Bad joke

[roadman65]

It gets funnier.

https://intertropolisandrouteville.fandom.com/wiki/U.S._Route_17

TheUS 17 page talks about it being reality along with the reality of US 17.

Yeah this guy (I’m assuming because I couldn’t fathom this is someone of the opposite gender) needs to get off the fan fiction stuff, it seems like it has strayed to unhealthy obsession.

Their social media pages are even worse. But yeah, the creators of this have created 846 freaking pages on the wiki about their fictional TV show that they keep claiming will be airing on their fictional TV network (in addition to Nick).

The fandom page should be deleted and the account owner suspended for false information. 

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

So people could actually write that the candidate that lost a local, state, or federal election could have won it.  Mmm.

Maybe that is where some get their news.

[Max Rockatansky]

It gets funnier.

https://intertropolisandrouteville.fandom.com/wiki/U.S._Route_17

TheUS 17 page talks about it being reality along with the reality of US 17.

Yeah this guy (I'm assuming because I couldn't fathom this is someone of the opposite gender) needs to get off the fan fiction stuff, it seems like it has strayed to unhealthy obsession.

Their social media pages are even worse. But yeah, the creators of this have created 846 freaking pages on the wiki about their fictional TV show that they keep claiming will be airing on their fictional TV network (in addition to Nick).

The fandom page should be deleted and the account owner suspended for false information. 

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

So people could actually write that the candidate that lost a local, state, or federal election could have won it.  Mmm.

Maybe that is where some get their news.

Are you saying that someone tried to usurp power and claim the title of Grand Alan?

[formulanone]

3:21 PM Alan-Standard Time

Have you ever found an official definition for Alan-Standard Time? 

The 14th Grand Unified Alan created Stalandard Time after the merger of zones, which defined it as the motion of 14.37 goats travelling at 0.621 Nilla Wafer oscillations per numberwang/candelas.

...but some oblasts such as Sbarro® follow the oven timer, leading to long threads arguing that manual egg timers are more useful.

[kphoger]

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

It's nothing new.  History has been like that for centuries.

You've probably heard the assertion that the official list of books in the Christian bible was decided at the First Council of Nicæa in AD 325.  I mean, if you're familiar with the Da Vinci Code, then you should be familiar with the idea.  So the story goes, books which contradicted the bishops' (and the emperor's) beliefs were declared to be non-canonical, and those which accorded with their beliefs were declared to be canonical.  Well, I ask you, where did that assertion come from?  I'm glad you asked...

First of all, it's not from actual historical documents relating to the council itself.  No surviving agenda from the council mentions discussion about the canon of the bible.  No Christian writers of the era refer to there being a discussion about it there.  In fact, there is actual evidence that the canon of the bible was still being discussed after Nicæa.  So where does the historical trail lead?  Keep reading...

In the 18th Century, Enlightenment writer Voltaire wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary that, at the Council of Nicæa, all the books of scripture were heaped upon an altar, and those that fell to the ground were rejected from the canon.  This is, of course, laughable on its face:  do we really imagine that's how the bishops and emperor conducted business at their councils?  But, wait!  Voltaire didn't get the idea from thin air.

Before Voltaire, one must turn to about the turn of the 10th Century, specifically to a Greek document called the Synodicon Vetus.  This document was a history of Christian councils and synods and states that, at the Council of Nicæa, they piled up the books of Scripture and prayed that the spurious ones would be found underneath the altar and the reliable ones on top.  And who wrote the Synodicon Vetus?  Well, it's anonymous, but the writer is–shall we say–not of high repute among scholars.  Not only did he tell the history of councils with details described nowhere else in the historical record, but he even outlined entire synods and councils that apparently never existed.  That's right:  in what was presented as the critical history of church councils, the author simply made stuff up.

And the kicker is that such was not really uncommon in centuries past.  Histories, for most of human experience, have not generally been expected to be accurate.  History was recorded to give meaning to people's place in the world, not merely to document details.  We in the modern West look at an ancient history and ask the question "Is this accurate?"  But such a question would make no sense to an ancient thinker.  An ancient thinker would look at a modern American history and ask the question "Is this meaningful?"

[snowc]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28431.0
You know everyone that this is being featured on changing one letter of thread that will be or soon to be locked. 

[hotdogPi]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28431.0
You know everyone that this is being featured on changing one letter of thread that will be or soon to be locked. 

Being on that thread does not cause the original thread to be locked, nor is the changing one letter thread going to be locked soon (or licked, which is one key away on a keyboard). This thread might be locked soon, but being on the one letter thread has nothing to do with it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

It's nothing new.  History has been like that for centuries.

You've probably heard the assertion that the official list of books in the Christian bible was decided at the First Council of Nicæa in AD 325.  I mean, if you're familiar with the Da Vinci Code, then you should be familiar with the idea.  So the story goes, books which contradicted the bishops' (and the emperor's) beliefs were declared to be non-canonical, and those which accorded with their beliefs were declared to be canonical.  Well, I ask you, where did that assertion come from?  I'm glad you asked...

First of all, it's not from actual historical documents relating to the council itself.  No surviving agenda from the council mentions discussion about the canon of the bible.  No Christian writers of the era refer to there being a discussion about it there.  In fact, there is actual evidence that the canon of the bible was still being discussed after Nicæa.  So where does the historical trail lead?  Keep reading...

In the 18th Century, Enlightenment writer Voltaire wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary that, at the Council of Nicæa, all the books of scripture were heaped upon an altar, and those that fell to the ground were rejected from the canon.  This is, of course, laughable on its face:  do we really imagine that's how the bishops and emperor conducted business at their councils?  But, wait!  Voltaire didn't get the idea from thin air.

Before Voltaire, one must turn to about the turn of the 10th Century, specifically to a Greek document called the Synodicon Vetus.  This document was a history of Christian councils and synods and states that, at the Council of Nicæa, they piled up the books of Scripture and prayed that the spurious ones would be found underneath the altar and the reliable ones on top.  And who wrote the Synodicon Vetus?  Well, it's anonymous, but the writer is–shall we say–not of high repute among scholars.  Not only did he tell the history of councils with details described nowhere else in the historical record, but he even outlined entire synods and councils that apparently never existed.  That's right:  in what was presented as the critical history of church councils, the author simply made stuff up.

And the kicker is that such was not really uncommon in centuries past.  Histories, for most of human experience, have not generally been expected to be accurate.  History was recorded to give meaning to people's place in the world, not merely to document details.  We in the modern West look at an ancient history and ask the question "Is this accurate?"  But such a question would make no sense to an ancient thinker.  An ancient thinker would look at a modern American history and ask the question "Is this meaningful?"

I once got my Grandpa and Brother flipped out over the First Council of Nicæa.  They claimed it wasn't real when I told them that the Biblical Canon was selected essentially in a committee in a fashion not too dissimilar to comic book continuity. 

[snowc]

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28431.0
You know everyone that this is being featured on changing one letter of thread that will be or soon to be locked. 

Being on that thread does not cause the original thread to be locked, nor is the changing one letter thread going to be locked soon (or licked, which is one key away on a keyboard). This thread might be locked soon, but being on the one letter thread has nothing to do with it.

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

[kphoger]

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

It's nothing new.  History has been like that for centuries.

You've probably heard the assertion that the official list of books in the Christian bible was decided at the First Council of Nicæa in AD 325.  I mean, if you're familiar with the Da Vinci Code, then you should be familiar with the idea.  So the story goes, books which contradicted the bishops' (and the emperor's) beliefs were declared to be non-canonical, and those which accorded with their beliefs were declared to be canonical.  Well, I ask you, where did that assertion come from?  I'm glad you asked...

First of all, it's not from actual historical documents relating to the council itself.  No surviving agenda from the council mentions discussion about the canon of the bible.  No Christian writers of the era refer to there being a discussion about it there.  In fact, there is actual evidence that the canon of the bible was still being discussed after Nicæa.  So where does the historical trail lead?  Keep reading...

In the 18th Century, Enlightenment writer Voltaire wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary that, at the Council of Nicæa, all the books of scripture were heaped upon an altar, and those that fell to the ground were rejected from the canon.  This is, of course, laughable on its face:  do we really imagine that's how the bishops and emperor conducted business at their councils?  But, wait!  Voltaire didn't get the idea from thin air.

Before Voltaire, one must turn to about the turn of the 10th Century, specifically to a Greek document called the Synodicon Vetus.  This document was a history of Christian councils and synods and states that, at the Council of Nicæa, they piled up the books of Scripture and prayed that the spurious ones would be found underneath the altar and the reliable ones on top.  And who wrote the Synodicon Vetus?  Well, it's anonymous, but the writer is–shall we say–not of high repute among scholars.  Not only did he tell the history of councils with details described nowhere else in the historical record, but he even outlined entire synods and councils that apparently never existed.  That's right:  in what was presented as the critical history of church councils, the author simply made stuff up.

And the kicker is that such was not really uncommon in centuries past.  Histories, for most of human experience, have not generally been expected to be accurate.  History was recorded to give meaning to people's place in the world, not merely to document details.  We in the modern West look at an ancient history and ask the question "Is this accurate?"  But such a question would make no sense to an ancient thinker.  An ancient thinker would look at a modern American history and ask the question "Is this meaningful?"

I once got my Grandpa and Brother flipped out over the First Council of Nicæa.  They claimed it wasn't real when I told them that the Biblical Canon was selected essentially in a committee in a fashion not too dissimilar to comic book continuity. 

My point is that it wasn't.  No "real" historical documents imply that it was.  The notion that it did comes from pseudo-history not too dissimilar to the schlock on Wikia.

[Max Rockatansky]

Wikia (which Fandom is part of) is terrible. Anybody can create a wiki about virtually anything. There is a whole wiki dedicated to "hypothetical hurricanes", for instance, where people dream up fictional storms that naturally cause epic amounts of damage to the areas they hit. Some people even pass the information off as real, which confuses people who don't know as much about hurricanes.

It used to be that you actually had to apply to get a wiki on Wikia. Now that you don't have to, it's an absolute mess.

It's nothing new.  History has been like that for centuries.

You've probably heard the assertion that the official list of books in the Christian bible was decided at the First Council of Nicæa in AD 325.  I mean, if you're familiar with the Da Vinci Code, then you should be familiar with the idea.  So the story goes, books which contradicted the bishops' (and the emperor's) beliefs were declared to be non-canonical, and those which accorded with their beliefs were declared to be canonical.  Well, I ask you, where did that assertion come from?  I'm glad you asked...

First of all, it's not from actual historical documents relating to the council itself.  No surviving agenda from the council mentions discussion about the canon of the bible.  No Christian writers of the era refer to there being a discussion about it there.  In fact, there is actual evidence that the canon of the bible was still being discussed after Nicæa.  So where does the historical trail lead?  Keep reading...

In the 18th Century, Enlightenment writer Voltaire wrote in his Philosophical Dictionary that, at the Council of Nicæa, all the books of scripture were heaped upon an altar, and those that fell to the ground were rejected from the canon.  This is, of course, laughable on its face:  do we really imagine that's how the bishops and emperor conducted business at their councils?  But, wait!  Voltaire didn't get the idea from thin air.

Before Voltaire, one must turn to about the turn of the 10th Century, specifically to a Greek document called the Synodicon Vetus.  This document was a history of Christian councils and synods and states that, at the Council of Nicæa, they piled up the books of Scripture and prayed that the spurious ones would be found underneath the altar and the reliable ones on top.  And who wrote the Synodicon Vetus?  Well, it's anonymous, but the writer is–shall we say–not of high repute among scholars.  Not only did he tell the history of councils with details described nowhere else in the historical record, but he even outlined entire synods and councils that apparently never existed.  That's right:  in what was presented as the critical history of church councils, the author simply made stuff up.

And the kicker is that such was not really uncommon in centuries past.  Histories, for most of human experience, have not generally been expected to be accurate.  History was recorded to give meaning to people's place in the world, not merely to document details.  We in the modern West look at an ancient history and ask the question "Is this accurate?"  But such a question would make no sense to an ancient thinker.  An ancient thinker would look at a modern American history and ask the question "Is this meaningful?"

I once got my Grandpa and Brother flipped out over the First Council of Nicæa.  They claimed it wasn't real when I told them that the Biblical Canon was selected essentially in a committee in a fashion not too dissimilar to comic book continuity. 

My point is that it wasn't.  No "real" historical documents imply that it was.  The notion that it did comes from pseudo-history not too dissimilar to the schlock on Wikia.

I caught that regarding your post, I was trying to piggyback on how easy it is to twist a narrative with what could be considered likely early fandom.  For context they were both very forceful in their opinions about things Biblical Canon, one might say very much to an annoying degree with alcohol involved..  Considering I was 17 at the time I wanted to see what would happen if I threw a wrench into their arguments.  What transpired wasn't too dissimilar to what one would expect out a debate regarding the Canon of the Marvel comics. 

Off the topic of fan fiction for a second; the real fun with my Grandpa was tricking him into watching Planet of the Apes when he was drinking.  He was all into that movie until the twist ending which had a narrative he didn't agree with. 

[kphoger]

I caught that regarding your post, I was trying to piggyback on how easy it is to twist a narrative with what could be considered likely early fandom.  For context they were both very forceful in their opinions about things Biblical Canon, one might say very much to an annoying degree with alcohol involved..  Considering I was 17 at the time I wanted to see what would happen if I threw a wrench into their arguments.  What transpired wasn't too dissimilar to what one would expect out a debate regarding the Canon of the Marvel comics. 

Now the real fun with my Grandpa was tricking him into watching Planet of the Apes when he was drinking.  He was all into that movie until the twist ending which had a narrative he didn't agree with. 

Oh my.  You poked the bear, in other words.

Speaking of your other point...  Have you ever watched this video?  Your comment makes me think you must have.  But maybe not, so...

[Max Rockatansky]

I caught that regarding your post, I was trying to piggyback on how easy it is to twist a narrative with what could be considered likely early fandom.  For context they were both very forceful in their opinions about things Biblical Canon, one might say very much to an annoying degree with alcohol involved..  Considering I was 17 at the time I wanted to see what would happen if I threw a wrench into their arguments.  What transpired wasn't too dissimilar to what one would expect out a debate regarding the Canon of the Marvel comics. 

Now the real fun with my Grandpa was tricking him into watching Planet of the Apes when he was drinking.  He was all into that movie until the twist ending which had a narrative he didn't agree with. 

Oh my.  You poked the bear, in other words.

Speaking of your other point...  Have you ever watched this video?  Your comment makes me think you must have.  But maybe not, so...

Yes, much to my Dad's dismay. 

I believe so, doesn't talk about scenes in Star Wars that were probably directly inspired by Biblical Canon?  It's hard not to see what seems to be obvious influences in the movie lore. 

[kphoger]

No, it explains the development of the biblical canon by way of Star Wars analogy.

[Max Rockatansky]

No, it explains the development of the biblical canon by way of Star Wars analogy.

Ah, then that's a new one for me.  Might be interesting to give a listen when I'm heading home tonight.