"It's just a comedy site, the fact-checking, etc. doesn't matter"

Stormtroper

EDIT: Ok, just read that linked article more thoroughly. I'm not even sure I understand what he was trying to say about gravity. I mean the other stuff was mostly wrong, but at least it was presenting it as if it's a problem, with gravity he just states that it's weak...and that's it. He just states a simple fact that any high-school student (taking physics classes) should know.

 

I don't know, man, I don't know. I thought the paradox was that earth's gravity could yank people or the moon but not strips of paper under charged balloons. Fortunately, apparently that's not it.

 

Would you look at that, there's a blog post about that article.

DonZabu

Hate to start this up again, but I actually sent this question in to John Cheese's Tumblr:

>Cracked-related question: with Soren Bowie's articles, the joke is that he's a narcissist who looks down on the less privileged. The joke with Dan O'Brien's articles is that he's a depressed comic book nerd. Is there any such joke going on with David Wong's articles? I'm not sure if I see it.

Here's what he said in response:

>No, Dave is more straight up.  He’s a news type of guy, so he writes in a news type of voice.  He’ll see something that gets him thinking, and then he’ll build on that idea until his work is almost a full-blown philosophy.  Both Dave and I used to write in character voices for years, but we just got to the point where there wasn’t much more we could do with them.  We like the articles where people write in character (Soren Bowie is a fucking genius at it — Dan O’Brien actually is a comic book nerd).  We just decided to go a different direction, personally.