Reading Comprehension is FUNdamental

I know that its generally not a good idea to try to educate the terminally stupid. Usually it just frustrates the living hell out of you, and the uneducateable just keep on being uneducateable.

In this instance, the lulz that this gave me meant that it had to be posted – not as education, mind you because that would just be banging my head against a wall – but as example number 3,871,1!1 of the self-awareness fails that a certain someone keeps making.

It started HERE. And of course, someone got butthurt that I DARED to point out the utter FAIL that it was (and laugh at it, of course) and needed to cry to mommy about the unfairness of it all.

To which my rejoinder is: just because YOU decreed this to be thus, doesn’t make is so. Because things like this?

Just make us realize that your stupidity is terminal. Butthurt is not a tort, moron. The self-awareness fails just keep on a-comin’.


About The Dread Pirate Zombie

Member of the Zombie Horde and Lickspittle Minion. Out to eat your brainnnsssss. And a few other sweetbreads because they are so nomm-y. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Reading Comprehension is FUNdamental

  1. Jane says:

    If were to suddenly be able to comprehend what it reads, the FAILsuits wouldn’t be nearly as embarrassing and hilarious.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. If taking what one says online out of context is invariably “defamatory” perhaps one needs to take more care with what one says in the first place.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. LLC says:

    Transformative use?

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Neal N. Bob says:

    I’m almost certain that William demanded a jury trial, but I do like knowing that know his lulzsuits better than he does.


    Liked by 4 people

    • JeffM says:

      I suspect that Willie knows that: (1) he demanded a jury trial, and (2) his suit will be dismissed long before trial. Only Kimberlin has been stupid enough to go to trial.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Doesn’t the defenfant get that choice, not the plaintiff?

        Liked by 1 person

        • JeffM says:

          This is a complicated question. In federal civil cases, the right to a jury trial depends largely on whether or not the case would have been heard under English common law in 1791 when the Seventh Amendment was adopted. In practice what this generally means is that suits for monetary damages will be tried by jury unless both plaintiff and defendant agree to waive. State civil cases have different rules but generally are fairly similar to the federal ones.

          Most people are not fully aware of how much English constitutional law as understood in the 18th century is still operative today in US constitutional law. Much of the U.S. “Bill of Rights,” which was not a bill at all but constitutional provisions, is modeled on what truly was a bill passed in Parliament in 1688 or 1689 and called the Bill of Rights. The Wilkes case (1765?) influenced US constitutional provisions on warrants (no general warrants). And bitter disputes in the 1780’s about undue influence of the Crown over Parliament led to prohibiting executive officers from sitting in Congress, which in turn explains the great difference today between US and British forms of government.

          Liked by 2 people

  5. MJ says:

    She’s never going before the judge in your “LOLSuit: The Search for the Tort of Butthurt” epic drama. And yes, you’re stupid, Biwwy.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Somehow, I think he has waaaay more of an ample tushie than I’ve ever had. Now, as ample of a GOWN as I wore this weekend? Yeah, I win that battle – and with pride because I’d like to see him attempt to wear that behemoth! The overdress weighed 10 pounds by itself. lol Although the tent he wore in his Pastafarian portrait was starting to rival it in circumference.

      Liked by 2 people

      • MJ says:

        He’s jealous that you’re ambulatory. He’s limited to filming his apartment complex, which is the most exercise he’s accomplished in the last few years.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Perry Mason says:

    Because nothing says “disturbing the peace and quiet” of someone like a loud, obnoxious, invasive blog post banging on the door of your hovel, calling your loved ones, and emailing your boss.

    Yep Willy, you nailed it again.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Perry Mason says:

      who has never done either of them a moment’s harm.

      Except sue them, post the personal information of themselves and other family members, post pictures of minor children, get involved in divorce proceedings (remember when you said people who got involved in those things should be beat up Willy?)…… but yea, not even a moment of harm.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Last time I contacted William Schmalfeldt was when I told him to cease and desist contacting me. How on earth can I disturb his “peace and quiet” if I’m not contacting him? And as to anyone around him, well, I’ve never done that either. Too bad he can’t say the same.

      Liked by 3 people

      • agiledog says:

        If Bill really wants peace and quiet, he should throw away his computer. It isn’t disturbing him if he has to come looking for it. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing.

        We have told him this time and time again. He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t WANT to listen. He is both stupid AND evil.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s