Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Thescottman

Rank #13608 on Comments
no avatar Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius
Offline
Send mail to Thescottman Block Thescottman Invite Thescottman to be your friend
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 20
Date Signed Up:8/07/2010
Last Login:12/20/2014
Location:Melbourne
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#13608
Highest Content Rank:#14601
Highest Comment Rank:#3497
Content Thumbs: 86 total,  143 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 1694 total,  1854 ,  160
Content Level Progress: 20% (1/5)
Level 7 Content: New Here → Level 8 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 70% (70/100)
Level 216 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 217 Comments: Comedic Genius
Subscribers:0
Content Views:19457
Times Content Favorited:19 times
Total Comments Made:562
FJ Points:1937

latest user's comments

#25 - they do not exist in real life 05/17/2012 on SCP-639 0
#41 - yes but his point still stands as morbid is an adjective to sa… 05/17/2012 on Walk it off +1
#8 - 5 mins before hand 05/17/2012 on Would Bang +13
#90 - That's the same thing I was thinking 05/16/2012 on Horror +1
#100 - thank you for that 05/16/2012 on Trolling Cows 0
#18 - awww the apes have learnt how to groom each other 05/15/2012 on Awwwwwwwwwwwwww... +1
#64 - that'd be awesome  [+] (4 new replies) 05/15/2012 on Trolling Cows 0
User avatar #99 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
just did
User avatar #73 - stallwallwriter (05/15/2012) [-]
I've read them elsewhere, would totally recommend. They're like good creepy pasta in that you're impressed with the writing and orginality, but also feel like the world is a terrible place.
User avatar #97 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3695709/Charmander+Diaries+Part+1/
posted them now, I'll try and put links for all them in the description
#100 - Thescottman (05/16/2012) [-]
thank you for that
#57 - what is this?  [+] (8 new replies) 05/15/2012 on Trolling Cows 0
User avatar #63 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
Its called the Charmander Diaries or something like that. I have around 5 of them describing how horrible his life with ash was. I can post them all if you want.
User avatar #72 - hippymofuka (05/15/2012) [-]
please do
User avatar #98 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
just did
#64 - Thescottman (05/15/2012) [-]
that'd be awesome
User avatar #99 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
just did
User avatar #73 - stallwallwriter (05/15/2012) [-]
I've read them elsewhere, would totally recommend. They're like good creepy pasta in that you're impressed with the writing and orginality, but also feel like the world is a terrible place.
User avatar #97 - StrongestElk (05/15/2012) [-]
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/3695709/Charmander+Diaries+Part+1/
posted them now, I'll try and put links for all them in the description
#100 - Thescottman (05/16/2012) [-]
thank you for that
#175 - I second the above statement 05/15/2012 on - 0
#19 - Picture 05/14/2012 on Doppleganger +2
#90 - covenant i think thats how its spelt  [+] (1 new reply) 05/14/2012 on Every night +2
User avatar #91 - paradenoire (05/14/2012) [-]
the covenant yep, great movie!
#26 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 05/13/2012 on Don't Bully, Children! +1
#147 - frogcatcher (05/14/2012) [-]
#20 - Picture 05/13/2012 on What I do when my... +6
#67 - for the song 05/13/2012 on Pokemon Kanto Starter... +2
#222 - Læffy yay 05/13/2012 on Finland, wtf? +1
#21 - pretty much the graph doesn't show that there was no advanceme…  [+] (2 new replies) 05/11/2012 on Christian Dark Ages -1
User avatar #22 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
I disagree. I would also like to point out that with science, certain discoveries aren't possible without others coming first. For example, we could not advance quantum theory without first realizing that there exist atomic and subatomic particles. So saying that progress before the dark ages was at a higher level and then dropped down is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that progress stagnated during that time, but that wasn't the case.
#55 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
The reason why that graph is made that way is due to the Christian Churches. They would, in fact, scorn many scientific discoveries and attempt to prevent them.
This lead to loss of knowledge, and science development actually decreasing at certain points. Quite a trick to pull off.
Of course, some did advance later on. But at first, it was brought down by the churches. Questioning God back then was a sin punishable by death.
#19 - as you said read "there was next to or no scientific …  [+] (5 new replies) 05/11/2012 on Christian Dark Ages +2
#34 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
I didn't read that, but it looked real smart, so I'll thumb it up.
User avatar #20 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, your comment was hard to follow, can you summarize what you were saying?
#21 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
pretty much the graph doesn't show that there was no advancement but there was very little advancement in that time
User avatar #22 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
I disagree. I would also like to point out that with science, certain discoveries aren't possible without others coming first. For example, we could not advance quantum theory without first realizing that there exist atomic and subatomic particles. So saying that progress before the dark ages was at a higher level and then dropped down is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that progress stagnated during that time, but that wasn't the case.
#55 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
The reason why that graph is made that way is due to the Christian Churches. They would, in fact, scorn many scientific discoveries and attempt to prevent them.
This lead to loss of knowledge, and science development actually decreasing at certain points. Quite a trick to pull off.
Of course, some did advance later on. But at first, it was brought down by the churches. Questioning God back then was a sin punishable by death.
#17 - yes, you make an ass out of you and me... but from my poin…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/11/2012 on Christian Dark Ages -2
User avatar #18 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
My issue with this picture is not that people are hating on Christianity - that is your right and decision. It is that nobody bothers to check their facts before coming to a conclusion. It is well known that many great minds were some kind of christian therefore belief in God does not equal lack of scientific progress. Also, a simple google search will show that during the times during which there was no progress, 500 AD through 1500 AD, there were plenty of scientific discoveries and progress.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

#19 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
as you said read
"there was next to or no scientific progress"
and from the picture we are talking about Christian maybe only Anglo saxon or any other cultures that they may have been in contact with namely the crusades 11th 12th 13th (minus 11th century as none of the findings actually come during or after the crusades) century so taken that i cut anything that actually had a name that was not of Anglo Saxon heritage before that time and here are the things they learnt:
1121 – Al-Khazini: variation of gravitation and gravitational potential energy at a distance; the decrease of air density with altitude
Ibn Bajjah (Avempace): discovery of reaction (precursor to Newton's third law of motion)
Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel): relationship between force and acceleration (a vague foreshadowing of a fundamental law of classical mechanics and a precursor to Newton's second law of motion)
Averroes: relationship between force, work and kinetic energy
1220–1235 – Robert Grosseteste: rudimentals of the scientific method (see also: Roger Bacon)
1242 – Ibn al-Nafis: pulmonary circulation and circulatory system
Theodoric of Freiberg: correct explanation of rainbow phenomenon
William of Saint-Cloud: pioneering use of camera obscura to view solar eclipsesBefore 1327 – William of Ockham: Occam's Razor
Oxford Calculators: the mean speed theorem
Jean Buridan: theory of impetus
Nicole Oresme: discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction1494 - Luca Pacioli: first codification of the Double-entry bookkeeping system, which slowly developed in previous centuries
from that they learnt but they didn't expand which is actually said in the graph where it doesn't just have a gap within history saying absolutely nothing was learnt
#34 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
I didn't read that, but it looked real smart, so I'll thumb it up.
User avatar #20 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, your comment was hard to follow, can you summarize what you were saying?
#21 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
pretty much the graph doesn't show that there was no advancement but there was very little advancement in that time
User avatar #22 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
I disagree. I would also like to point out that with science, certain discoveries aren't possible without others coming first. For example, we could not advance quantum theory without first realizing that there exist atomic and subatomic particles. So saying that progress before the dark ages was at a higher level and then dropped down is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that progress stagnated during that time, but that wasn't the case.
#55 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
The reason why that graph is made that way is due to the Christian Churches. They would, in fact, scorn many scientific discoveries and attempt to prevent them.
This lead to loss of knowledge, and science development actually decreasing at certain points. Quite a trick to pull off.
Of course, some did advance later on. But at first, it was brought down by the churches. Questioning God back then was a sin punishable by death.
#15 - it suggests it and yes it doesn't prove anything but neither c…  [+] (9 new replies) 05/11/2012 on Christian Dark Ages -1
User avatar #16 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
You know what they say about assuming...
#17 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
yes, you make an ass out of you and me...
but from my point of view it was a safe assumption ergo....

User avatar #18 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
My issue with this picture is not that people are hating on Christianity - that is your right and decision. It is that nobody bothers to check their facts before coming to a conclusion. It is well known that many great minds were some kind of christian therefore belief in God does not equal lack of scientific progress. Also, a simple google search will show that during the times during which there was no progress, 500 AD through 1500 AD, there were plenty of scientific discoveries and progress.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

#19 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
as you said read
"there was next to or no scientific progress"
and from the picture we are talking about Christian maybe only Anglo saxon or any other cultures that they may have been in contact with namely the crusades 11th 12th 13th (minus 11th century as none of the findings actually come during or after the crusades) century so taken that i cut anything that actually had a name that was not of Anglo Saxon heritage before that time and here are the things they learnt:
1121 – Al-Khazini: variation of gravitation and gravitational potential energy at a distance; the decrease of air density with altitude
Ibn Bajjah (Avempace): discovery of reaction (precursor to Newton's third law of motion)
Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel): relationship between force and acceleration (a vague foreshadowing of a fundamental law of classical mechanics and a precursor to Newton's second law of motion)
Averroes: relationship between force, work and kinetic energy
1220–1235 – Robert Grosseteste: rudimentals of the scientific method (see also: Roger Bacon)
1242 – Ibn al-Nafis: pulmonary circulation and circulatory system
Theodoric of Freiberg: correct explanation of rainbow phenomenon
William of Saint-Cloud: pioneering use of camera obscura to view solar eclipsesBefore 1327 – William of Ockham: Occam's Razor
Oxford Calculators: the mean speed theorem
Jean Buridan: theory of impetus
Nicole Oresme: discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction1494 - Luca Pacioli: first codification of the Double-entry bookkeeping system, which slowly developed in previous centuries
from that they learnt but they didn't expand which is actually said in the graph where it doesn't just have a gap within history saying absolutely nothing was learnt
#34 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
I didn't read that, but it looked real smart, so I'll thumb it up.
User avatar #20 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, your comment was hard to follow, can you summarize what you were saying?
#21 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
pretty much the graph doesn't show that there was no advancement but there was very little advancement in that time
User avatar #22 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
I disagree. I would also like to point out that with science, certain discoveries aren't possible without others coming first. For example, we could not advance quantum theory without first realizing that there exist atomic and subatomic particles. So saying that progress before the dark ages was at a higher level and then dropped down is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that progress stagnated during that time, but that wasn't the case.
#55 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
The reason why that graph is made that way is due to the Christian Churches. They would, in fact, scorn many scientific discoveries and attempt to prevent them.
This lead to loss of knowledge, and science development actually decreasing at certain points. Quite a trick to pull off.
Of course, some did advance later on. But at first, it was brought down by the churches. Questioning God back then was a sin punishable by death.
#13 - yes but this graph still holds some merit of truth in the way …  [+] (11 new replies) 05/11/2012 on Christian Dark Ages -2
User avatar #14 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
Correlation does not imply causation.
#15 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
it suggests it and yes it doesn't prove anything but neither can you properly say that i am wrong for assuming such
User avatar #16 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
You know what they say about assuming...
#17 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
yes, you make an ass out of you and me...
but from my point of view it was a safe assumption ergo....

User avatar #18 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
My issue with this picture is not that people are hating on Christianity - that is your right and decision. It is that nobody bothers to check their facts before coming to a conclusion. It is well known that many great minds were some kind of christian therefore belief in God does not equal lack of scientific progress. Also, a simple google search will show that during the times during which there was no progress, 500 AD through 1500 AD, there were plenty of scientific discoveries and progress.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries

#19 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
as you said read
"there was next to or no scientific progress"
and from the picture we are talking about Christian maybe only Anglo saxon or any other cultures that they may have been in contact with namely the crusades 11th 12th 13th (minus 11th century as none of the findings actually come during or after the crusades) century so taken that i cut anything that actually had a name that was not of Anglo Saxon heritage before that time and here are the things they learnt:
1121 – Al-Khazini: variation of gravitation and gravitational potential energy at a distance; the decrease of air density with altitude
Ibn Bajjah (Avempace): discovery of reaction (precursor to Newton's third law of motion)
Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel): relationship between force and acceleration (a vague foreshadowing of a fundamental law of classical mechanics and a precursor to Newton's second law of motion)
Averroes: relationship between force, work and kinetic energy
1220–1235 – Robert Grosseteste: rudimentals of the scientific method (see also: Roger Bacon)
1242 – Ibn al-Nafis: pulmonary circulation and circulatory system
Theodoric of Freiberg: correct explanation of rainbow phenomenon
William of Saint-Cloud: pioneering use of camera obscura to view solar eclipsesBefore 1327 – William of Ockham: Occam's Razor
Oxford Calculators: the mean speed theorem
Jean Buridan: theory of impetus
Nicole Oresme: discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction1494 - Luca Pacioli: first codification of the Double-entry bookkeeping system, which slowly developed in previous centuries
from that they learnt but they didn't expand which is actually said in the graph where it doesn't just have a gap within history saying absolutely nothing was learnt
#34 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
I didn't read that, but it looked real smart, so I'll thumb it up.
User avatar #20 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
Sorry, your comment was hard to follow, can you summarize what you were saying?
#21 - Thescottman (05/11/2012) [-]
pretty much the graph doesn't show that there was no advancement but there was very little advancement in that time
User avatar #22 - tolikbro (05/11/2012) [-]
I disagree. I would also like to point out that with science, certain discoveries aren't possible without others coming first. For example, we could not advance quantum theory without first realizing that there exist atomic and subatomic particles. So saying that progress before the dark ages was at a higher level and then dropped down is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that progress stagnated during that time, but that wasn't the case.
#55 - anonymous (05/11/2012) [-]
The reason why that graph is made that way is due to the Christian Churches. They would, in fact, scorn many scientific discoveries and attempt to prevent them.
This lead to loss of knowledge, and science development actually decreasing at certain points. Quite a trick to pull off.
Of course, some did advance later on. But at first, it was brought down by the churches. Questioning God back then was a sin punishable by death.
#285 - antijoke chicken  [+] (5 new replies) 05/09/2012 on 4x4 Pixel Game +15
User avatar #287 - xxhunterxx (05/09/2012) [-]
WINNER.
WINNER.
MOTHERFUCKING CHICKEN DINNER.
User avatar #509 - oshily (05/09/2012) [-]
Completly pointless question: Isn't there a film about this "Winner. Winner. Chicken Dinner." thingie?
User avatar #512 - oshily (05/09/2012) [-]
Nevermind, it's a term used in casinos, isn't it? The movie I was talking about is "21".
User avatar #510 - oshily (05/09/2012) [-]
Movie* or is the word film fine for that? Dunno, thought german at that moment.
User avatar #1514 - xxhunterxx (05/09/2012) [-]
Film is fine.
#22 - Picture 05/09/2012 on Wait what? +13
#23 - Picture 05/08/2012 on 1983 +11
#210 - **Thescottman rolls 72** 05/08/2012 on Dont do it! 0
#39 - Picture 05/07/2012 on Nikon Win 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 1050 / Total items point value: 1250

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1 - carrotstew (04/20/2012) [-]
I can't reply to your post anymore, you win this time.
#2 to #8 - Thescottman (04/20/2012) [-]
well played though, well played
well played though, well played
 Friends (0)