PDA

View Full Version : Who would win in an evil fight, AOL or Disney?


Sir Penguin
20-08-2005, 05:56:24
I think Disney has the edge, being the most evil company in an inherently evil industry.

Also, I think AOL owns Skype, which is a nifty program. They also own Winamp. On the other hand, they also own Netscape.

SP

JM^3
20-08-2005, 06:00:39
Disney has age on their side also

JM

self biased
20-08-2005, 06:10:02
but AOL is a part of Time Warner and Warner Brothers... they're actually bitter, bitter rivals.

Alexander's Horse
20-08-2005, 06:49:19
Disney would win if they deployed the cartoon ants.

mr.G
20-08-2005, 07:44:00
so mighty mouse against mickey mouse.

first point for aol, mickey is a wuzzzz

Koshko
20-08-2005, 07:47:51
I think Walmart can out-evil Disney and AOL.

Vincent
20-08-2005, 10:08:42
And Electronic Arts!

protein
20-08-2005, 10:19:35
It depends if it's a theoretical evil-off or a physical one. I think if it came down to it, Disney has the animatronics expertise and the animatronic army needed to win.

It's a small CHOP small CHOP world after ZAP all BLAST

The Norks
20-08-2005, 12:31:59
Disney has legion cartoon animals to defend itself. And they are in league with Ronald McDonald, the evil mastermind.

protein
20-08-2005, 13:23:45
AOL own Warners don't they? That means they have Bugs Bunny, Wile E Coyote, Roadrunner etc. They also have access to the ACME factory. Disney have Sleeping Beauty and and Snow White.

Hmm. That swings it back in favour of AOL.

The Norks
20-08-2005, 14:45:25
where would the muppets and pixar stand?

Oerdin
20-08-2005, 19:03:13
The muppets aren't really evil, they're just stupid. ;)

The Norks
20-08-2005, 19:52:37
oh kermie!

protein
21-08-2005, 01:04:28
That weird blue eagle muppet is evil. I used to have a recurring nightmare about him when I was a toddler.

JM^3
21-08-2005, 01:05:16
you can remember when you were a toddler?

you can remember before last year?

Jon Miller

Provost Harrison
21-08-2005, 01:06:56
Disney are the ultimate evil. Walt was a cunt too...

Provost Harrison
21-08-2005, 01:07:27
Although saying that, he is eclipsed by the thoroughbred evil bastard that was Henry Ford...

Provost Harrison
21-08-2005, 01:08:42
Sorry, I think I omitted the word nazi somewhere in that last post ;)

Oerdin
21-08-2005, 01:31:59
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Although saying that, he is eclipsed by the thoroughbred evil bastard that was Henry Ford...

Naw, he was just a union break and antisemite who was very class conscious. He was none for extreme generousity towards his workers (insisting that everyone be paid eough to buy one of his cars resulting in a doubling of wages in the auto industry) but who became militant when unions demand steady increases. He also had an interesting sense of honor which lead him to personally buy back shares at the original price for people who lost money on his stock after the 1929 crash.

His values were very old fashioned and he got more dictatorial as he aged but all in all there were much worse people then Henry Ford out there.

Provost Harrison
21-08-2005, 11:21:15
Somehow you are agreeing with the traits I assigned yet making them out to be OK. Union breaker is a gross understatement, he used to have people who opposed him beaten to a bloody pulp and with his sheer power I would not be surprised he had done a lot worse. He was also a nazi sympathiser too and his interests in Germany got very favourable treatment during WWII by the nazis. People worse? Perhaps Stalin or Pol Pot. These are all fine grades of bastard. Just because he was old fashioned certainly doesn't make it acceptable :q:

Oerdin
21-08-2005, 11:28:18
He wasn't pro-nazi so much as anti-war. He was a dire hard isolationist and believed Europe's wars were Europe's problem.