Re: the statement at the end of this Staff Report that Maxim magazine is not to be read for its articles.
The very article that the staff report links to is proof enough that said article is absurd. How could they possibly make an article about Plaigerism in Disney movies without even mentioning the Lion King issue, dealt with earlier by Cecil?
Sheesh, what a waste of words that magazine is.
I’m not sure if you’re joking or not, so I’ll take the risk!
Maxim isn’t about giving facts, it’s about humour! Euty referred to it somewhat tongue in cheek I think, given that all of the facts in that article seem rather, um, unlikely!
Oh well…
What?! Does this mean “It’s a Small World (After All)” was never the U.N. international anthem? I’m stunned.
Furthermore, Maxim wouldn’t be a very good source, as the Staff Report states, for “entymological information”, since it rarely deals with insects.
Yes I know it’s spelled “entomological”.
Actually, I have a vague recollection of a thread a goddam long time ago where someone referred to the same Maxim article, and I responded by pointing out the other silly stuff mentioned therein.
And, for the record, the article wasn’t about plaigerism at all. It was about sexual references in children’s movies. And I’m pretty sure it was all satire. Or at least untrue.
There are words in Maxim? 
So, does that violate the rule about linking to porn?