2009 Darwin Award Winners Announced

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2009 Darwin Award Winners Announced

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 4, 2010 @08:48AM from the dumber-and-dumberest dept.

Greg Lindahl writes "From the woman who jumped in a swollen creek to rescue her drowning moped, to the man who hopped over the divider at the edge of the highway to take a leak, and plunged 65 feet to his death, 2009 was a year both exceptional and unexceptional for Darwin Award-worthy behavior!"

208 comments

Wow. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 08:52 · Score: 0

I'd have thought it would take a lot longer than three days to read all the urban myths in the spam folder...
While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 08:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

It's a little distasteful to insult the dead. I may get -1 flamed for this, but am I the only one who feels this way?
1. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Definitely, not just you!
2. Re:While slightly humorous by d34dluk3 · 2010-01-04 08:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If they died honorably rescuing people or something, yeah. Jumping in a creek after a freaking moped, not so much.
3. Re:While slightly humorous by dschmit1 · 2010-01-04 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is not the dead that are being insulted, it is the manner in which they decided to become so.
4. Re:While slightly humorous by sopssa · 2010-01-04 08:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They're all random people no one knows, and frankly, people don't feel a lot for people they don't know. I think it's more stupid when people go "oh no, 50 people died on other side of the world - let's pretend we're sad" and then completely ignoring how many people die every die, and how many people die in wars and such. I can bet you don't really feel sad for the iraqi insurgents, do you? If you feel sad for a random person, you should feel sad for another random person too.
  And black humor is old thing.
5. Re:While slightly humorous by osu-neko · 2010-01-04 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's a little distasteful to insult the dead. I may get -1 flamed for this, but am I the only one who feels this way?
  It is impossible to insult the dead, although it's possible to offend their living friends and relatives...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
6. Re:While slightly humorous by sproingie · 2010-01-04 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  For me it's not so much the mockery as the snarky self-righteousness mixed with credulity. There's a big list of folks who I'd like to keep from propagating their kind of stupidity, and the people who click "forward" on every "Darwin Award" announcement are way up there on it.
  Slashdot editors: Take Darwin's picture off this. He deserves better.
7. Re:While slightly humorous by Explodicle · 2010-01-04 09:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, this is just another sign of how selfish and hateful the "rational and scientific" crowd is. Respect for the dead is something only rel
  Ha! Died while posting!
8. Re:While slightly humorous by osu-neko · 2010-01-04 09:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For me it's not so much the mockery as the snarky self-righteousness mixed with credulity. There's a big list of folks who I'd like to keep from propagating their kind of stupidity, and the people who click "forward" on every "Darwin Award" announcement are way up there on it.
  Meh. People have different senses of humor. There's nothing wrong with not sharing someone else's sense of humor. There's arguably something wrong with wishing them dead because their sense of humor differs from yours...
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
9. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:06 · Score: 0
  
  I may get -1 flamed for this, but...
  Anyone who says this automatically deserves it.
10. Re:While slightly humorous by hkz · 2010-01-04 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Forget about the dead; that chipper, gloating tone that those little "tales" always have, is an insult to the living. It rubs me the wrong way and is the main reason why the Darwin Awards annoy me.
11. Re:While slightly humorous by CannonballHead · 2010-01-04 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  That was the presumed motive. The dead person didn't say that.
12. Re:While slightly humorous by Z00L00K · 2010-01-04 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone who is a candidate ends up dead - just unable to procreate.
  When the site is up again - check for "Milk The Balls".
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
13. Re:While slightly humorous by sentientbeing · 2010-01-04 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  They didnt have time to say it.
  
  They were thinking it though.
  
  --
  
  ------
  beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
14. Re:While slightly humorous by dirk · 2010-01-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  I never understood the "don't speak ill of the dead" idea. Yes, you should never stand around and cheer people's deaths, but if they were stupid, why should I not say so just because they are dead? Imagine you heard about someone who almost drowned trying to save their moped from a flooded creek. Most people's first reaction would be "what a moron". Why should that change just because the person died? Did they become smarter in death?
  
  --
  
  "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
15. Re:While slightly humorous by selven · 2010-01-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Why is it distasteful to insult the dead?
16. Re:While slightly humorous by sentientbeing · 2010-01-04 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Thats because theyre not in our Monkeysphere.
  
  --
  
  ------
  beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
17. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  They make it a point of not including anyone on the list who died because of anything other than what your average person would stop and think "now wait, how could this go wrong" if not twice but at least once. But in all fairness think of how smart the average person is. Then think that half of them are dumber.
18. Re:While slightly humorous by MarkvW · 2010-01-04 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  It is not impossible to insult the dead. You could insult the dead by making them undead.
19. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's not funny when someone dies. And when someone is dead they cannot defend their case to insults.
  Hypothetically speaking, The lady who drowned trying to save her moped - it could have been all she had. Maybe she didn't have any other transportation, and thus she wouldn't have been able to get to work on time. Then she'd lose her job, lose her money, and wouldn't be able to feed her children.
  The point is - yes, people do stupid things. People Die doing stupid things. Stupid things are funny, but its alot less funny when people die. And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story.
20. Re:While slightly humorous by rumblin'rabbit · 2010-01-04 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  I may get -1 flamed for this, but I agree. Monkeedude's just asking for it.
  
  Never apologize in advance. There's always time to apologize afterwords.
21. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  They don't have the chance to defend their logic and reasoning for doing so.
  Are you going to say that you have never in your life done something that is stupid, but seemed like a good idea at the time?
22. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:25 · Score: 0
  
  they got over the dead of a friend or relative, they can handle a joke
23. Re:While slightly humorous by Nadaka · 2010-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  your definition of not impossible intrigues me.
24. Re:While slightly humorous by fermion · 2010-01-04 09:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I understand the sentiments, but think for a second what is actually going on. The Darwin awards are publicizing fatal accidents that should not have really occurred, and they are doing so in a not so stupid way. They could have "The stupid awards for people who offed themselves in the stupidest manner possible and left there friends and family grieving as asking why things like this happen", but they don't. They have an award for people who off themselves in unexpected ways, and the hope is that since the genes were not transferred, these things never to have to happen again. In fact, by spreading the meme that stupid accidents are preventable, what they may actually be doing to saving another family from having to grieve over a family member that chooses physical possessions over life.
  I do take this kind of seriously. When I was 10 and in school, one of my classmates, in fact her entire family, died instantly when they drove off an over pass or a freeway. I was brought to school over this overpass everyday. At that time there was very little traffic. To this day i wonder what the parents were thinking about, or doing, instead of driving, that was worth the life of their children. It may be disrespectful to the dead, and I admit I cannot know the circumstances around the incident, but I do certainly hold those parents in low regard.
  I can't help but feel these cautionary tales are a good public service. They remind us that the world is dangerous, and the miracle is that we humans have a brain that we can use to survive. Unless we don't.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
25. Re:While slightly humorous by yurtinus · 2010-01-04 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  All sorts of people find all sorts of things distasteful. It doesn't make anybody wrong or right. There's no reason to get judgmental over something so trivial as humor. I think our ability to sit back and chuckle at life rather than get offended is a tremendously useful trait.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
26. Re:While slightly humorous by selven · 2010-01-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a court of law where we're resurrecting them and killing them again. These are merely jokes. I don't have anything against random people on the internet laughing at my stupid mistakes, and I, being living, still have a reputation to uphold.
27. Re:While slightly humorous by rumblin'rabbit · 2010-01-04 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  But did you think of how many lives (or genitals) this award has saved? There are some out there who might consider using their plugged-in laptop while in the bathtub, or stick their johnson down a garburator. Such people, lacking the ability to think through the consequences of these ideas, at least have the benefit of other people's experiences to draw on.
28. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Publicizing a stupid death is not what upsets me, but rather the concept behind "Darwin Awards".
  Basically what they are saying is that the person was so stupid that they did not deserve to survive or reproduce.
  They are of the opinion that these people deserved to die.
29. Re:While slightly humorous by Your.Master · 2010-01-04 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that you can't laugh at others' stupidity just because you yourself have been stupid?
  Even if she were alive, she almost certainly would not come around to a random message board and defend herself.
30. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed I have and I deserved to be mocked. Even if I had died.
31. Re:While slightly humorous by spun · 2010-01-04 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Right. The lady in question was driving a moped because she had a prior DUI. She ran a police roadblock into a flooded street and ended up going over an embankment into a flooded creek. The police rescued her. She then jumped BACK into the creek.
  Yes indeed, could have happened to any one of us.
  But yes, things are less funny when people die because, you know, we've got so few people and it's so hard to make new ones.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
32. Re:While slightly humorous by Tubal-Cain · 2010-01-04 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Because it's not funny when someone dies. And when someone is dead they cannot defend their case to insults.
  Some things just aren't defensible. Like trying to tear apart an abandoned warehouse to steal scrap metal, starting with the supports. Or cutting your head off with a chainsaw.
33. Re:While slightly humorous by winwar · 2010-01-04 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story."
  And how would knowing the whole story make her actions any less stupid? Her actions led to her death. Mocking her actions is a good thing-it might encourage others not to do similar things.
  I'd like to think I would never do anything as stupid as that but if I do, I fully expect to be mocked for it. Because I'd deserve it.
34. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that when someone singles me out and says "You are so dumb you deserve to die" I'd like to be able to ask why they think so and inform them of exactly why I took the course of action I did.
  It's not insulting that they report a funny or odd death. It happens, and its worth a chuckle. It's insulting that they tagline Darwinism (The toughest or most adaptive survive) to it.
  It puts an air of arrogance that they themselves are obviously smarter than everyone who has died unnaturally simply because they themselves are still alive.
35. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhole cover and die.
  Mel Brooks
36. Re:While slightly humorous by rumblin'rabbit · 2010-01-04 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  My post wasn't serious. The number of possible bone-headed acts is likely too vast to list, much less remember. There's no substitute for a little mental firepower.
  
  But let's face it - the Darwin Awards are funny in the same way as South Park is. It's the perverseness of it, perhaps a reaction to the stifling and hypocritical political correctness found in segments of our society (e.g., the modern university).
37. Re:While slightly humorous by MBGMorden · 2010-01-04 10:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Read the article though and regardless of it, they were an idiot. She went into the creek on the moped, the officer PULLED HER OUT with a rope, interviewed her, and when he went to the car for a second she bolted and jumped back into the creek.
  Don't matter what she was jumping in for, she was an idiot.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
38. Re:While slightly humorous by mhajicek · 2010-01-04 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's not the dead who are being insulted, it's the living people who later became dead.
39. Re:While slightly humorous by mhajicek · 2010-01-04 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  You gonna sign up for his news letter?
40. Re:While slightly humorous by Gerafix · 2010-01-04 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Why deify the dead? Just because they died doesn't mean they were good people.
41. Re:While slightly humorous by DriedClexler · 2010-01-04 10:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  We're not insulting them; we're honoring them for removing their genes from the gene pool before they could replicate.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
42. Re:While slightly humorous by ColdWetDog · 2010-01-04 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  You don't get it....
  
  "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." Mel Brooks
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
43. Re:While slightly humorous by DarKnyht · 2010-01-04 10:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  No basically what they are saying is that whatever genetic or environmental conditioning that person had that led them to make the poor choices that led to their death has died with them, and thus hopefully has not been passed on to a future generation. Thus it ensures that the strongest and fittest of our species survive and reproduce.
  It sort of falls along the lines of why does our society really needs labels such as "Do not use on roof" on a snow blower, "Caution moves when in use" on a scooter, or "Not for personal hygiene" on a flush-able toilet brush. If someone is too retarded to realize these things on their own why do we protect them?
  
  --
  Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
44. Re:While slightly humorous by Dunbal · 2010-01-04 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  They are of the opinion that these people deserved to die.
  Deserved? Why, do you believe in "fate" and "destiny"? If so, then why argue because clearly these people died because it was meant to be.
  I have news for you, everyone WILL die. Including you. So we all "deserve" to die.
  The site is merely a statement of fact. These people died unnecessarily by their own carelessness. The tongue in cheek part is that, if a tendency for such carelessness was hereditary, those genes won't be passed on. That's it. You don't need to be overly dramatic. If such things offend you, then don't read them.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
45. Re:While slightly humorous by dummondwhu · 2010-01-04 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  There are plenty of dead who deserve to be insulted. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong. So, I'm not sure where the idea of being dead elevates one above being spoken ill of by the living. It's just a matter of deciding where to draw the line between respecting a dead individual or not. Your line may vary, but there is certainly nothing inherently distasteful about insulting the dead.
46. Re:While slightly humorous by hondo77 · 2010-01-04 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Basically what they are saying is that the person was so stupid that they did not deserve to survive or reproduce.
  Yes. Yes they are.
  Next!
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
47. Re:While slightly humorous by hondo77 · 2010-01-04 10:27 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It's a little distasteful to insult the dead...am I the only one who feels this way?
  Yes. Yes you are.
  Next!
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
48. Re:While slightly humorous by dvice_null · 2010-01-04 10:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  > I never understood the "don't speak ill of the dead" idea.
  It is for historical reasons. We used to bury our dead with their stuff, but we broke their weapons before putting them into the grave, for our own protection. For the same reason, it was not wise to speak ill of them.
  The reason why we still have that rule is best explained with the famous bananas and monkeys example:
  http://paws.kettering.edu/~jhuggins/humor/banana.html
49. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  They are of the opinion that these people deserved to die.
  Deserved? Why, do you believe in "fate" and "destiny"?
  No. I don't believe in fate or destiny. By deserved, I mean the site is making the claim that "they are so stupid it is beneficial to society for them not to live/reproduce"
  Personally, if I got so drunk out of my mind on new years that I died, I wouldn't want the world to think its better off that I died when my contributions to society could have more than outweighed the silly-ness in which I passed away.
50. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  No but it doesn't mean they were bad either.
  Some guy could find the cure for cancer, die the next day with a laptop on the bed catching fire.
  We'll post them a Darwinism award for dieing in such a ridiculous way, being proud that their bad genes are not passed on while completely ignoring any good genes or positive contributions they could have made.
51. Re:While slightly humorous by jbezorg · 2010-01-04 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  It's a little distasteful to insult the dead.
  Dead caveman around the world applaud your stance against Geico.
  
  --
  I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
52. Re:While slightly humorous by anagama · 2010-01-04 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  But in all fairness think of how smart the average person is. Then think that half of them are dumber.
  You can't be certain the average represents a midpoint of the number of people who are smarter or dumber because a "curve-buster" could move the population numbers on either side of the average, up or down depending on the distribution of really-really-smart vs. really-really-dumb individuals. Median works mathematically, but it does feel clunky in prose.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
53. Re:While slightly humorous by dotgain · 2010-01-04 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  From the fine site:
  
  Laughter
  One should not be ashamed of laughing over the misfortune of others. Humor is perceived by human brains alone, which sets us apart from all other beings. Jokes always involve the unexpected clash between reality and expectation
54. Re:While slightly humorous by Runaway1956 · 2010-01-04 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Dude - errr - Monkee,
  It's no big deal. Some people are jerks, and need to be made fun of. They don't stop being jerks or being funny just because they are dead. You loved your (mom, dad, grandma, grandpa, dog or whatever) before he/she died, right? You still love him/her? See, nothing has changed, except you can't hug them or talk to them. Same deal here. The village idiots are still the village idiots. Dead village idiots are even better than live ones, because the manner of their deaths is usually educational.
  Just read, and enjoy.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
55. Re:While slightly humorous by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-04 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  and the hope is that since the genes were not transferred, these things never to have to happen again.
  See this is the only thing that really bugs me, it suggests that because of a persons ONE mistake in life they shouldn't have the right to pass on Genes.
  Its fine to have "Odd News" and some tiny jabs at ridiculous scenarios. It does exactly as you said - spread information thats beneficial to everyone. Informs people of dangers, good stuff.
  It's just the arrogance associated with "It's better off they died" - whether to promote a message or to remove "bad genes" that puts me off.
56. Re:While slightly humorous by Runaway1956 · 2010-01-04 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we went to different schools. My lessons included, "Never explain or apologize. Your friends don't need it, and your enemies won't believe it." I think that was in Social Studies. Or, maybe Sunday School. I dunno, but I heard it somewhere. ;^)
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
57. Re:While slightly humorous by twidarkling · 2010-01-04 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  its alot less funny when people die.
  Not really.
  When something isn't funny, people rarely know the whole story either. You gonna criticize people who get sad over someone's death, and say "You don't know, they could have been a serial rapist, or they could have been in constant pain." You should be happy they're dead.
  Grief is a selfish emotion. When you're grieving, you're not thinking "Oh, the departed are so poorly off, I wish I could improve their lot in death!" You're thinking "I miss them, I want them back, I want them not dead. I want I want I want." You actually want people to be *more* selfish by wishing they had random people they never knew be not-dead? You don't know the people, you don't know the whole story. That's exactly why it's okay to laugh. Triply so since most of the stories are "unverified" so often. It's cathartic. It's a way of getting out any resentment towards the teeming multitudes of stupid people out there. And if you don't have any resentment, you've obviously never worked customer service.
  
  --
  Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
58. Re:While slightly humorous by MWoody · 2010-01-04 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  "I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying you do stupid things." Yeah, heard that one before. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
59. Re:While slightly humorous by Tomfrh · 2010-01-04 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  It certainly is distasteful. We've all done stupid things in our lives, but that doesn't mean you deserve to die.
60. Re:While slightly humorous by CannonballHead · 2010-01-04 11:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Granted. Or at least, an Idiot for the Moment. Which pretty much everyone could win an award for, I dare say. For example, almost every professional sports player, it seems :)
61. Re:While slightly humorous by DeVilla · 2010-01-04 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think he had a problem with the "chucking at life" part. I'm guessing it's more of the "Putting the recently dead on display for laughs." that might seem a little distasteful. I couldn't say why. They're dead. It's funny. Laugh!
62. Re:While slightly humorous by Boldoran · 2010-01-04 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The arrogant cruelty in the tone of those stories renders them unfunny for me.
63. Re:While slightly humorous by rumblin'rabbit · 2010-01-04 11:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Bachelor, are we?
64. Re:While slightly humorous by Boldoran · 2010-01-04 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  Griev may be selfish if you are overcoming the loss of someone close to you. Empathy on the other hand allows us to simphatize with the suffering of other people. So while these people might have died doing something stupid I find myself unable to gloat about it.
65. Re:While slightly humorous by PitaBred · 2010-01-04 11:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's perfectly possible to insult the dead. It's just impossible for them to be offended by it.
  
  --
  My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
66. Re:While slightly humorous by Opportunist · 2010-01-04 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but it's poking fun at morons that just happen to be dead. We'd laugh just as much if they somehow survived.
  And, bluntly, this year's winner really, really, really deserves it. Whether I mean the award or death is up to the reader. Let's see:
  1) Driving with a motorcycle in a thunderstorm, with water already flooding the streets, in an area where you have been living all your life and probably already saw this before.
  2) Driving (speeding, no less) past a police road block telling you that the road ahead is flooded.
  3) Being flushed into the river that drags you with it and nearly drowns you, if it weren't for that helpful police man who pretty much saved your life.
  4) Jumping back into said river.
  I dunno. I might be cold hearted but ... is it me or does that constitute "really asking for it"?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
67. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 11:46 · Score: 0
  
  "I'm not calling you stupid, I'm just saying you do stupid things." Yeah, heard that one before. It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now.
  We all make stupid decisions or do stupid things at some point in our lives, things that made perfect sense at the time but when you look back you wonder how you possibly made it through in one piece. Does that make everyone stupid?
68. Re:While slightly humorous by Opportunist · 2010-01-04 11:49 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Nonono, we're not mocking them for dying. We're mocking them for being stupid!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
69. Re:While slightly humorous by The+-e**(i*pi) · 2010-01-04 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  undoing wrong mod
70. Re:While slightly humorous by Opportunist · 2010-01-04 12:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, but at least I had the common sense NOT to do several things that are almost guaranteed to make you appear in the obituaries. You will probably notice that the Darwin Awards rarely if ever show freak accidents. It's usually awarded for doing something that is almost guaranteed to kill you, and that you, as a being more or less capable of thinking coherently, should know that. Care to show me the logic in:
  Taking a billiard ball in your mouth"
  Digging out armed land mines to place them somewhere else?
  Juggling grenades?
  Using the blunt end of a loaded shotgun to crack open a window? (last line, not that the other short mentionings were any smarter...)
  Cutting off your balls over a bet?
  Or your head?
  And so many examples more that are impossible NOT to end up lethal.
  How do you want to defend ANY of those "logics"?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
71. Re:While slightly humorous by Obfuscant · 2010-01-04 12:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  To this day i wonder what the parents were thinking about, or doing, instead of driving, that was worth the life of their children. It may be disrespectful to the dead, and I admit I cannot know the circumstances around the incident, but I do certainly hold those parents in low regard.
  What those parents were doing that was worth the life of their children was DRIVING THEM TO SCHOOL so they could turn out to be self-appointed judges for other people's mistakes, just like YOUR parents drove YOU to school so you could be here today.
  You make the point for this thread better than anything anyone else has said. You have NO IDEA what happened, but you'll happily assume that the parents were grossly negligent ("instead of driving") and condemn them for an accident that may very well not have been their fault. In case you missed the point, the only difference between your saintly parents and "those parents" who are obviously scum for killing their children is that YOUR parent's child didn't die in a traffic accident and their's did. There's a saying that some civilized people use: "There but for the grace of God go I". In case you don't understand, it means "whatever it was that happened to THEM could have happened to ME, instead."
  I expect you've never seen black ice form on an overpass, or a sleepy 18-wheel driver try to use your lane, or any of a thousand other things that could have caused the accident without it being the fault of "those parents" you regard so lowly. But obviously, they were negligent somehow, because YOU know they were, even after you admit you know NOTHING about what happened.
72. Re:While slightly humorous by Opportunist · 2010-01-04 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Some guy could find the cure for cancer, die the next day with a laptop on the bed catching fire.
  That would be an accident and not worthy of getting a Darwin Award. To receive one, you have to do something that puts you into lethal risk unnecessarily (i.e. not to achive something "worth" risking your life for, like rescuing someone else), preferably with a chance to correct your stupidity and choosing deliberately to push even further. When you look at the DA winners, you'll notice that all of them somehow really, really wanted to die, at least it seems from their actions.
  Accidents are not covered by the DAs. It has to happen through your action, and it has to be an action that is stupid enough that the average (not so) common sense asks you "hey, man, you really think that's a good idea?"
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
73. Re:While slightly humorous by yurtinus · 2010-01-04 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  Eh, it's not the dead we're laughing at-- it's their situations. Hell, if I died under ridiculous circumstances, I'd *expect* my friends to chuckle about it at my wake. Tragic yes, but it's something to be remembered by!
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
74. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 12:24 · Score: 0
  
  Who cares? That "Evolve the Music" thing is fucken awesome.
75. Re:While slightly humorous by Obfuscant · 2010-01-04 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thus it ensures that the strongest and fittest of our species survive and reproduce.
  And yet, we go out of our way every day to try to keep that from being true. We use miracle medical procedures and drugs to keep people alive well past puberty who would have otherwise died and their genetic abnormalities gone with them.
  Just look at the percentage of people who wear glasses. Do you imagine that the only reason people in, say, caveman days didn't wear glasses was because they hadn't been invented? No, it was because those who had poor eyesight didn't get to reproduce -- they got eaten by the grue. Natural selection called for good eyesight. So, when eyeglasses were invented to help with old-age, wham, they started showing up on youngsters too, and suddenly the inability to differentiate Susie Who from Sally What at more than ten paces didn't become a procreational roadblock.
  If someone is too retarded to realize these things on their own why do we protect them?
  Good question. Civilization, perhaps?
76. Re:While slightly humorous by amirulbahr · 2010-01-04 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  You so set that up for yourself.
77. Re:While slightly humorous by snowraver1 · 2010-01-04 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  I bet she was making a break for the beer store... She left the house to get beer, then started drowning, then got saved, then ran back into the water supposedly for the moped (according to her mom, who wasn't there). My money was that she was running after the booze.
  
  --
  Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
78. Re:While slightly humorous by Ginger+Unicorn · 2010-01-04 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  it's not an impossibility
  
  --
  (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
79. Re:While slightly humorous by aXis100 · 2010-01-04 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  If the bike was that important to her, it'a bit odd she drove it in a terrible storm (to get beer), sped through a barrier and into a flooded crossing.
80. Re:While slightly humorous by lgw · 2010-01-04 14:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It puts an air of arrogance that they themselves are obviously smarter than everyone who has died unnaturally simply because they themselves are still alive.
  People who go out of their way to kill themselves despite numerous, clear safety measures are stupid. Sure they may have reasons for what they did, stupid reasons. OK, there still significant disagreement over the meaning of "intelligence", but taking reasonable steps to avoid death is a handy rule of thumb (excepting making a sacrifice to save other lives). You can read the comments of family members for many of these submissions, and the usual theme is not "he made a noble sacrifice" but "he was always doing crazy stuff like that".
  Plus, anyone who breaks into a live power station to steal the copper from the power lines (which is about half the Darwin Award submissions these days) is not only stupid but an asshole, and deserves all possible criticism.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
81. Re:While slightly humorous by quanticle · 2010-01-04 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  What's so bullshit about it? As even Forrest Gump knew, "Stupid is as stupid does."
  
  --
  We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
82. Re:While slightly humorous by lgw · 2010-01-04 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  The best part of the Darwin awards is they they piss off people like you, who are convinced that every person is a special precious snowflake. Some people are really just too willfully stupid to live. Can we know for certain that the report of death-by-stupidity was a true report? No, of course not. But we're laughing at the facts-as-reported.
  We pay too high a price in modern society for fools who go out of their way to bypass safety measures and kill themselves. The right answer is not more safety measures (and less freedom, or higher cost of everything), but just accepting that some people can't (and probably shouldn't) be saved. The wrong answer is why an aspirin costs $35 at a hospital.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
83. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 14:43 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't result in any matches.
84. Re:While slightly humorous by scire9 · 2010-01-04 15:21 · Score: 0
  
  And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story."
  And how would knowing the whole story make her actions any less stupid? Her actions led to her death. Mocking her actions is a good thing-it might encourage others not to do similar things. I'd like to think I would never do anything as stupid as that but if I do, I fully expect to be mocked for it. Because I'd deserve it.
  Take the story of the girl jumping in the water after her moped for instance. Now lets say she had a ring worth $100,000 tucked away in the seat. Now the person's actions don't seem so stupid. Granted some people will argue that no amount of money is worth risking your life, but the point still remains. Almost anything can seem "stupid" if you're not looking at every variable in the equation.
  That being said, I don't condone stupidity. I am a firm believer in this bash quote.
  
  #4753 +(16242)- [X] The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
85. Re:While slightly humorous by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 15:57 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up!
86. Re:While slightly humorous by Nadaka · 2010-01-04 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  So says the unicorn.
87. Re:While slightly humorous by ps2os2 · 2010-01-04 18:52 · Score: 0
  
  Of course it is but it is also "OK" to have a morbid sense of humor (ask any mortician).
  Pretty much nothing is sacred now days from the Pope to the President to programmers and on and on. Political humor at times pushes the limits. For instance using Obama's race in a mocking way (like eating water mellon or whatever) to me is just downright racist. If it were used to make an honest point it would be one thing but it is becoming more and more racist as time goes on.
88. Re:While slightly humorous by supernova_hq · 2010-01-04 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't care if he DID set that up for himself, that is the absolute funniest post I have ever read on slashdot!
89. Re:While slightly humorous by supernova_hq · 2010-01-04 20:23 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  On slashdot, aren't we?
90. Re:While slightly humorous by Explodicle · 2010-01-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  No I didn't.
91. Re:While slightly humorous by Aklyon · 2010-01-05 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  no, we're mocking them for dieng in such a stupid way!
  
  --
  I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
92. Re:While slightly humorous by sproingie · 2010-01-05 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  I never said I wished them dead. That's the sort of mean-spiritedness that the Darwin Award fans go in for.
93. Re:While slightly humorous by Labcoat+Samurai · 2010-01-05 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm.... if I were to tasked with answering the same question, I would probably say "It's a public forum and we might inflict pain on the person's loved ones." It'd be kind of a douche move to walk up to the woman's grieving mother and say "Man, was your daughter stupid, jumping into that creek!" Putting it in a sign on her front lawn would be about as bad. Telling it to a friend of yours in person is pretty low risk. Posting it on the internet is somewhere in between.
  For the record, I think the acceptability of it varies by how funny it is vs how much harm it might cause, which makes it awfully subjective. Like jokes about 9/11 or the Challenger. They're offensive unless they're funny.
94. Re:While slightly humorous by steelfood · 2010-01-05 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the awards do a very important public service. Just because they do it in a humorous way doesn't make it any less important. Not everybody knows that paint is toxic to breathe in. Not everybody looks before they leap (how many times have you sat on your remote control that's laying on the couch). These stories, while humorous, have very important lessons. After all, common sense isn't nearly so common.
  The humor softens the blow, so to speak. If a somebody went around telling grown adults to look before leaping or they might die, most people would likely brush it off as a nag or a lecture or some crazy talk. But if the lesson is masked with humor, it goes in easier. A spoonful of sugar, as some might say.
  As for your classmate, I wouldn't judge without knowing the whole story. Perhaps the driver was distracted, or perhaps the driver had a heart attack.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
95. Re:While slightly humorous by DeVilla · 2010-01-09 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  I know. The latest batch don't seem as funny though. I liked the days when you heard about the guy making a rocket car with a solid fuel booster or a Redneck driving while loading his shot gun. Thing that were just bizarre or comic book like in nature.
  Three people, a family, getting zapped putting up an antenna is stupid, but but bizarre. And then reading their forum and the way they fight to justify nominating a 15 year old who was probably doing what Mom and Dad told him. People were upset that there was a daughter still alive. It did sound like the fun was the death.
  For me, the best one was the guy who won without dying. He did remove himself from the gene pool in a spectacularly stupid way.
Future winner by Dartz-IRL · 2010-01-04 08:54 · Score: 3, Funny

I have, on more than one occasion, been referred to as a future award winner. Given how epically my attempt at a 3-phase mains-powered coilgun failed... I feel they may be right.
At least I'll win something in my life. Even if it takes my life to win it.

--
So there I was, scribbling down some notes off the PC screen by hand, when I reached for the keyboard and Ctrl-S'd.
1. Re:Future winner by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  Just make sure it doesn't take someone else's life too.
2. Re:Future winner by tool462 · 2010-01-04 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Since you just need to remove yourself from the gene pool, you don't have to lose your life. You could just horribly maim your genitals!
3. Re:Future winner by steelfood · 2010-01-05 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's a true lifetime achievement award.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Weak. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2010-01-04 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

These are Darwin award worthy?
First off, the rigor. Minor complaint, but it'd be neat if they linked to a police report, or a newspaper article on these incidents.
Second off, the stupid. These are by far not the stupidest deaths I've read about last year. the DAs are getting weak.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
1. Re:Weak. by linuxgurugamer · 2010-01-04 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. I was expecting to read some outrageously funny/sad endings, but these were all.....blah
  I don't insult the dead, but sometimes, the manner in which they die can be sadly amusing.
2. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:05 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Your request is magically granted:
  Every story has a link to the original
  submission at the bottom.
3. Re:Weak. by belkode · 2010-01-04 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is what the DAs are all about. What you see is that the incredibly stupid have already removed themselves from the gene pool. So these are really only astoundingly stupid deaths. You can plot these on a graph, probably, with the degree of stupidity on the y axis, and time on the x-axis. It will take more time for events to be logged as the stupidity of the participants necessarily decreases. The more stupid you are, the more quickly you act. The lameness of these new deaths is an expected result, if you ask me.
4. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).
5. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  They are not "awards." They are the candidates, and the people who run the website do require proof such as a police report.
6. Re:Weak. by spun · 2010-01-04 09:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).
  Also, depending on the Darwin Award in question, a biofuel, an industrial lubricant, or a tasty new snack.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
7. Re:Weak. by corbettw · 2010-01-04 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  I have to wonder why there's no mention of the Somali pirates who took over that American container ship. I mean, what did they expect was going to happen? There were Americans on that thing!
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
8. Re:Weak. by jandoedel · 2010-01-04 10:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  The bank robbers in Belgium is mentioned in this article. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216735/Two-bank-robbers-killed-explosives-trying-blow-safe.html BTW, it's not mentioned in this article, but the safe survived the blast.
9. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Follow the links to the "original submission", you'll find the references to news sites there.
  And THAT is the reason the selection are getting weak. They are all actual deaths, instead of made up stories.
10. Re:Weak. by thePsychologist · 2010-01-04 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  RTFA, there are references. If you click on "Original Submission", there are links to the news articles.
  
  --
  "What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." Ralph Waldo Emerson
11. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 10:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and they are not entertaining. If only it were legal to tell made up stories for the purpose of entertainment. Maybe we would put some of them in books, possibly segregated in a different section in a library or book store to ensure that people could tell they were made up. Then we might be able to take some of these made up stories and pay some people to pretend to be people they are not and re present the story with their words and actions. Possibly in front of a group of people, or we could record a video of them with the same technology as our news anchors do, and air it instead of documentaries or news reports on the television.
12. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  All of them have the original newspaper articles (in some cases, more than one) quoted in full.
  I'll leave it as an exercise to you to find it, just to prove you're not Darwin-worthy yourself. :-)
13. Re:Weak. by Yevoc · 2010-01-04 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  the DAs are getting weak.
  This should be good news. The best DA year will be when there are no awards, indicative that the previous deaths actually went to a decent cause.
  
  --
  AccountKiller
14. Re:Weak. by mobby_6kl · 2010-01-04 10:54 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Even better, what about the fucking morons who attacked some NATO warships? To be fair to the pirates, some of the ships were French, but still that's pretty retarded.
15. Re:Weak. by mousse-man · 2010-01-04 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Which makes these two recipients even more worthy of a Darwin.
16. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 12:22 · Score: 0
  
  You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).
  Sadly true,, As proven by the growth of the California population.
17. Re:Weak. by aXis100 · 2010-01-04 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Chances are they'd already had kids. Darwin award recipients must do the gene pool a favour by not contributing to it before they die.
18. Re:Weak. by ps2os2 · 2010-01-04 19:01 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous coward said: You failed to take into account that stupid people are a renewable resource (and a growth market).
  That is probably the reason why there are still families inter marrying and that does cause the DNA to take unexpected turns.
  I have heard that seems to happen in the south more than any where else in the nation. Lead in the paint? Who knows.
19. Re:Weak. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-05 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  Remember you don't just need to kill yourself in a stupid way to qualify, you also need to remove your genes from the gene pool, that means no children aswell, or if you have children you need to kill them in the same process as killing yourself (though it's not really funny when a stupid person gets their children killed).
Oh my god! by Locke2005 · 2010-01-04 08:59 · Score: 1

They've slashdotted the Darwin Awards! Anybody have a mirror?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:Oh my god! by navygeek · 2010-01-04 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  I guess the site proved 'survival of the fittest' without even trying. Couldn't survive /., won't be able to make it 'in the real world'.
2. Re:Oh my god! by bolverk · 2010-01-04 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  Of course. http://www.darwinawards.com.nyud.net:8080/ is your friend.
3. Re:Oh my god! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:26 · Score: 0
  
  They've slashdotted the Darwin Awards! Anybody have a mirror?
  You Bastards!
I have mixed feelings about this by yog · 2010-01-04 08:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list.
Sure, that guy who jumped over the barrier to relieve himself should have been more careful. But does that mean we need to celebrate his death?
That priest with the balloons--OK, he should have bailed earlier, or figured out his GPS in advance of his trip. Clearly he made some mistakes. But he was trying to do something for a charitable cause.
Lots of smart people make dumb mistakes; we're all only human. An old saying "There but for grace of God go I" seems to apply in many of these situations.
That DUI woman who drowned in the creek--she's a pathetic sort of person, obviously lacking in common sense. But not knowing the full story (the author speculated and extrapolated an awful lot in this case) I hesitate to condemn her as deserving of the Darwin awards.
All in all it was a mediocre set of awards this year. I've seen better.

--
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
1. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Threni · 2010-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  > There but for grace of God go I"
  Well, that and about 50 IQ points...
  (Also, you've chosen a somewhat ironic choice of phrase to defend a Darwin Award candidate.)
2. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-01-04 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  I once got a shock during enclosure maintenance when I touched a secondary supply that wasn't powered off. It was a minor shock, but that's partly because I was wearing insulated boots and had the other hand in my pocket. (i.e. there was no path to ground.)
  The kicker is that I had a voltage tester in my pocket but I didn't bother to pull it out that one time.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
3. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by winwar · 2010-01-04 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  "We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list."
  Not really. Garden variety stupidity is not supposed to be eligible (killing oneself with a loaded weapon, for instance).
  But a drunk driver who drowns after jumping into a flooded creek trying to save their moped. That is a much higher WTF.
4. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:56 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  OK, folks, stop the ululations. You observe Halloween, don't you? Dealing with our own moribundity in a mocking and offensive manner is a tradition. When the living reduce people to their spectacular death, they do so as a reflection on their own carnality. It's nothing personal and certainly not intended to diminish any noble intentions the award winners may have had. It's just a way of reminding ourselves that we're all gonna go some day.
5. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by hondo77 · 2010-01-04 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, that guy who jumped over the barrier to relieve himself should have been more careful. But does that mean we need to celebrate his death?
  Yes. Yes it does.
  Next!
  
  --
  I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
6. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 10:31 · Score: 0
  
  Have you heard of "Look before you leap?"
7. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Quirkz · 2010-01-04 11:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list.
  No kidding. Just last weekend I was changing the lightbulb in a lamp. Took the bulb out, and noticed a bit of styrofoam or paper in socket. Thought to myself, "that shouldn't be there, it could be a fire hazard!" and stuck my finger in to fish it out. A sudden tingling/burning/biting sensation clued me in to the fact the lamp was still plugged in, and while I'd rotated the switch a couple of times in the process of realizing the bulb was out, I'd apparently left it in the ON position when I stopped.
  So I took my finger out of there, inverted the lamp, and let the styrofoam fall out on its own. No real damage done in that instance, but for a sometimes intelligent person that was a brief moment of serious stupidity.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
8. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by lgw · 2010-01-04 14:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Sure, but to get a Darwin award you'd usually need to willfully bypass some safety measure, not merely make a mistake. So if your wife said "honey, that's not safe" and unplugged the lamp, and then you came up with some plan to get her out of the room just so you could plug it back in and electrocute yourself, then maybe. Also, if you inject milk into your scrotum, you've clearly gone beyond "intelligent person but brief moment of serious stupidity".
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
9. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by YeeHaW_Jelte · 2010-01-05 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  "need to willfully bypass some safety measure"
  Like jumping over a concrete barrier in a unguarded moment? Could've happenend to me too, I'd be hard pressed to believe it or something very much like it couldn't have happenend to every single poster present here.
  The guy-needing-to-pee made a small mistake that costed him dearly. I see nothing funny there.
  
  --
  
  ---
  "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
10. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by DriedClexler · 2010-01-05 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Also, if you inject milk into your scrotum, you've clearly gone beyond "intelligent person but brief moment of serious stupidity".
  Right, but injecting "milk" out of your scrotum tends to disqualify you for the Darwin Awards.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
11. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by WuphonsReach · 2010-01-05 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I once got a shock during enclosure maintenance when I touched a secondary supply that wasn't powered off. It was a minor shock, but that's partly because I was wearing insulated boots and had the other hand in my pocket. (i.e. there was no path to ground.)
  
  I thought the purpose of keeping one hand in your pocket is so that the current doesn't cross the center of the chest cavity and play havoc with your heart. The idea being that the current will travel down one side or the other to the floor.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
12. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-05 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  My son has you beat -- he put a safety pin in an electrical outlet; needless to say the pin melted, black puff on his finger and the outlet. He lived, and will never do that again I can tell you that!
13. Re:I have mixed feelings about this by lgw · 2010-01-05 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  That was really a weak Darwin Award, no argument (I mean, technically the concrete barrier is a safety device, but come on). They're usually more humorous and less likely. Even so "look before you leap" isn't just a metaphor.
  
  --
  Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Slashdotted by MrEricSir · 2010-01-04 08:59 · Score: 3, Funny

We killed the site. Can they get a Darwin Award for that?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Slashdotted by jeffmeden · 2010-01-04 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  My thoughts exactly. Darwinawards.com offers simple HTML and images. That's all, no fancy graphics, interactive multimedia or web 2.0 style forums to ring up traffic. Nevertheless, the site has self-destructed due to an 'unprecedented' (most would call it 'obvious') surge in traffic following the announcement of the 2009 winners.
  Thank you, darwinawards.com, for removing yourself from the internet pool.
2. Re:Slashdotted by CannonballHead · 2010-01-04 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No... in their eyes, that's not stupidity on their part, it's success. ;)
3. Re:Slashdotted by jayme0227 · 2010-01-04 09:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'll sum it up for you.
  A 50 year old female goes out on her moped during flash flood, gets drunk, tries to drive home and gets washed into creek. Cop saves her, but she jumps back in to save moped. Dies.
  20-something male has to pee and gets out of car. Jumps over side embankment, only to find out that he's on an overpass elevated 65 feet above the ground. Falls. Dies.
  Two bank robbers use way to much dynamite in attempt to rob an ATM. Take out entire building. Die.
  Priest does a "Lawn-chair Larry" for charity. Winds change and blow him towards water. Doesn't parachute over dry land even though this is the situation for which he has the chute. When over the water, calls for help. Can't figure out how to use the GPS he brought along. Disappears. Dies.
  Is found later.
  Overall, pretty weak. Two of them do not belong as they contain members of our species that were likely not going to reproduce anyway. (priest and 50 year old woman)
  
  --
  But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
4. Re:Slashdotted by Atzanteol · 2010-01-04 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Priest does a "Lawn-chair Larry" for charity.
  You mean "for the church." I'm not sure many would consider raising money to open chapels for truck drivers "charity" (I know I don't).
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
5. Re:Slashdotted by zippthorne · 2010-01-04 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  "20-something male has to pee and gets out of car. Jumps over side embankment, only to find out that he's on an overpass elevated 65 feet above the ground. Falls. Dies."
  How could they possibly know that that was the reason he went over the rail?
  Oh wait. twitter.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
and upgraded a server, people will rtfa by Xiph · 2010-01-04 09:03 · Score: 1

In fact, they should've anticipated the increased traffic,
I think i'll have to submit their website for next year...

--
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
The site by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:03 · Score: 0

Darwinawards.com appears to be the first Darwin award winner of 2010.
I wish I'd get that far ... mirror anyone ? by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2010-01-04 09:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps a meta-darwin award for hosting a famous website on a single "green solar powered" (see lmi.net, their hoster) hoster.
At the moment, you see, they're using 1.2 kw for not showing us that site. You'd almost think they're working for the government ...
These are pretty lame and that means something by sjonke · 2010-01-04 09:04 · Score: 1

It obviously means that people are getting smarter. But they are dying anyway.

--
--- What?
1. Re:These are pretty lame and that means something by masmullin · 2010-01-04 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Or the truly stupid have gone extinct circa 2008.
2. Re:These are pretty lame and that means something by ircmaxell · 2010-01-04 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers...
  
  --
  If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
3. Re:These are pretty lame and that means something by selven · 2010-01-04 09:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Last time I checked, Congress still has 535 members.
4. Re:These are pretty lame and that means something by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 10:11 · Score: 0
  
  Or the truly stupid have gone extinct circa 2008.
  They used up all their stupid in voting for 0bama.
  How's that withdrawal from Iraq going? And I hear the Gitmo will be closed any decade now.
5. Re:These are pretty lame and that means something by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  Congress doesn't elect the President. The electoral college does.
Coral Cache link to avoid /.ing Darwin Awards by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:04 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.darwinawards.com.nyud.net:8080/
Weak by aarenz · 2010-01-04 09:06 · Score: 1

I think that the number of fake listings has overwhelmed anyone trying to make up such a list and therefore there is nothing useful in getting this award. I am not sure this is even the group that started this stuff up. Maybe just someone that wants some ad click revenue to pay for their annual christmas debt.

BTW, good job on taking their servers down slashdotters.
1. Re:Weak by tonyfugere · 2010-01-04 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe just someone that wants some ad click revenue to pay for their annual christmas debt.
  whois info points to Wendy Northcutt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Northcutt
2. Re:Weak by aarenz · 2010-01-04 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  So just teasers to get us to buy her books!!
Why do we do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Instead of posting a link on slashdot, causing the site to go down, why not indirectly link to it, or perhaps link to the Google cache?
1. Re:Why do we do this? by Web+Goddess · 2010-01-04 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Hey we're good now, come on over.
  It's a fun challenge to keep up with a slashdotting.
  This is the first year I've been able to tweak the settings
  to hold my own.
  ServerLimit 512
  MaxClients 512
  MaxRequestsPerChild 50000
  I've been told the website design is so dinosaur it's practically 2002. Kids today.
Creationists by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:14 · Score: 0

would like to point out that there should be an equal time given to an alternative explanation as to why these people died^H^H^H^H had been recalled by the creator due to obvious malfunction....
I do feel sad for the Iraqi insurgents. by tjstork · 2010-01-04 09:23 · Score: 0, Troll

I hope they can be better nourished so that they can be bigger and easier targets.

--
This is my sig.
You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by jonaskoelker · 2010-01-04 09:25 · Score: 1

At least I'll win something in my life. Even if it takes my life to win it.
Actually, by the award criteria, you won't win a Darwin award in your life but rather just off the far end of it.
(Or, given your dispositions, it might actually be the near end :P)
1. Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by winwar · 2010-01-04 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  "...you won't win a Darwin award in your life but rather just off the far end of it."
  Not true. If you lose the ability to procreate before(?) having done so and live you are eligible.
  But you are required to do it in an unusual way. Methods that become common are retired from eligibility.
2. Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 09:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Blowing your balls off with a railgun qualifies as unusual in my book.
3. Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by mhajicek · 2010-01-04 10:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Why rated (Score:0)? I thought that was relevant, insightful and humorous.
4. Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 11:51 · Score: 0
  
  Best you go and read http://slashdot.org/faq/
  Long story short, ignore post scores, and don't comment on them. The scores may change, your post will not. Learn to spot trolls and move on quickly, and read at -1 so you see both sides of the argument. Before engaging someone in debate, check their posting history to see what debate with them is like. Try not to engage with ACs if there is a logged-in user making a similar point.
  Welcome back to pre-school, basically.
5. Re:You won't win it *inside* your lifetime by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous posts default at 0.
Mod Up Please by billstewart · 2010-01-04 09:50 · Score: 1

Parent article makes a really good point - thanks!

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Notorious history of the "Darwin Awards" by elrous0 · 2010-01-04 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Didn't these "Darwin Awards" start as as email spams that mostly consisted of urban legends?

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Notorious history of the "Darwin Awards" by Chris+Oz · 2010-01-04 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Yup and the have just as much interest now as they did after I got the email the 100th time reporting that they had just been announced.
Shouldn't Obama be on the Darwin awards list? by rcamans · 2010-01-04 10:10 · Score: 1

Shouldn't Obama be on the list? I mean, he did jump in front of a "bus" a few times.

--
wake up and hold your nose
Funny as it may be... by xlotlu · 2010-01-04 10:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's two sides to every story. Watch this piece of reporting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PbFeIxrilI -- Don't you start feeling for that guy? Don't you hope he gets rescued? Well, it's the same priest that got the Darwin Award, so how is this possible? Moments ago you were amused by his idiocy...
Of course the video comes packaged in church marketing, so it's supposed to make you feel like that. But would you still call him an idiot? Or rather a stupid but noble man?
I for one would call him naive. Naive for the cause he chose, naive thinking he'll be alright after getting drifted away, naive not bailing out when he had the opportunity. And that got him killed, but he didn't give up because he thought his cause was just.
Maybe we should take pride in such naivety, instead of branding it as utter idiocy.
1. Re:Funny as it may be... by ceoyoyo · 2010-01-04 11:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I'm going to go with idiot.
  He decided to do something risky, for which he didn't have the right kind of training and he didn't even know how to use his equipment! Being an experience sky diver doesn't help you much as a balloon pilot, but it should have taught him enough to know he should be familiar with his equipment before launching.
  His reason for doing it is also pretty silly. It was a publicity stunt. If he was flying a secret infiltration mission in WWII or something, fine, but a stunt to set a world record? The fund raising is irrelevant - there are smarter ways to raise money.
2. Re:Funny as it may be... by steelfood · 2010-01-05 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  That, and the choice to stay on the balloon while he was drifting out to sea. Sure, he might've been scared at leaping into the air, but he should've been prepared for that scenario.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
3. Re:Funny as it may be... by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · 2010-01-05 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  There's two sides to every story. Watch this piece of reporting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PbFeIxrilI -- Don't you start feeling for that guy?
  
  Nope.
  
  Don't you hope he gets rescued?
  Nope.
  
  Maybe we should take pride in such naivety, instead of branding it as utter idiocy.
  How in the hell is naivety a positive characteristic for an adult man? Reality is harsh. Leave the naivety to women and children.
  
  --
  "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
darwin award to darwing web site poor design by cinnamon+colbert · 2010-01-04 10:25 · Score: 1

you have to click on each one to read the story ? wtf? they couldnt put it all on one page ?
1. Re:darwin award to darwing web site poor design by mirix · 2010-01-04 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  AdImpressions++;
  
  Way too many sites do this.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
These are getting just plain mean by MWoody · 2010-01-04 11:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

These things have gone from funny to angry and vindictive. In particular, that overpass-falling one strikes me as an easy mistake. Here in Raleigh, we just had two people do something very similar: an overpass (near the Crabtree area, for locals) looks for all the world like it's a single bridge. But in reality, each lane is its own structure, with about four to six feet between the two that drops straight down to the freeway below. I'd driven by a hundred times and had no idea, and while yes, I'd like to think I'd look before I leaped over, I could easily see paying more attention to traffic than the divider itself and making the same mistake.
That entry happened, according to the site, in Florida, so it's a different area. But there's certainly not enough information there to make a judgment call on his intelligence.
1. Re:These are getting just plain mean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Same thing happened to a guy in Austin this year on his birthday on the way home from downtown. I don't think he was taking a piss, but for some unknown reason decided to jump the barrier.
2. Re:These are getting just plain mean by sfcat · 2010-01-04 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  That entry happened, according to the site, in Florida, so it's a different area. But there's certainly not enough information there to make a judgment call on his intelligence.
  Sure it is, they were from Florida.
  
  --
  "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
3. Re:These are getting just plain mean by Blakey+Rat · 2010-01-04 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  A cop did the same thing on the Hewitt Ave trestle east of Everett, WA a few years ago.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
4. Re:These are getting just plain mean by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  The traffic was jammed, so he didn't need to pay attention to it. But you have a point anyway
5. Re:These are getting just plain mean by aug24 · 2010-01-05 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Recently, here in the UK, an idiot tried to avoid paying his cab fare by running away through some bushes. They screened a 30 foot drop onto concrete (IIRC). He lived, and sued to tell the tale.
  I'd have said there should be a fence if there is any chance of foot traffic. Dunnow what the freeway rules are though - isn't stopping on a freeway against the law?
  Justin.
  
  --
  You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I stand corrected by jonaskoelker · 2010-01-04 11:30 · Score: 2

Not true. If you lose the ability to procreate before(?) having done so and live you are eligible
Thank you for clarifying and correcting me :)
Though I think my original parent is much more likely to die than self-sterilize; at least the imaginary self-caricature personae is...
Mod UP by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 11:41 · Score: 0

Mod parent up!!!
All Birth Control Users are Darwin Award Winners by timeOday · 2010-01-04 11:54 · Score: 1

If you lose the ability to procreate before(?) having done so and live you are eligible. But you are required to do it in an unusual way. Methods that become common are retired from eligibility.
A direct quote from this year's Darwin Awards: "Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. Since priests voluntarily remove themselves from the genepool, the entire group earns a mass Darwin Award." Priests aren't all that "unusual," and with respect to evolution they're no different from anybody else who chooses not to have children. (In fact, a priest may forsake his vows and procreate, unlike those of you who got vasectomies without first contributing to a sperm bank.) So congratulations to all you "winners" out there, you are clearly recipients of this year's group award. I guess something is either wrong with you, or with the Darwin Awards.
Times have changed by dragmyfeet · 2010-01-04 11:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

It appears now we ridicule people who do something unusual and pioneering (however naive), like the priest in TFA. Have we had the Darwin awards in centuries past, we would have ridiculed the death of every explorer we ever had instead of mourn it.
1. Re:Times have changed by DrYak · 2010-01-05 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  we would have ridiculed the death of every explorer we ever had instead of mourn it.
  The death of every explorer who died stupidly because he forgot to check if (s)he knows how to operate his material or if his it is working .
  The Darwin-award worthy part of the story isn't that he tried something unusual and pioneering.
  It's that, to be sure that nothing wrong would happen he did embark a lot of equipment, including a GPS receiver and a sat-phone - to be able to call for help whatever happens... ... but he didn't even check if he knew how to use the GPS.
  WTF? He goes as far as to imagine worst-case scenario and doesn't even check if the solution he has planned for that scenario is working ? What the hell did he expect ? That the GPS device will "magically" enable him to get found ? If he plans to use a GPS to tell potential rescuers where to search for him, he should at least check that he can manage to get a position from the GPS.
  To get an explorer-analogy, it is as if Columbus, when embarking to discover the East Indies (or even Cpt FritzRoy and Darwin when embarking on the HMS Beagle), did consider that they might get attacked, decided to pack a few weapon for self defence. And then got the whole expedition completely exterminated by the first natives on pirogues armed with primitive spears, just because he forget to check if he knew to operate the weapons. *that* would be something Darwin Award-worthy.
  
  --
  "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
2. Re:Times have changed by Fujisawa+Sensei · 2010-01-05 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  we would have ridiculed the death of every explorer we ever had instead of mourn it.
  The death of every explorer who died stupidly because he forgot to check if (s)he knows how to operate his material or if his it is working .
  The Darwin-award worthy part of the story isn't that he tried something unusual and pioneering. It's that, to be sure that nothing wrong would happen he did embark a lot of equipment, including a GPS receiver and a sat-phone - to be able to call for help whatever happens... ... but he didn't even check if he knew how to use the GPS.
  WTF? He goes as far as to imagine worst-case scenario and doesn't even check if the solution he has planned for that scenario is working ? What the hell did he expect ? That the GPS device will "magically" enable him to get found ? If he plans to use a GPS to tell potential rescuers where to search for him, he should at least check that he can manage to get a position from the GPS.
  To get an explorer-analogy, it is as if Columbus, when embarking to discover the East Indies (or even Cpt FritzRoy and Darwin when embarking on the HMS Beagle), did consider that they might get attacked, decided to pack a few weapon for self defence. And then got the whole expedition completely exterminated by the first natives on pirogues armed with primitive spears, just because he forget to check if he knew to operate the weapons. *that* would be something Darwin Award-worthy.
  More like Columbus or Darwin decided that the ship would be faster if it was lighter, and then dumped all their drinking water overboard because they were surrounded by water.
  
  --
  If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Does the crotch bomber qualify? by tomohawk · 2010-01-04 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

He didn't die, but he might be unable to reproduce.
To truly qualify for the Darwin... by phreakincool · 2010-01-04 12:47 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if it has been brought up as I did not read tfa, but I think people who have not managed to propagate their genes before their act of Darwinism should only be allowed to qualify for it.
Mock till u drop? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-04 13:05 · Score: 0

What sense of superiority or humour is gained, by mocking the death of another being?
Better yet, the modirators, award karma points.... Ironic indeed.
Is the Slashdot moral compass pointing at nihilistic north or is this now considered good taste? The Emperors new clothes, are ugly.
Yuk guys, crap start to the new year. :-(
What about the crotch bomber? by eagl · 2010-01-04 14:55 · Score: 1

What about the crotch bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? He ought to get at least a 2009 Darwin honorable mention since the misfired high explosives in his underpants simply burned his reproductive organs quite badly. Medical details have not been released, but as the effect of the botched suicide bombing was very similar to what you'd get if you shoved a lit road flare down your pants, it seems likely that he is no longer part of the gene pool.
1. Re:What about the crotch bomber? by clarkie.mg · 2010-01-04 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  He was seriously injured but didn't die. He might have taken himself out of the gene pool, though, by unsuccessfully manipulating explosive liquids hidden in his underwear.
  
  --
  Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
2. Re:What about the crotch bomber? by mbstone · 2010-01-04 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  I did submit the crotch bomber to Darwin on account of his apparently having sterilized himself, and I received the following replies from their mods:
  Bruce said:
  Definitely Toss: No Self-Selection
  Thanks, but we don't award terrorists. First off, he knew what he was trying to do, which means he didn't care what happened to him. Second, he intended to hurt/kill hundreds of others. For both those reasons a DA isn't appropriate for terrorists.
  Darwin said:
  Definitely Toss: Not Amusing
  Dude. Use your noggin. Many, many people were at risk; although what you say is true, people just don't laugh at terrorist acts, and the Darwin Awards is meant to amuse. Appreciate the "thought" but it simply ain't a winner, m.b. Don't mean to harsh you. You aren't the unlucky recipient of flame emails... we gotta keep it amusing by refusing to accept submissions where innocent people were imperiled. Keep lookin' for more...
3. Re:What about the crotch bomber? by Labcoat+Samurai · 2010-01-05 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Wait they care about imperiled innocents now? I guess being stupid trumps being innocent. Perhaps if it was a plane full of stupid people, they'd have accepted your submission.
The double award winners are not from Belgium ... by clarkie.mg · 2010-01-04 16:15 · Score: 1

In defence of this little country, I have to say that the double award winners in the story titled "Crushing Debt" are not from Belgium, they are from Kosovo :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216735/Two-bank-robbers-killed-explosives-trying-blow-safe.html

--
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
Darwin Awards don't really follow that anymore by Myria · 2010-01-04 16:41 · Score: 1

Darwin Awards don't really follow that anymore. After all, two of the top dishonors this year went to people who were already removed from the gene pool: a Catholic priest, and a fifty-year-old woman.

--
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Let's laugh at dead people by CuteSteveJobs · 2010-01-04 18:47 · Score: 1

There was one I heard... a pregnant woman thought she could fix a washing machine, but she got electrocuted. Her and her fetus died. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH!!! WHAT AN IDIOT!!!! HAHAHAHHAHAH!!!
That's a real story, and like the Darwin Awards, I don't think it's funny at all.
1. Re:Let's laugh at dead people by crimperman · 2010-01-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. The Darwin Awards are just not funny. Laughing when somebody slips on a banana skin loses it's edge when they slide to their death if you ask me.
  That said I have long enjoyed laughing at heroic failures of the kind listed in this book and its sequel. Some of them are listed here.
  e.g.
  
  The least successful animal rescue
  The [UK] firemens strike of 1978 made possible one of the great animal rescue attempts of all time. Valiantly, the British Army had taken over emergency fire fighting and on 14 January they were called out by an elderly lady to retrieve her cat which had become trapped up a tree. They arrived quickly and soon discharged their duty. So grateful was the lady that she invited them all for tea (and Sherry?). Driving off later, with fond farewells completed, they ran over the cat and killed it.
  I recall a great one about an escaped lion being beaten up by an old lady and having to be treated for shock (I guess Dreamworks based the Madagascar scene on it) and also the least successful attempt to light a fire in which the guy burns down the house and his car and garden.
I used to think... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-09 06:51 · Score: 0

... that these things were funny. But then I saw the photograph of somebody from years back who won one of these awards. Guess what? He was a human being, and you could see the suffering in his face from having injured himself. There but for the grace of God.