The Truth About Chuck Norris


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby gh » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:26 pm

"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:53 pm

gh wrote:"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)


It's really dumb when junior high kids do this Chuck Norris crap ... when adults participate in it .... well...
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jhc68 » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:37 pm

malmo is right... still, I was amused by the idea that every piece of furniture in Chuck Norris' house is a TotalGym !
jhc68
 
Posts: 3290
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bambam » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:52 pm

malmo will think I'm dumb but I thought most of them were pretty funny
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Postby malmo » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:06 pm

bambam wrote:malmo will think I'm dumb but I thought most of them were pretty funny


The bell distribution curve does slope to both sides...

I've got another knee slapper for you.... ready?

"I'm Rick James, bitch!"

Repeat ad nauseum.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby polevaultpower » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:44 pm

We did the Chuck Norris thing on PV Power 2 years ago: http://polevaultpower.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6947

That thread somehow became highly googled for certain Chuck Norris related phrases and brought in quite a few page views :roll:
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby gh » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:38 am

malmo wrote:
gh wrote:"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)


It's really dumb when junior high kids do this Chuck Norris crap ... when adults participate in it .... well...


wow! did the Grinch already piss on your Christmas Tree or what?
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:15 am

gh wrote:
malmo wrote:
gh wrote:"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)


It's really dumb when junior high kids do this Chuck Norris crap ... when adults participate in it .... well...


wow! did the Grinch already piss on your Christmas Tree or what?


Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. Never funny no matter how many times you repackage them. They're one step above bodily function jokes on the evolutionary scale.

Here's one you might like. "Hill, c'mon over here kid. Pull on my finger."
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:18 am

malmo wrote:The bell distribution curve does slope to both sides...


What does the bell curve have to do with the subjectivity of humour?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby jamese1045 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:21 am

gh wrote:"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)


all based on an American macho male perception of "badness" and aggressiveness, contrary to the tenets of the "art" form he practices. They confuse their fantasy of the tough-guy hero with the anti-hero.

Mr. Norris seems to me to be a gentle soul playing a role that does not reflect either his own persona or the training and philosophy of the art he practices. But the show goes on in the showbiz marketplace and that's what has "legs."
Last edited by jamese1045 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby gh » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:27 am

malmo wrote:....
Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...


If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby tafnut » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:27 am

malmo wrote:Chuck Norris jokes are . . . Never funny no matter how many times you repackage them.

I am NOT trying to be contentious here, really, but certainly you understand that humor (like beauty in the eye of the beholder) is TOTALLY dependent on the the receiver's unique nature and nurture and therefore far, far, far beyond ANYONE'S ability to 'criticize'. I HATED Borat and the Austin Powers movies, but I sure 'get' that other people found them hilarious. I good-naturedly kid them about their cretinous 'taste', but you sound serious in your dismissal of Chuck Norris/Jack Bauer jokes, which (and I'm sure this will be NO surprise to you :D ) I DO find funny!
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:06 am

gh wrote:
malmo wrote:....
Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...


If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.


I'm not the resident ex-playground aide here.

[link removed by request]

Should you find the link patently offensive, you can go to Google then type in "Bill Brasky" then click on "video".
Last edited by malmo on Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:41 am

Daisy wrote:
malmo wrote:The bell distribution curve does slope to both sides...


What does the bell curve have to do with the subjectivity of humour?


The line itself was funny.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:05 am

MJD wrote:
Daisy wrote:
malmo wrote:The bell distribution curve does slope to both sides...


What does the bell curve have to do with the subjectivity of humour?


The line itself was funny.


Sure, definitely, a retort worth saving for a rainy day.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby txrunnergirl » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:20 am

malmo wrote:
gh wrote:"400 Facts About The World's Greatest Human"

http://celebslam.buzznet.com/chuck-norris

(guessing some of these are probably crossovers from Jack Bauer stuff we've seen)


It's really dumb when junior high kids do this Chuck Norris crap ... when adults participate in it .... well...


Mike Huckabee must think it's funny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8
txrunnergirl
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby gh » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:30 am

malmo wrote:
gh wrote:
malmo wrote:....
Chuck Norris jokes are like Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky jokes. ...


If I had the vaguest idea who Jason Rexing and Bill Brasky might be I might get your point. I guess I don't spend nearly as much time in the schoolyard as you do.


I'm not the resident ex-playground aide here.



Should you find the link patently offensive, you can go to Google then type in "Bill Brasky" then click on "video".


you know full well that youtubing of network TV is 100% verboten here; please quit being a serial offender.

If i gave a shit who Jason Rexing or Bill Brasky were I'd have goggled long ago. (Rexing as a thread title on letsrun is coming to mind though)
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Tue Nov 27, 2007 11:13 am

gh wrote:you know full well that youtubing of network TV is 100% verboten here; please quit being a serial offender.


I don't get this obsession with forbidden youtube links? I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule? Why youtube links to broadcast media = BAD and links to other intellectual/creative properties = GOOD? At best, it seems like Animal Farm logic to me.

I'm not sure where the land mines are ... is this link OK or nicht sehr gut?

http://finance.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=GOOG
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby guru » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:38 pm

malmo wrote:[ I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule?


As gh has explained before when I have raised the same point(i.e. - no legal exposure) T&FN would not appreciate it if THEIR material was used without their consent so they don't encourage others intellectual property being pirated here on this board.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:27 pm

guru wrote:
malmo wrote:[ I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content, than the publisher of a boutique sporting magazine? If you would be so kind, please explain the logic behind the rule?


As gh has explained before when I have raised the same point(i.e. - no legal exposure) T&FN would not appreciate it if THEIR material was used without their consent so they don't encourage others intellectual property being pirated here on this board.


Then the onus is on them to prove the infringement. No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:53 pm

youtube is still a "pup" as an evolving business

since they became "commercial" it's obvious they've put their foot down to remove copyrighted vids, but seeing as they have substantially more vids being posted/day than they have the staff to remove/day, it looks like it will still take some time to reach an "equilibrium" & then into their favor when more copyright vids get removed then being put on/day

getting enough staff/smart enough software will get them there, but no point abetting a "crime" until they reach that
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Postby guru » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:59 pm

eldrick wrote:youtube is still a "pup" as an evolving business

since they became "commercial" it's obvious they've put their foot down to remove copyrighted vids,


That's not entirely true, as they are not required by US law to remove user-uploaded content unless they are asked by the copyright holder. Yes, they are quick to respond on such requests, but they do not remove content "on their own".

That of course is the key. Since they are not the content provider, but simply a "forum", they have no legal exposure unless they do not respond to copyright holders requests to remove content.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby tafnut » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:01 pm

malmo wrote:I would think that youtube, owned by one of the largest corporations in the world would know a little bit more about copyright law, and hosting such content

All I know is that I frequently find youtube content one day, and it's gone the next. Just because it (and dozens of thousands of other videos) is ON youtube, does not mean they approve or even KNOW it's there! They certainly can't verify every video's 'legality' on a constant basis.

That said, the line is so blurry now that I have virually given up trying to understand what IS and what IS NOT OK. I wish the old www rule was in effect: "everything is free, because it's there!" I was a lot happier BEFORE I found out I was a Napster criminal! :(
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby bad hammy » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:28 pm

malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.

It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby eldrick » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:51 pm

guru wrote:
eldrick wrote:youtube is still a "pup" as an evolving business

since they became "commercial" it's obvious they've put their foot down to remove copyrighted vids,


That's not entirely true, as they are not required by US law to remove user-uploaded content unless they are asked by the copyright holder


copyright holders becoming increasingly dumb with ever increasing commercialism ???
eldrick
 
Posts: 14147
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: 19th hole st andrews

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby malmo » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:00 pm

bad hammy wrote:
malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.

It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .


Wrong again. (as usual) Rubes poking their noses where it doesn't belong are the assholes. (actually I don't even believe that)

Give it a rest.

You still refuse to actually participate in a thread.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Truth About Chuck Norris

Postby gh » Wed Nov 28, 2007 12:42 pm

bad hammy wrote:
malmo wrote:No different than some rube asking me for "artistic credits" to photos that are my personal property. If you don't know that infringement exists, then it's none of your goddamn business to ask.

It's a malmo post so of course he's being an asshole for no reason . . .


Whoa-whoa-whoa! Did you not see my post the other day regarding civility? This kind of name-calling WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

Any repeat and your Xmas vacation starts early.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:14 pm

Whoa-whoa-whoa! I missed your civility memo.

So to clarify: BEING rude, offensive and churlish for no reason is OK; CALLING someone on it (in this case with a slight but common vulgarity) is not.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:49 pm

There would appear to be a double standard at play here.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby LaughTrack » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:20 pm

bad hammy wrote:Whoa-whoa-whoa! I missed your civility memo.

So to clarify: BEING rude, offensive and churlish for no reason is OK; CALLING someone on it (in this case with a slight but common vulgarity) is not.


Let me think about it......... YES! :lol:
LaughTrack
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:34 am
Location: Is everything!

Postby gh » Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:59 pm

bad hammy wrote:Whoa-whoa-whoa! I missed your civility memo.

So to clarify: BEING rude, offensive and churlish for no reason is OK; CALLING someone on it (in this case with a slight but common vulgarity) is not.


Sorry, I don't consider that a "slight" vulgarity; please don't use it again.
gh
 
Posts: 46314
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby bad hammy » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:17 pm

Thanks - fair enough. I'll rephrase my offending comment:

It's a malmo post so of course he's being rude, offensive and churlish for no reason . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:31 pm

bad hammy wrote:Thanks - fair enough. I'll rephrase my offending comment:

It's a malmo post so of course he's being rude, offensive and churlish for no reason . . .


What the hell is wrong with you? Didn't the man just tell you to stop it?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:37 pm

malmo wrote:What the hell is wrong with you?

The only thing wrong with me is that I take offense to you coming on here with your typically rude and condescending posts. I don't care who you are pointing your barbs at, it sours just about every thread you enter, almost always without cause.

The photo credit thread was a great example. Some very rare poster wants to give some photog an attaboy for what he considered a nice picture, and you went off on him. And still are earlier in this post.

It is tiring and the boards would be better off without it, regardless of whatever slight glimmer of useful info you occasionally post here.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:44 pm

bad hammy wrote:The photo credit thread was a great example. Some very rare poster wants to give some photog an attaboy for what he considered a nice picture, and you went off on him. And still are earlier in this post.


I just looked back, seemed like a completely innocent comment. More trying to start a conversation than make any accusation.

bad hammy wrote:It is tiring and the boards would be better off without it, regardless of whatever slight glimmer of useful info you occasionally post here.


Malmo, this is about right. You bring good content to the boards but the barbs sour it, especially when unprovoked. How can you still be smarting over the photog request?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:45 pm

bad hammy wrote:
malmo wrote:What the hell is wrong with you? Didn't the man just tell you to stop it?

The only thing wrong with me is that I take offense to you coming on here with your typically rude and condescending posts. I don't care who you are pointing your barbs at, it sours just about every thread you enter, almost always without cause.

The photo credit thread was a great example. Some very rare poster wants to give some photog an attaboy for what he considered a nice picture, and you went off on him. And still are earlier in this post.

It is tiring and the boards would be better off without it, regardless of whatever slight glimmer of useful info you occasionally post here.


I didn't "go off" on anyone on that thread. You are projecting your own miserable mindset into my posts. It was YOU who chose to sour that thread, not me.

Here's the entire exchange. Straightforward until bad hammy decided to ruin it, as he always does.

jamese1045 wrote:Good photo! Credit?

malmo wrote:What's the question?

jamese1045 wrote:Photo credits are s.o.p. If it's a picture you made, then well done! :D

malmo wrote:Why would "SOP" apply?

jamese1045 wrote:I only asked whether you made the photo or who did to offer my compliments. I don't know you, your age, background, nothing. Standard operating procedure when displaying photos publically is to show credit for the artistic ownership.

I could have been clearer and I am sorry to have caused any confusion.
jim

malmo wrote:"Artistic ownership" -- surely you jest? You've made a lot of presumptions there. Where I come from when someone gives you a photo, you don't ask them for their SSN and drivers license. You just say "thanks." Which I did.

bad hammy (a classic case of projection) wrote:Leave it to malmo to be rude and combative on even the most innocuous points. Nice way to once again sour another thread, your apparent raison d'être . .
Last edited by malmo on Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:59 am, edited 4 times in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:48 pm

Daisy wrote:
Malmo, this is about right. You bring good content to the boards but the barbs sour it, especially when unprovoked. How can you still be smarting over the photog request?


Look in the mirror pal. I am not "smarting" over any request. It was none of the guys business, nor is it any of your business. End of story.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tafnut » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:59 pm

malmo wrote:nor is it any of your business.


My business is circumference. An ignorance, not of customs, but if caught with the dawn, or the sunset see me, myself the only kangaroo among the beauty, sir, if you please, it afflicts me, and I thought that instruction would take it away. - Emily Dickinson
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby malmo » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:02 pm

tafnut wrote:
malmo wrote:nor is it any of your business.


My business is circumference. An ignorance, not of customs, but if caught with the dawn, or the sunset see me, myself the only kangaroo among the beauty, sir, if you please, it afflicts me, and I thought that instruction would take it away. - Emily Dickinson


That didn't take long.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:09 pm

malmo wrote:I didn't "go off" on anyone on that thread. You are projecting your own miserable views into my posts. It was YOU who chose to sour that thread, not me. Go away.

Now I could say, as you've said before, "look in the mirror, pal." But in this area you're blind and so I will not mock the afflicted . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests