Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Swiss woman dies of starvation after trying to survive on light alone

24

Comments

  • #32
    Susie_Q
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Susie_Q


    ^ ^

    I see what you did there!


  • #33
    Kylo Ren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,366 ✭✭✭✭Kylo Ren


    And the Darwin award goes to....


  • #34
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Her name was Anna Gut.


    I'm surprised AH has missed the opportunity

    Standards are slipping


  • #35
    johnwest288
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 665 ✭✭✭johnwest288


    Sunlight............. ahhhhhhhhhhhhh nom nom nom


  • #36
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Keno 92 wrote: »
    And the Darwin award goes to....

    It helps to read the thread before posting:
    Dravokivich wrote: »
    She had kids, so can't be put down as a contender for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Mr Benevolent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,433 ✭✭✭✭Mr Benevolent


    AckwelFoley wrote: »
    Her name was Anna Gut.


    I'm surprised AH has missed the opportunity

    Standards are slipping

    Yeah but that's in German. Gut doesn't mean the same thing.


  • #38
    FatherLen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,808 ✭✭✭FatherLen


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It helps to read the thread before posting:

    i bet you're one of those people that like to tell people when they should be using "whom".


  • #39
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    I knew I was doing something wrong.

    And me going about eating light bulbs. :o


  • #40
    Immaculate Pasta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,663 ✭✭✭Immaculate Pasta


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INgXzChwipY


    :cool:


  • #41
    Kylo Ren
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,366 ✭✭✭✭Kylo Ren


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It helps to read the thread before posting:

    It helps to not be a bit of a dick too. Not saying you were. Just saying...


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    FatherLen wrote: »
    i bet you're one of those people that like to tell people when they should be using "whom".

    I bet you're one of those people that doesn't give a fúck.


  • #43
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    She had kids, so can't be put down as a contender for it.
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    It helps to read the thread before posting:
    Wrong, people with kids can still be included, since they still have the potential to produce more kids. The only reason she wouldn't be eligible is if she was already sterile (menopause, hysterectomy etc).

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #44
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    28064212 wrote: »
    Wrong, people with kids can still be included, since they still have the potential to produce more kids. The only reason she wouldn't be eligible is if she was already sterile (menopause, hysterectomy etc).

    Wrong! You have to remove yourself before passing on your genes.


  • #45
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Wrong! You have to remove yourself before passing on your genes.
    Wrong again: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html
    So, the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #46
    Forest Demon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Forest Demon


    When she seen the light she was probably starving and ran towards it.


  • #47
    Forest Demon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Forest Demon


    It would have worked if it was not for the sunblock.

    It was the factor fiddy that killed her


  • #48
    Fizman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,605 ✭✭✭Fizman


    I know a girl who lives entirely off her flesh light.


  • #49
    Jacster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17 ✭Jacster


    Plazaman wrote: »
    All credit to photosynthesis, but I think you might have to be a daffodil or something.
    She was some tulip...


  • #50
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭mawk


    anna gut needed something inna gut.


  • #51
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,651 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Fizman wrote: »
    I know a girl who lives entirely off her flesh light.
    That's fine as long as she doesn't accidentally the whole thing.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,424 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    28064212 wrote: »
    Wrong again: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html
    So, the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.

    Hmmm, first I've seen of that and think its a bit of a back step really. Surely the idea of taking yourself out of the genepool would mean you hadn't reproduced already. Well, that's how I had taken it to be.


  • #53
    howamidifferent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭howamidifferent


    Wow! What an illuminating article.
    I feel lightheaded after reading that.

    Still though, you'd think she'd have seen through it...


  • #54
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    28064212 wrote: »
    Wrong again: http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/rules.children.html

    Their explanation comes up with a specific example, which is fair enough, but which doesn't apply generally or in this specific case.

    Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.


  • #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.

    Next you'll be claiming Alec Guinness has nothing to do with the Guinness World Records book.


  • #56
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Joe10000 wrote: »
    Eejit, Muller light is what they meant.

    Post of the year.


  • #57
    darlett
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,316 ✭✭✭darlett


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    Hmmm, first I've seen of that and think its a bit of a back step really. Surely the idea of taking yourself out of the genepool would mean you hadn't reproduced already. Well, that's how I had taken it to be.

    Darwinism being the survival of the fittest its seems quite the cop-out to loosen the definition so they can include people who have successfully reproduced, thus continuing their lineage and avoiding their extinction. Surely the only possible exemptions would be if they did something like blow up their kids with their dying act.


  • #58
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Their explanation comes up with a specific example, which is fair enough, but which doesn't apply generally or in this specific case.
    Wrong again:
    A concrete example will help illuminate the discussion
    The conclusion?
    So the rules do not disqualify nominees who have already reproduced.
    They specifically say it applies in the general case
    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Plus, while Darwin "awards" are handed out by that website, in reality the website has nowt to do with real Darwinian selection.
    Lol, no shit, well done. Now point out where anyone made any reference to "real Darwinian selection".

    You are completely and utterly wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. You criticised someone who said she would be eligible for a Darwin Award by claiming Darwin Awards aren't awarded to people who have already reproduced. The awarding body specifically says this isn't the case. Instead of just accepting you were wrong, you're actually trying to argue that the site doesn't say exactly what it says, and then trying to change the argument after the fact

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #59
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    28064212 wrote: »
    You are completely and utterly wrong. You couldn't be any more wrong. You criticised someone who said she would be eligible for a Darwin Award by claiming Darwin Awards aren't awarded to people who have already reproduced. The awarding body specifically says this isn't the case. Instead of just accepting you were wrong, you're actually trying to argue that the site doesn't say exactly what it says, and then trying to change the argument after the fact

    The site is wrong. End of.


  • #60
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,155 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The site is wrong. End of.
    The awarder of Darwin Awards is wrong about who receives Darwin Awards. Riiiighhhhtttttttt. Keep digging

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Stiffler2
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,536 ✭✭✭Stiffler2


    Oh look it, some one died because of a film.

    I think we should ban all films now ?

    What do you non-smokers think ? :rolleyes:


Advertisement
Advertisement