Comments on: Consipracies

By: oh hai idiots

oh hai idiots — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:53:14 +0000

Suck my consipracy hard…get a life losers

By: Hannah

Hannah — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:14:23 +0000

FAIL!
you, not the graph.
graph = win

By: Michael Birks

Michael Birks — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:10:21 +0000

In can be. Them really coming to get you just means that it’s a justified paranoia.

By: brokenyard

brokenyard — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:14:06 +0000

“Evidence” has quotes around it.

By: Strong Bad

Strong Bad — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:52:58 +0000

It’s not paranoia if they really ARE coming to get you.

By: Rick James

Rick James — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:51:50 +0000

Thank you.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:18:17 +0000

Boooooooo!!!! Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people AREN’T out to get you!

By: jzimbert

jzimbert — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:06:13 +0000

Homey don’t play dat!

By: Captaincy

Captaincy — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:46:52 +0000

Schipperke.
European.

By: bee

bee — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:29:24 +0000

No, you confused those with graphjams.

By: Savage

Savage — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:38:22 +0000

What is a “Consipracy”?

By: hein

hein — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:05:30 +0000

NO! It is cons-piracy. When the pirates loot the cons and thus justice is done.

By: Evidence

Evidence — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:55:43 +0000

That’s “evidence” in quotes, meaning what conspiracy nuts count as evidence, including a lack of evidence.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:12:07 +0000

I thought graphams were supposed to be funny.

By: Demon

Demon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:36:45 +0000

Psssst I think the quote marks around the word evidence is sarcasm, you know that it might not be Real evidence. like the direct correlation between the number of fires in a city and the number of fire engines is “evidence” that fire engines cause fires

By: Rick James

Rick James — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:18:57 +0000

is a con-sip-racy anything like a schipperkee? y’know… them little poofy dogs from somewhere europeen?

By: srab

srab — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:54:33 +0000

of course. and the agency was made up of reptilian aliens who masquerade themselves as high-ranking humans.

By: srab

srab — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 06:52:02 +0000

don’t you mean consipring?

By: Erik

Erik — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:44:43 +0000

… So correctly interpreted facts never include any evidence?

By: Edward

Edward — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:12:21 +0000

God, this is the worst graph on this site so far.

By: BT

BT — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:45:18 +0000

FAIL.

By: Ninja

Ninja — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:52:42 +0000

win

By: Trustno1

Trustno1 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:33:24 +0000

only the ones that are true.

By: Elissa

Elissa — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:22 +0000

The complete lack of supporting evidence is proof that the conspiracy is working!

By: Darby

Darby — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:43:33 +0000

“It’s a conspiracy! C-O-N… spiracy!”

By: Captaincy

Captaincy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:42:53 +0000

You suck.

By: Fan of Gimli

Fan of Gimli — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:36:55 +0000

Oops… meant consipracies theories!

By: Fan of Gimli

Fan of Gimli — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:35:37 +0000

How convenient! All conspiracies theories are false, eh?

By: kakomu

kakomu — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:08:31 +0000

Not in conSIPRAcies

By: Anthea

Anthea — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:55:13 +0000

Wait, correctly-interpreted facts can never be used as evidence? =S

By: Ninth Man :-)

Ninth Man :-) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:46:21 +0000

NINTH!….and if this comment seems pointless to you, so is every FIRST! post…

By: sueb262

sueb262 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:32:54 +0000

probably a government agency sabotaged it after it was submitted

By: Juju

Juju — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:21:18 +0000

How do you go through the trouble of creating a graph and not PROOFREAD it before posting it???

By: RSIxidor

RSIxidor — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:37:39 +0000

Stop conspiring against FirstCat!

By: Not_you

Not_you — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:25:07 +0000

comment WIN.
.
dolt who felt the need to post “FIRST” = fail.

By: The Illuminati

The Illuminati — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:45:53 +0000

Never attribute to “consipracy” what can more readily be explained by stupidity.

By: jeffg

jeffg — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:34 +0000

Spelling Null Set

By: badcat

badcat — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:40:11 +0000

I suspect a consipracy!

By: FirstCat

FirstCat — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:52 +0000

FIRST !