The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
-
Because Monroe was crazy:
-
@Karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
This is a grammatically correct sentence:
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo."#englishisweird.
So is this:
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
#notonlyweirderthanweimaginebutweirderthanwecanimagine.
-
@Karla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
We should be friends.
We would be a perpetual motion machine of thinly veiled sex jokes.
-
-
@DogsB said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
We would be a perpetual motion machine of thinly veiled sex jokes.
There are certain friends I cannot go out with without scaring off any female within a 12-mile radius because of exactly that reason.
-
@asdf you need to hang out with the right females
-
@Jarry said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
you need to hang out with the right females
Oh, I do. But even those make a difference between acceptable behavior for strangers and acceptable behavior for friends. ;)
-
@asdf as long as you can make the strangers laugh, everything is alright.
-
-
-
-
@Rhywden I've spent enough time with PHP that it doesn't trigger me any more. I DON'T HEAR ANY SCREAMING.
-
@Rhywden i was a mostly PHP dev until april. we learn to harden.
also, the monty python reference made my week
-
@Jarry said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
we learn to harden.
-
@Jarry said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Rhywden i was a mostly PHP dev until april. we learn to harden.
also, the monty python reference made my weekI read this as made me weak.
-
@Karla PHP has that effect too
-
-
Does Zack Weinersmith know of @accalia and @RaceProUK or is it just coincidence? You decide.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@DogsB the cat looks suitably unimpressed
-
@DogsB I hope this is a joke. Cats are obligate carnivores.
-
For this who can't quite make it out around the curve of the can:
NO ANIMAL HAS SUFFERED IN MAKING THIS QUALITY PRODUCT.
So they don't have any animal taste testers then?
-
-
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
For this who can't quite make it out around the curve of the can:
NO ANIMAL HAS SUFFERED IN MAKING THIS QUALITY PRODUCT.
So they don't have any animal taste testers then?
It wouldn't be humane. We need human testers for that!
-
@DogsB said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
NO ANIMAL HAS SUFFERED IN MAKING THIS QUALITY PRODUCT.
So they don't have any animal taste testers then?
It wouldn't be humane. We need human testers for that!
Bah, use lawyers for testing, nobody will care...
-
-
@flabdablet said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@cabrito said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
use lawyers for testing
No good, we need humans.
</trolling>
It may surprise some here, but there actually are humans who have to taste test pet foods and such. There are two primary reasons. First, the belief is that if it is safe for human consumption, then it should be safe for animal consumption (assuming there are no previously known species-specific contra-indicators). Secondly, the primary purpose behind many taste testers is to ensure that each batch tastes like the last batch, and the batch before that, and so on. To ensure this, samples of each batch are kept of each batch of a manufactured food and then taste testers compare the two to ensure consistent flavor. As some people with pets can confirm, animals may balk at a change in the taste of their food just as much as some people will.
Source: My wife who has a BS in Food Science, has stumbled across some of these job postings when she has looked for work over the years. She's seen listings for companies that specialize in dog biscuits, dry pet food, wet pet food, pretty much any animal consumable you can think of.
<trolling>
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I hope this is a joke.
Does PETA joke? (I mean, I know they are a joke...)
-
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It may surprise some here, but there actually are humans who have to taste test pet foods and such. There are two primary reasons. First, the belief is that if it is safe for human consumption, then it should be safe for animal consumption (assuming there are no previously known species-specific contra-indicators)
Sorry, what? I'm not following. How is that relevant?
There are tons of things that are safe for human consumption but not for animal consumption (chocolate, grapes, raisins, onions, garlic...). And even disregarding that, I'm not sure how it means you should have humans testing animal food. Maybe if we were testing whether their food is safe for us, but not the other way around.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
There are tons of things that are safe for human consumption but not for animal consumption (chocolate, grapes, raisins, onions, garlic...).
I believe I covered that:
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
(assuming there are no previously known species-specific contra-indicators)
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
And even disregarding that, I'm not sure how it means you should have humans testing animal food. Maybe if we were testing whether their food is safe for us, but not the other way around.
I'm not saying I agree with it, just what the common belief in that particular industry seems to be.
-
@abarker I still don't understand how it relates. It's a non sequitur. Even if people generally believe that pets should be able to eat our food, why would humans taste testing pet food be relevant?
Unless you're saying either the reverse, or that it's a bidirectional law; then it'd make sense.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
why would humans taste testing pet food be relevant?
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
each batch tastes like the last batch
-
@anotherusername You seem to be asking a question which is partially answered in my earlier post:
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Secondly, the primary purpose behind many taste testers is to ensure that each batch tastes like the last batch, and the batch before that, and so on. To ensure this, samples of each batch are kept of each batch of a manufactured food and then taste testers compare the two to ensure consistent flavor.
This is a job that could theoretically be done by groups of animals, but how do you determine what the different reactions of the animals mean? Not only that, but what happens if the some of the animals like the flawed batch better than the regular batch? With skilled human taste testers, they can often not only tell that a batch is different, but why it is different. Maybe the carrots were left out, or rice. Maybe there isn't enough chicken. Sometimes knowing what is wrong can be the difference between salvaging a batch and just throwing it out.
This is all important to ensure consistency, not just because a consistent product is good for business, but because regulation requires, in a way, consistency. Consumables, including pet foods, are required to include a list of ingredients on the label. Each batch is required, by regulation to contain the ingredients listed on the label (i.e., regulated consistency). Since a taste tester compares a new batch to an known good batch, they are able to confirm that something wasn't accidentally added or omitted.
-
@Luhmann @abarker yeah, I see how that reason is relevant; I don't see why the other one was, though.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@chozang said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@boomzilla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@FrostCat Ethical meat eating
No such thing.
No such thing as unethical meat eating, either.
Only an untruthful person could say that. What a shock, though, finding unethical people posting on WTDWTF!
-
@chozang said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@chozang said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@boomzilla said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@FrostCat Ethical meat eating
No such thing.
No such thing as unethical meat eating, either.
Only an untruthful person could say that. What a shock, though, finding unethical people posting on WTDWTF!
Wrong. Only an untruthful person could say that there's no such thing as ethical meat eating.
And while there might be such a thing as unethical animal slaughtering (such as, for instance, what PETA does), there is certainly not such a thing as unethical meat eating.
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
there is certainly not such a thing as unethical meat eating
I'd say that eating part of an animal while it watches is pretty unethical.
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
there is certainly not such a thing as unethical meat eating
I'd say that eating part of an animal while it watches is pretty unethical.
There are people into that kinda thing, or so I've heard.
Filed under: Let me introduce you...
-
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
there is certainly not such a thing as unethical meat eating
I'd say that eating part of an animal while it watches is pretty unethical.
Definitely in poor taste, but not unethical.
Still, I wouldn't eat the rocky mountain oysters out in the sheep pasture.
-
-
@anotherusername said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
His girl look like Michael Jackson.
Can't be - she has a nose.
-
@DogsB I have a copy of that book too! :D
-
@abarker said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
BS in Food Science
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of it...