Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

'Mythbusters' is retarded

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 14:45

I just watched these men throw toast at the floor. Three landed on one side, seven on the other. They concluded that this was so statistically unlikely, that their throwing device had to be biased. WTF?

Discuss.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 16:58

When they say that TV rots your brain, that does include the Discovery Channel.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-15 18:50

I think you are the one being illogical. What you have suggested they have done is so illogicla it would be illogical to assume this is what they thought. They must have had other reasons to suspect that the throwing device created an unfair test, such as the fact that bread is usually pushed off the table or slides off a plate and the machine failed to recreate that.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-16 2:04

Yes mythbusters is retarded.  The only thing they have going for them is that they get to do things that you normally couldn't because they have money and a TV show.  For the most part their experiments are prone to errors and/or too simplified because they have absolutley no knowledge of the subject.

Example, I saw one show where they tested the 5 second rule of dropping food on the floor.  So they proceed to drop food on the floor, take a sample from the food and plate the sample on a agar plate.  After letting it the bacteria incubate they conclude that it makes no difference how long you leave the food on the floor because all their plates  have the same amount of bacteria.

Their problem?  They have no way of knowing if the bacteria came from the floor or were already on the food.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-16 3:22

Let's be honest here...  Nobody watches Mythbusters for hard scientific information.  They watch it to see Jamie and Adam build crazy inventions, blow shit up and drool over Kari.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-16 5:16

>>5
You are wise and fair.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-22 23:43

>>1 You are a fucktard that becomes angry because you just don't "get it"
>>5 speaks truth.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-23 11:09 (sage)

>>3
No, they explicitly stated their reasoning. Moreover, they had a machine that slid them off the table first, but noticed the bread kept landing on the side after a single flip, and discarded that contraption.
>>7
Don't "get it"? Maybe I just don't like how Discovery has gone all "X-TREME!!!!1".
>>5
I didn't see them build much, actually. Most of the time was taken up by their experiments and shitty commentary. Maybe it's watchable with the TV on 'mute', but in that case I have better things to do with my time.

Anyway, I'll just not watch it, and >>5,6,7 can enjoy their AIDS.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-27 21:10

Eagerly awaiting Mythbusters episode on rape.

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-28 7:37

needs more kari

Name: Anonymous 2005-12-28 16:17

Mythbusters is pretty damn entertaining and is reasonably accurate. Proving every aspect statistically right by running 1000 tests in a row wouldn't make good TV.

Come to think of it, I can't always remember afterwards if a myth was busted or not. It's just not that important compared to seeing hi-speed camera footage or HUEG explosions involving crash-test dummies.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-01 9:11

Mythbusters used to be awesome back then when it first started:- we get to see those two doing assloads of experiments and whatnots during the hour of the show.

But now, shit happens as they started having crap like more casts (oh look! It's a girl! She's hawt! And she loves building useless mechanical crap for Mythbusters!), doing less stuffs in an hour (I'm sick and tired of them showing the "MYTHBUSTERS" word carved in a wood/ moulded in a metal place/ burned on a paper/ arranged using screws and nuts and whatnot, and I'm also sick of footages of them building their machineries for like, 40 minutes before debunking a myth)

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-01 15:18

The show's a mixed bag. Some of the episodes suck, and some are entertaining. According to the tests you can survive a round from an M60 8 feet under water because the bullet explodes as it enters. Blasting someone in the chest with a shotgun also doesn't send them flying several feet back.

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-01 17:31

This show sucks.

They aren't fucking scientists by nature and you can tell.  They make their results on things by the logic, "If we can't reproduce it in like 2 or 3 tests in the lab where we assume a whole bunch of shit that might not be true, it is busted

Disgusting..

Not to mention that most of the myths it seems could be answered just by applying some fucking physics instead of spending money on some ellaborate crash test dummy doing some dumb shit....

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-01 23:06

>>14 <- FAGGOT NERD WHO DONESN'T EVEN HAVE A TV.
FAILS TO REALIZE THERE IS A WORLD OUTSIDE HIS MOMS BASEMENT.
L O L

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-02 1:01 (sage)

>>15 what?

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-02 1:13

none of you have raised the issue that the females on the show are the skankiest bikertramps in the world

they look like they were begotten of postsurgerytrannies with ingrown toenails

they dress the same way a 2€ whore dresses

they have the droll wit of a potatoe (obligatory dan quayle reference)

who cares about two nerds and shady logic, that's like dissin' d&d

but god these women are ugly

they look like inbetween episodes they parade around earths sphincter flashin the goods to local flotsam

bah!

Name: Anonymous 2006-01-02 2:28

>>17
 if you have to quote dan quayle then leave the interbutt now.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List