web sites craft." Stroup was quick to expand, however, that the enjoyment did not last long. "Many of our 320 surveyed individuals were sitting at home or at their desks during work, and their depression was generally triggered by dissatisfaction at those situations."

The NIMH utilized around 300 participants with no known history of mental disorders. Institute Director Thomas R. Insel, M.D., had this to say about their results: "There was no marked observation of happiness from the control group, which would confirm that these web site articles have little to no effect on individuals not suffering from a mental illness."

Alternative studies by other groups found, interestingly enough, that users who frequently visited and shared articles from NPR.org and TheOnion.com had higher than average IQs, while readers of FoxNews.com possessed only a rudimentary understanding of politics, though no link to any of those data could be located.

Jimmy Fallon has officially crossed the line. You brought this upon yourselves, continually sharing his cutesy sketches.

Nobody cares about lip sync battles and Justin Timberlake needs to stop associating with him or risk ending up in the same territory.

I was going to write a really long diatribe about how the United "States" are done for.

I was going to do that because of the combination of asinine Supreme Court rulings, the death of Net Neutrality, and the government thinking things like drone strikes or spying on its citizens are okay. In my mind, it would have been a magnificent piece that detailed the various failings of the country and some thoughts on when it all started to go wrong. I'd even planned to end with some humor: joking about how things were going to change when I became Supreme Dictator of Earth.

I became really depressed, however, as I was writing. This happened because things aren't going to change. The U.S. is just going to keep getting worse. Liberals and conservatives are going to disagree and divide themselves further, the same people on the effective payrolls of the same big businesses are going to keep getting elected and passing lousy laws that harm the people, and whichever President is in charge is going to keep making grandiose speeches about how Americans are a strong people who innovate and succeed.

The republic has failed. The United "States" are no longer a thing: corporations are king, and the regular people who continually get screwed over by them let it happen.

I was going to say something about how you should always vote the incumbent out of office, and how I envisioned that leading to politicians actually doing the right thing but that's delusional.

This isn't a country of innovators and people who succeed, nor one that promises every person a fair shot. This is a country of unethical thieves with the means to keep themselves in power.

America sucks, end of story.

I had to get some money out of the ATM today. (A Bank of America ATM!)

The bank I went to has the building, then a teller lane, then the parking lot, so there is a crosswalk over the teller lane. There's also a huge sign that says, "Please do not block crosswalk." If you can't figure out why that sign is there, even without a visual depiction of the area I'm talking about, you may not wish to read further.

I turned to walk back to my car after getting the money and there was a girl - like, mid twenties or late twenties, on her cell phone with one of those small dogs in her lap. I laughed at the situation because - first of all - since when do people younger than sixty use the drive up teller and - secondly - it isn't a particularly small sign. This is completely ignoring the fact that crosswalks are for pedestrians to assume some pseudo safety across a road that vehicles use. So I decided to take a picture, got her lined up properly with the sign in the picture and everything. She then rolled down her window and said, "What the fuck are you taking a picture of?" The dog began barking immediately. I'm pretty sure she'd lowered the phone, thus making it so that whoever was on the other end was just hearing yips.

I laughed and pointed to the sign, which prompted her to say, "So what, asshole?"

I said, "It's funny because the sign is clearly visible and yet you're blocking the crosswalk." Because it is funny.

Her response? "That's fucking rude," with one of those frustrated exhalations of air.

My reply: "It isn't rude. Either you didn't see the sign or you don't care: it's funny."

Then came the golden question, the one I used to love getting when I worked customer service since I have so many ways of saying yes to it: "Are you calling me stupid?"

I made a quick summation of her character and explained, "If you had a sign in your bathroom for male guests to either not pee on the seat or to clean up after themselves, and you found pee on the seat, what would you think about the guy who did it?" She was able to pick up what I was putting down and appropriately cursed at me, 800 words per second.

When she finally wound down she finished with, "You dumb shit, like you're mister perfect!"

I couldn't have asked for a better declaration. I said, "Well if the situation was reversed then I would either say, 'Oh man, I didn't see the sign, how dumb of me!' or 'Aw shucks, you caught me not caring about the sign!' and then I'd have backed up and that would have been the end of it."

Probably guessing I'd made her look stupid, the obvious only response is an ad hominem attack: "Whatever. Fuck you, faggot."

This caused me to laugh even more and I said, "Yes, since being a civil human is a characteristic that only gay people have." Before I could say anything else, though, she peeled off! Didn't even wait for the car in front of her to move up to the window - the girl simply drove off angrily!

It was then I realized: Shit! I didn't get the picture!

My only solace is that she probably was angry for the whole rest of the day, maybe composed a Tweet about it or something with hashtags along the lines of douchebag or hatersgonnahate. Oh, 'Murrica.

This is the second year in a row we've had to issue an emergency "not acceptable" update.

We know what "turnt" means. It's dumb. It sounds dumb. You're dumb for using it.

Now stop.