A
faux BBC news article describing a match between one lion and 42 unarmed midget fighters has been linked to by a lot of sites. However, the article is now clearly labelled as a fake. Apparently what inspired the article was
a debate some guy was having with his friend about who would win in a hypothetical fight between one lion and 40 weaponless midgets. He created the fake BBC piece in order to convince his friend that the lion would win. Personally, I don't think it matters if it were 40 midgets or 40 pro-basketball players. The lion would still win, because a lion has claws and sharp teeth, and people don't. Plus, the lion is a lot stronger. Incidentally, I just learned that
'midget' is considered a derogatory term. But I don't think the author of the faux article was too concerned about being PC.
Comments
Really?
Batman would TOO have won. Superman is an ALIEN.
like so called "big people" who are in reality just plain FAT.
big btw is in dutch PIG
so maybe, just maybe big people are just that... pigs
Canary Wharf = dwarf.
Cardinal Wolsey = cerebral palsy.
Raspberry Ripple = cripple.
Rubber and plastic = spastic.
Tulips and roses = multiple sclerosis.
Bacon rind = blind.
Diet Pepsi = epilepsy.
Benny and the Jets = Tourettes.
Wasps and bees = amputee.
Haha--I'm going to have to remember these.
I think if you picked out one or two to sacrifice that the rest of the "vertically-challenged" could then take the lion...
Give him a little (NPI) something to snack on and then have a couple guys try to strangle him via suffocation. Combine this with another one giving his danglers a good yank (causing a roar of pain and making him exhale while doing so) and I'm pretty sure they could eventually give him a head-lock of death. So long as it was an uninjured person trying to strangle him and not a half-eaten one!
😉
I meant "suffocate him via strangulation" not vice versa...
:red:
Well, that's just political correctness gone mentally challenged!
Why do I picture lots of little people climbing out of trenches and charging toward the enemy?
Thank you.
Until somebody clears that up for me, I'm stuck using cumbersome locutions like "someone of small stature."
Which to my ear seems worse than midget.
But that's just a convenient method, it's not the real reason Batman wins against Superman. The real reason is that Batman is a genius-level intellect who is ruthless enough to do anything short of killing to attain his goals; Superman is scientifically brilliant, but he's not a lateral thinker, and he's constantly hampered by his complicated moral code. (He sort of has to be--anyone with that much power had better have lots of self-restraint, for the good of the planet.)
That's the whole point--Superman is capable of vaporizing Batman from orbit, but he would never be able to bring himself to do it. He'd angst and hem and haw, and meanwhile Batman sneaks up behind him and judo-throws him into a teleportation matrix to a red-sun solar system or something similar. Heck, Batman once strapped a bomb to his body and told Superman that if he didn't give up, "someone" in the city would be blown to smithereens. A guy who's a big blue boyscout can't win against an obsessive-compulsive genius who's willing to gamble his own life to win. Who could, except for another ruthless obsessive-compulsive genius? (Prometheus or Luthor, for instance....)
SHARKS WITH DILDOS AND KRYPTONITE CAPES AND FLYING BEARS WITH boxingGLOVES MADE OF PURE PEWTER TO THE FACE OF THE PREY
Can't argue with that sort of firepower.
Here
The midgets would have snorkels