Is the Photo of Tanks and Chinese Launcher at Wal-Mart Real? NO. Here’s Why.

Sitting at 1,541 shares as of the moment of writing this, the below photo claims to show “Chinese Dong Feng 21C medium range missile with TEL (range est. 1,100 mi.) on the left, and on the right 3 type 98 tanks” in the parking lot of an abandoned Wal-Mart in Tulsa, Oklahoma.


Quoted (click image above to be taken to the original) —

Exclusive!!! Must credit Frank Nelson Friedl!!!

The following photo was taken recently at the closed down Walmart at Admiral and Memorial in Tulsa, OK.

For those of you who don’t understand what you are looking at, I can confirm that that is a Chinese Dong Feng 21C medium range missile with TEL (range est. 1,100 mi.) on the left, and on the right 3 type 98 tanks. Only Obama and the Chinese know what else is waiting inside the Walmart cum Chinese staging area.

The sizing may look a bit off, but that is just a problem of perspective and the fact that my clandestine cameraman was completely scared shitless when he saw this and had trouble getting the camera to focus properly.

Gird your loins, America! Shit is about to get real!!!

If you fell for this, you may just need to stop using the internet altogether. The sizing is off because the person who made the edited picture doesn’t know how to adjust brightness and skew angles for properly orienting pictures of military vehicles that he just pasted into an ordinary photo.

For those not especially keen on image editing: look at the shadows of the vehicles. The sky is overcast, and nothing else in the parking lot is casting a shadow. If the sun was out strong enough to cast such a clear shadow on the launcher, you’d be able to see shadows of the shopping cart stalls.

Secondly, googling a “Chinese Dong Feng 21C medium range missile” for images shows that such vehicles have 5 wheels on one side, not 4. Next, compare the lighting and angle of the Dong Feng 21C in the Wal-Mart photo, with this one. The lighting and angles are identical. All the person did was cut it out and paste it onto the parking lot image with a simple image editor. It even has the same reflection on the front window!

The 3 tanks are actually copies of the same tank image, (this one) pasted over the top of each other. Notice all 3 have the identical orientation (and shadow underneath) and the perspective doesn’t change as it should based on distance from the photographer.

Also, the narrative suggests that the cameraman couldn’t focus properly and was scared. Was he scared perhaps by the creepy King mascot from the nearby Burger King? Here is a google maps Streetview of the Wal-Mart in question. At first I thought the camera man would have needed a scissor lift to get that kind of a downward angle on the parking lot in the edited photo, but there’s a fairly sizeable hill in the direction the camera man could have been standing — but still lots of trees to hide in. Plenty of time to take a decent photo.

According to this article the Wal-Mart mentioned in the narrative has been abandoned.

I’ll even take the photo above and add more of the same vehicles right into it, including an Apache chopper. Let’s add a Russian battleship onto the roof.

Perhaps if you look close enough, you’ll notice that I added a photo of you to the roof also. It’s a sucker.

Did a Driver Get Struck by Lightning After Robbing a Church? No. Here’s Why.

Making the rounds lately is a video that appears to be a high-speed motor vehicle chase of a suspect, with a social media caption that the suspect had just robbed a church. There is a bright flash and the car has a small explosion and is subdued. Was it really struck by lightning?

Possibly largest circulator of edited video, with 36,522,470 views as of this publication:



No. It was actually involved in a head-on collision while trying to pass someone ahead of them. The original video was edited so that the oncoming car’s appearance was removed, the flash was inserted, and all you see is the collision after the flash.

Pay attention to the tree on the right side of the road of the above edited version. At one point the tree is still perhaps 100-200 yards ahead ahead, but immediately after the flash it is right next to the collision site.

Original:

How Do Men Feel When Women Demand Equal World Cup Wages?

Imagine that you built your own house, but you didn’t just go buy the wood from the store — your grandmother planted the acres and acres of trees, cultivated them over decades from seeds and saplings, and then your mother chopped the trees down one by one over the course of raising you. Your aunt blacksmithed the nails out of ore that she personally mined and processed from her own property acres away and delivered the nails as a gift for your high school graduation. You went to university to learn electrical, plumbing, carpentry and used all of that knowledge to construct this amazing house, riding on what your foremothers’ lumber and mining operations were able to earn and set aside for you to do so.

Now then, some random dudebro buys some land next to yours, sees your house encompassing all of this personal value, and then demands that you must build him an identical house and do it RIGHT NOW because gender fairness. The man is overlooking all of the decades of cultivation, the discipline, the sweat, the splinters, and the generations that were behind the home. The dudebro gathers up several other dudebros who threaten legal penalty, and if failing that, burning it down completely so that the genders are equal finally. This is how it FEELS when you barge in blathering about equal world cup “wages” because gender.

In the sense of sports, you are not simply handed your reward — you earn your reward. The mens sector has been going on for eons and has that momentum and historical significance, but the flash-in-the-pan of womens sector is relatively new by comparison and has a much smaller momentum. There are tons and tons of variables at issue, not simply “because they are men” for their enormous difference in earnings.

Think of how popular the Beatles were by their seventh album, compared to how popular the 1960’s Britpop band Small Faces were, who also released seven albums. You may not have even heard of Small Faces. Merely having released seven albums is not what merits The Beatles’ stardom and fame, or else Small Faces would have achieved the same amount — but there are hundreds of variables in the mix. The seven-album variable is only one single comparison between conceivably thousands of possible variables that propelled the Beatles on a different path than Small Faces, and making a really big buzzword point about equal album count should mean equal fame is utterly nonsensical.

Drawing a comparison from specifically the gender element of men and womens world cup earnings is also nonsensical, because there are likewise conceivably thousands of possible variables in the mix, rather than just gender-related.

Focusing on the gender as a point of “because that would be fair” eliminates all of the other reasons that the accounting, social science, ticket sales, infrastructure, and otherwise indicates that it would not, in fact, be fair. You’re having to ignore all of the hundreds of other variables that make up the genuine disparity only to focus on a single knee-jerk “feeling” rather than the mountain of evidence that very logically substantiates the disparity.

40 Questions Answered to The Gospel Coalition Rainbow Flag List, 1-5

Recently The Gospel Coalition posted an article asking self-proclaimed Evangelicals to answer 40 questions that challenge their reasoning, in light of the recent favoritism being shown toward the non-traditional marriage ruling by the US Supreme Court:

If you consider yourself a Bible-believing Christian, a follower of Jesus whose chief aim is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, there are important questions I hope you will consider before picking up your flag and cheering on the sexual revolution. These questions aren’t meant to be snarky or merely rhetorical. They are sincere, if pointed, questions that I hope will cause my brothers and sisters with the new rainbow themed avatars to slow down and think about the flag you’re flying.

(for the purposes of brevity I’ll used “non-1/1″ to represent what might otherwise be described as varieties of marriage that are not 1-man/1-woman)

These are my answers to those questions, broken up into sections: 1-5 (below); and to be linked when created: 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, 31-35, 36-40.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

I would say for probably 10 years or more (now age 37), but a specific set of years not known in particular.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

You seem to imply that my mind had once been one way and is now the other. I think for the most part I had been either undecided or merely silent on the issue, without taking a particular position on it, per se. In my youth as someone brought up in the church I may have held the 1/1 marriage rule, but I whad not make a knowledgeable, salvation-related prayer until appx age 21. I was baptized at age 8 and answered ‘yes’ to all of the ‘do you believe …’ questions, but in retrospect I do not believe I was cognizant of what was being asked. I don’t think that the opinion I held at that age would even scarcely be credible.

In my teens I had a rebellious period where I became highly critical of the sham-seeming nature of my limited exposure to the varieties of religion but still attended because of family attendance. In college at a large out-of-town conference (Passion ’99) I was confronted by a college minister and asked several machete-sharp questions that cut thru the overgrown vines of rationale about my position with Christ — from the angle as if I were not a Christian, rather than from the angle of being one. He quickly identified the rationale that was blocking it, and I had a kind of epitome-experience where everything I’d learned in church, but had never really connected, came together. We prayed together about it, I had a weird experience involving developing (or being gifted) a kind of weird non-emotional awareness-sense that is difficult to explain exactly.

Part of my discipleship involved coming to the realization that my earlier intensely-critical ‘rebellion’ was an entirely plausible function of the body of Christ. If describing the body of the church as Christ’s in the figurative sense (as in the left hand and right hand being parts for instance), the body also contains an immune system that offers what might appear to be the body attacking itself, but is actually doing what the college minister’s role did for me — used machete-sharp questions to cut through the vines of rationale to get to the foreign splinter-object lodged within in order to remove it, so that healing can begin.

(a) 1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Essentially, “put every attitude, every notion, every real-seeming rationale to the test, even if it seems like it would be in your favor.” Challenge it earnestly, and be willing to momentarily and easily suspend knee-jerk disbelief in order that the challenge can be investigated with due diligence without being superficially cast aside as if it clearly conflicted with x y or z verse, because there may yet be another verse that put those other 3 in perspective in the spirit that scripture clarifies itself.

There are a lot of traditionally-held Christian positions that I do not share, for that reason. The bible’s inerrancy is not even something the bible itself claims. The bible is certainly canonical in the sense that arguments to be made against it need to endure analysis against all of the rest of it in bulk, rather than proposing specific verses that merely offer appearance of conflict, superficially. A lot of Christians seem to mix the idea of the Word being the bible, but scripture pretty clearly suggests the Word is Christ, not the bible.

The bible is a man-governed body of text that is the best possible piece of journalism we have about observations made in that era, from the people of that era. It is very important in that regard, but is not the Word. Jesus is the Word. Jesus is not the bible. The bible is not the Word. I’m not really sure how the Word could have possibly be interpreted as the bible without some kind of other splinter-rationale being lodged in that tries to justify it. Claiming the bible is the Word is pushing into idolatry territory, by deifying a man-made object. The bible is no less important and pivotal, but is not itself deity, and is not the Word.

If you believe that it is impossible for a person to hold this belief and still be a Christian, I would refer you to the book of Galatians where Paul rails against the people there for trying to propose a Jesus+tenet=Christian theology. Jesus alone is our unifying variable, and no other. There is no other banner but Christ that unites us. If you believe there is any one other tenet that unites us, you are in stark defiance of Galatians, in a legalism sense.

Making the inerrancy claim seems more like a more generalized half-truth version of the canonical nature of scripture. An analogous example would be that the claim, “Coruscant is a water world,” could be disproven by examining what is canonical in the Star Wars universe, despite Star Wars being a fictional universe. Fiction being fiction from the start, and that Coruscant is not even an actual world in terms of reality, within the canon of Star Wars, claims against canon and still be proven or disproven in that context.

(b) John 19:10-11, “So Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.” in light of (c) “Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.” (Romans 13:7)

Pilate is a very important figure to me as someone who pursues actual truth with due diligence, who investigated the ruling priests claims in front of them and still found no fault. He spoke to Jesus directly and found no fault, rather than taking others’ claims as evidence. The rationale that Jesus offers Pilate above, against which Pilate can offer no counterclaim. The authority for such things (and proper timing) to occur in our era is no less from the same authority. Jesus even bothers to negotiate even within the canonical nature of Pilate’s law system to identify his innocence.

Paul proposes obedience to the laws of the nation of which we are indwelt, and if that nation decides that a man may marry a man, or that a woman may marry a woman, we ourselves may abstain from doing so, none the lesser. Paul and Christ both propose the authority of the world governments are chess pieces that YHWH alone places, so to attempt to defy them is fraught with folly in the legalism sense.

(d) “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. For the time will come when you will say, ‘Blessed are the childless women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ They will say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’ For if people do these things when the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 28:28-31, confronting gathered masses come to weep for Christ just prior to crucifixion).

If you are in agony about a Supreme Court ruling whilst living in a society immensely-blessed, with what energy will you have to wail of your plight when those blessings are removed?

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

What you seem to be asking is open-ended, rather than earnest. If I were to ask you, “At what time last night did you stop beating your wife,” then the only answer you could give me according to the nature of the question is a time, not that you didn’t beat your wife (or not that you stopped). You seem to be making far too many assumptions, I think. Consider this exchange:

“Why does Bill always get so many doughnuts? There are 10 people in this office, and he always gets 4 or more from the dozen in the break room.”
“Bill buys the doughnuts for the office, out of pocket; the doughnuts are his. What is left over is him sharing his own.”

Your question seems to operate with several positions that are not, themselves, even substantiated by truth to begin with.

What is being celebrated is not the openness of man and man to engage in sexual activity freely — that has been legalized by the US government for decades if not more. Marriage itself is not the authorization to do so, either. Just because you’re married doesn’t mean you can now freely go rob banks, either.

Current Judaism teaching on marriage suggests, “Marriage is not solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of procreation. Traditional sources recognize that companionship, love and intimacy are the primary purposes of marriage, noting that woman was created in Gen. 2:18 because “it is not good for man to be alone,” rather than because she was necessary for procreation.” and that a marriage can be sealed “in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.”

There is no word-for-word prohibition of man marrying man or woman-marrying-woman, but strictly a prohibition that man not lie with man as would with woman, and even that is merely implication of sex rather than specifically stating it. It is perfectly within the OT legal code for a man to marry a many or a woman to marry a woman. The specific prohibition is the sex part only, and one can be married and not have ever engaged in such activity.

Do youngsters who are ‘married to Christ’ as a purity pledge mean, therefore, that those children engage in lascivious activity with Jesus? Certainly not. Why then, must you insist that marriage automatically means the squishing of nether-bits together? Are you, in fact, accusing others of something with which you personally struggle, rather than investigating case-by-case as to whether those particular others do also?

You might attempt to rationalize that NT verses on marriage create a situation in which those within a marriage are to offer themselves freely in a sexual way to one another — for the purposes of avoiding sexual immorality. If males penetrating males is sexual immorality — would that not logically exempt male-male/etc marriages from that the free-offering requirement? You seem to be getting really close to saying that marriage is exclusively for the purpose of abstaining from sexual immorality and no other reason. What if both people are entirely abstinent and have no desire to do such things? Your refusal to believe that such a couple could even possibly be entirely abstinent reveals the limitations of your own imagination, and would suggest to me that you have frankly not met enough people to know any better. If you did learn of one, would you still reject them?

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will be joyful in God my Savior. (Habakkuk 3:17-18)

My delight is YHWH, via the reconciliation facilitated by the righteousness of Christ. While I may delight in blessings here and blessing there, the blessings are not the foundation of my delight. While I may sing Happy Birthday to someone, the molecular breakdown, so to speak, of the source of my delight is the relationship I have with YHWH through Christ’s merit on my behalf, not the anniversary about which I sing.

I slap the hand of the person that would suggest impurity to that which God has made clean. Romans 8 (as well as Peter’s meat-vision in Acts) makes it pretty clear that the 613 are no longer potent — not just for the matters of legalizing non-circumcision and bacon consumption. They’re relevant in the fact that they are important to know the impossibility of having been able to keep the whole law and for knowing that guilt of one law is guilt of the whole law by which the need for a reconciliation by Christ is made apparent, but to continuously attempt to re-apply those laws as if they were still potent is the simultaneous process of disqualifying Christ’s righteousness as sufficiently potent to cover it.

“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” (Romans 8:2)

There it is, in plain writing. YOU ARE FREE FROM THE LAWS OF SIN AND DEATH. If you believe yourself not free from the laws of sin and death, then you must not have the Spirit. Plain as day. Romans 8:1 — There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ. How can a law apply if there is no condemnation behind it? Because it doesn’t apply. Your pursuit against gay marriage should instead be in pursuit of helping to reconcile YHWH with all persons irrespective of position.

“For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you.” (Romans 8:5-7)

Repent from the tallying of sin and be free from it. Since you are in the Spirit and not in the flesh, as you claim anyway, why are your thoughts so bent toward the legalism position? I am bending mine momentarily that direction for your sake, as becoming a Greek to the Greek in Paul’s figurative sense.

Consider also the analogy to the adulterous woman in Romans 7:

“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.” (Romans 7:2-3)

Man/Woman element aside (momentarily), if Gertrude sleeps with William, but Gertrude is married to Fredrick, then Gertrude is an adulteress. If Fredrick has died, then Gertrude sleeping with William is legal.

This is a situation in which the IDENTICAL ACT in one sense illegal, but in another sense legitimized. Paul uses this situation to reflect upon how the 613 are applicable only when the laws of sin and death apply, but after putting to death the flesh and being alive in the Spirit, which you now claim to be, then the IDENTICAL ACT is now not met with condemnation. In order for Gertrude’s sleepover with Fredrick to be considered adultery, Fredrick would have to be resurrected specifically for the purpose of making the accusation. What you are doing by claiming that the 613 have application to those in the Spirit is effectively de-resurrecting Christ, illegitimizing his righteousness on your behalf just so that you can claim it has application to the current situation.

To claim that the 613 have application is to subvert Christ’s righteousness.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

I cite the entire book of the minor prophet Hosea. Hosea’s relationship with his wife Gomer (a harlot) is one such example. Hosea was instructed by YHWH to marry a harlot and have harlot offspring. He even named his children what translate to “no kin of mine” and “unloved” because they were offspring of another man, since Gomer repeatedly slept with other men while married to him — yet, however, Hosea’s love for Gomer did not end, despite the overwhelmingly obvious presence of what would otherwise be considered sin. The love of Hosea to his incessantly transgressive wife is a scriptural depiction of marriage, reflective of love for one another, even if obedience is one-sided.

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

I think Jesus would have shown the most amount of love toward them and speak to them in terms of salvation from the law, considering that when he was present he stayed in the houses of and broke bread with tax collectors, prostitutes, and others that the society of the time believed to be among the lowest. I believe the topic may have come up in conversation but not dwelled upon, because salvation is way more important.

The woman at the well in John 4 is one example. The woman had numerous husbands, and Christ identified even the man she was with now was not her husband, but he didn’t get side-tracked by it, because which particular of the 613 that is the one of the whole law you have broken is irrelevant. Your need for salvation is what is important. When he spoke with her, he mentioned it, but didn’t dwell on it. He instead directed the conversation toward a common aspect among them: the water the well offered, or the water Christ offered. From the whole exchange, the fact that the woman asked for the unceasing water is what matters, not the adultery. In verse 28-30 of the same chapter, the woman goes into the city and tells of the Messiah she met, and many go out to meet him.

It is readily apparent to anyone who reads the bible without intentions of seeking the fleshly desires of law or methods to contradict matters of policy, that YHWH regularly and routinely employs even the most overlooked, downtrodden, and otherwise sneered-upon persons as that which the greatest amount of fruit can be accomplished. The widely beloved King David was an adulterer against his own high-ranked military commander under him, but also wrote many of the Psalms. The writer of most of the highly-esteemed proverbs, Solomon, had arguably ~1000 wives, who led him astray to worship other gods. Peter, upon whom the church was built, as it were, denied Christ repeatedly. Paul, who was called Saul, persecuted Christians and had his own thorn to contend with..

Who Should Replace Sandi Toksvig On BBC Radio 4’s News Quiz?

I’m an American.. Texan, specifically. I’ve been listening to BBC Radio 4’s News Quiz for 12 seasons now and Sandi Toksvig’s voice has become a staple in my household. Her voice has become a comfort (whenever the bizarrely-spaced “season” scheduling allows it to air, that is). I’ve been thru the News Quiz panto performed in season 76, endured countless quickly-rattled rants by Jeremy Hardy, heard more than enough about Susan Calman’s cat antics..

After hearing Sandi’s final episode (found here, if still available for listening), and googling who might replace her, I found this Telegraph article listing a few proposed hosts to replace her, so these are my votes from that list.

I’m aware I probably have no real say in the matter. I listen to quite a bit of Radio 4’s “comedy club” shows, for about as long as News Quiz. I make every effort to hear each episode of The Unbelievable Truth, Dilemma, I’ve Never Seen Star Wars, Heresy, the Museum of Curiosity, So Wrong It’s Right, Sorry I Haven’t A Clue, Wordaholics, and recently the new Holly Walsh show Best Behavior (which is fantastic). I really like all of the permutations of Milton Jones (Another Case, and Thanks A Lot) but most of them seem to be repeats.

Jeremy Clarkson – No way. He might be a decent guest host on occasion, but under no circumstances would I vote for this guy. I’ve seen maybe 2 episodes of Top Gear and frankly have zero concern for whatever BBC producer tumult he caused.. but the guy’s voice and way of speaking in general does not even vaguely approach comedic to me.

Jeremy Paxman / Emily Maitlis / Michael Deacon / Rory Brenner / Armando Iannucci / Paul Merton – No idea who these are. I just simply can’t comment on them. I’m sure if I heard their voices I might recognize them, but I don’t think I can credible vote for any of them being so unfamiliar.

Jeremy Hardy – He would be okay as a host, but I think he makes a really great regular panelist, and I think the gap he’d leave from no longer being a member of the panel would not be justified in moving to the desk. I really like his lengthy rants that leaves everyone agiggle, especially by making outlandish comparisons. He’s a little like how David Mitchell would get a kind of “upset by smiling about it” on comedy TV shows like 8 Out of 10 Cats, except the rants are seemingly less impromptu and more frequent but no less delightful.

Susan Calman – Oh please please no. Her regional accent isn’t a bother, but just certain ASMR-like elements of her voice are on the cusp of super annoying, but still within the range of tolerable enough to legitimize her remaining as an less-frequent-than-Hardy regular panelist. And really, please, enough with the cat stories. It’ll be the Cat Quiz soon enough and everyone will be reading clippings from cat fashion industry news from around the world before long.

Jack Dee – Oh my goodness yes please. Huge fan of Sorry I Haven’t a Clue, with its delightful writing thereof that introduces the panelists in passive dark humor and silly way of speaking. The Telegraph article mentions having his ‘hands full’ already with SIHAC but how much writing does News Quiz really require? The topics involved are for the week of airing, not for the news that happened between seasons.

Jo Brand – Jo is a good contender I think. I like her style of blunt humor from her appearances on other TV panel shows like QI, and I think she may have actually subbed for Sandi once if I recall. She has a slower way of speaking than Sandi, but a level amount of snark I think.

David Mitchell – My delight at any opportunity to hear David speak, for any reason, is nearly limitless — but I don’t think I’d rather him host the News Quiz. I think he’d do a great job at it, but I don’t want the chance for anything else he currently does to be sacrificed in order to pursue News Quiz. If he could still do what he does now and do the News Quiz, I’d extend my vote to him in that circumstance.

Sue Perkins – I really like Sue Perkins, both in super-prettiness and for commanding vocal humor. Sue Perkins to me has a very similar carrying-of-voice as Sandi does, and I think would be a very even match with Sandi’s style as far as my ears can tell.

Marcus Brigstocke – Marcus seems a little too prim-and-proper to be a News Quiz host. His humor is great, and I would like to hear him as a host for a different show aside from I’ve Never Seen Star Wars. I get a vibe of ‘trustworthy’ from him, moreso in a sense if he were a

Sarah Millican – Arguably my favorite female British comic, possibly tied with Sue Perkins. Not sure she’d make a great host, but certainly a delight to listen to as a panelist (and should be invited for more panel shows)..

Others I really like and would nominate: Victoria Coren Mitchell, Clive Anderson, John Lloyd, Bill Bailey, Phill Jupitus, Rhod Gilbert, John Bishop, Jason Manford, Rachel Riley..

Others I really like but would not nominate: Robert Webb, Henning Wehn, Jon Richardson, Milton Jones, Hugh Dennis, Frank Skinner, Nicholas Parsons, Sean Lock, Dave Gorman, Jimmy Carr, Barry Cryer, Tim Brooke-Taylor, Graeme Garden, Stephen Fry, Rob Brydon, Alan Davies, Michael McIntyre, Frankie Boyle, Russell Howard, David Walliams, Ross Noble, Chris Addison, Kevin Bridges, Dave Gorman, Andy Parsons, Mark Watson, Rufus Hound, Jack Whitehall, Lee Mack, Miranda Hart..

When or What Day is TaeNy Day? It’s the 27th of Every Month. Here’s Why.

The 27th of every month is TaeNy Day, a commemoration of the ‘ship’ between SNSD members Taeyeon and Tiffany.

When SNSD first debuted in July 2007, each member was announced one day at a time with a teaser image officially confirming their inclusion into the 9-girl K-pop group. Yoona’s teaser image was released on July 6, making her the first confirmed member.

The next day, Tiffany’s teaser image was released, making her the second confirmed member. In following days each of the 9 members were announced, and Taeyeon was announced seventh. TaeNy day on the 27th, therefore, corresponds to the “debut numbers” of 2 and 7 for Tiffany and Taeyeon.

‘Shipping’ is a fantasy/dream relationship of any variety (best friends, romantic, etc) about 2+ people, fictional and real people alike. To ‘ship’ is to have a joy for the idea that such a relationship exists, and ‘shippers’ are those who follow along with others who ship them, and find interesting coincidences that seem to confirm the ship. Similarly, “OTP” for One True Pairing, can describe the ship that one most fondly adores, from among multiple ships.

The following image celebrating TaeNy Day is by artist Luz Arce Matias from Peru, who currently publishes all of her official artwork releases (including lots of SNSD-related) on instagram here:
https://instagram.com/luzgunarce_sm

Did Spray Sunblock Cause 3rd Degree Burns to A Child? Doubtful.

I recently encountered a Facebook post of a concerned parent, advising against the use of suntan sprays:

(post in question)

I am not a medical doctor but there are a couple red flags with this story that lead me to call shenanigans, which discussion on this Snopes message board post reiterates in line with my thinking:

1. It seems like the kid would have had to have been wearing a motorcycle helmet, a cummerbund, ladies’ evening gloves, and long pants with no shirt while playing outside in order to not get burned on the areas not covered by bandages, and have no other burns elsewhere than the t-shirt area the Ace bandage covers. That, or he did actually get good coverage while wearing a shirt but then took the shirt off without covering the areas the shirt covered.

2. If the parents re-applied every 30 minutes-1hr, would they not have noticed increasingly incredible and extensive burns on his body, and prevented it from getting up to even 2nd degree?

3. Third-degree burns are “full thickness” burns down to the muscle or bone tissue that sometimes require plastic surgery or IV fluids according to several medical sources (U.Rochester, U.Maryland, Boston Children’s). Don’t bother looking it up on Google images unless you have a strong stomach — none of those wounds seem like they could be so easily concealed by an Ace bandage as shown in the photograph, much less would allow for the kid to walk around without being in an ICU. I wonder if the woman means “first degree” burns which are at the other end of the spectrum and are typical for sunburns.

4. “When you have to listen to your child scream in pain from them pulling his skin off is the most painful thing to see an experience!” Odds are doctors are not going to need to peel off skin from a third-degree burn, but rather complete skin grafts (under general anesthetic), extensive cosmetic surgery, physical rehabilitation, possibly lifelong assisted care and counseling (reference). You’re not going to walk out the door the same day you went in.