#One Bad Gloop

[cryptotheism]

One Bad Gloop if it was translated like the Emerald Tablet:

Original text, now lost to history:

1) “One bad gloop, and she do what I yoinky 2) Two big splurgs and a big ass gloopy 3) Three more yoinks, then I buy me a smoothie 4) Poured up a gloop, that's a gloop and a splurgy”

From the Jabirian Corpus, of legendary islamic alchemist Jabir Ibn-Hayyan, 8th-9th century:

1) A single bad gloop! What I yoinky, done! 2) They number among this: Two teaming splurgs, and a donkey-drawn cart of gloopy 3) The yoinks number three, at which point, one must acquire for themselves a smoothie 4) Poured up a gloop, that is a gloop and a splurgy”

Notes: Earliest extant translation is notably corrupt.

Secondary Arabic translation by an unknown author. 9th century:

1) One gloop of malicious character, and what I yoinky is done of her 2) Attested are two great splurgs and a gloopy of great magnitude 3) Of yoinks, three! A smoothie follows shortly after. 4) Upon the pouring of a gloop comes another gloop, and a splurgy.

Notes: This version is as corrupt as the Jabirian corpus edition.

From the Book of the Composition of Alchemy, 12th century Latin:

1) One bad gloop, a yoinky be done 2) Two great splurgs, a gloopy of a strong mule 3) Three yoinks, a smoothie 4) A poured gloop, a gloop, a splurgy

Notes: This was the earliest translation into Latin. However, it was not widely circulated.

From Roger Bacon’s Secretum Secretorum, 1445:

1) One badde gloope, and what I yoinkie hath been done of her 2) Two greate splurgges, and the gloopie of a strong asse is produced 3) Add upon this three yoinks, and the purchase of a smoothie 4) From this is distilled a gloope, another gloope, and a splurgie

Notes: This translation was the most widely read in Europe for the time. This form was the basis for several centuries of translations.

From Giorgio Beato’s Aurelium Occultae, 1613:

1) Only a single gloop is required for them to yoinky 2) Whatever splurgs are needed, they are half that a mule's gloopy 3) Where yoinks number three, this will result in a smoothie 4) Also, a gloop, when added to the mixture, will be doubled, along with a splurgy

From Roscrucian mage William Kriegsmann, allegedly from Phonecian 1633:

1) I speak of a gloop, and all I yoinky shall be done 2) I speak of two great splurgs, and their gloopy most tenacious 3) I speak of three more yoinks, and smoothies 4) I speak of a gloop upon the chalice, for it is but a gloop and no more.

Notes: There was no phonecian. Kriegsmann was likely working from the Secretum Secretorum Latin.

From Sir Issac Newton, 1680:

1) Tis a single impure gloop, and from this a yoinky is born 2) Fore is added a grande gloopy, comes a pair of splurgges 3) Purchase of wane smoothie tis built, upon the three pillars of yoink 4) Ye gloop poured, tis but a gloop and a splurgy

Notes: Newton was an accomplished polyglot, his translation is based in one of the Arabic originals, though which is unclear.

From Rosicrucian mage Sigmund Bacstrom, allegedly from Chaldean, 1802

1) Tis from CHIRAM ONE of the GLOOPY 2) Of two SPLURGS and a great GLOOPY 3) Of three YOINKS and a SMOOTHIE 4) Upon the chalice, a GLOOP and a SPLURGY

Notes: Though many translations claim to be from a Chaldean original, this is unlikely to be true. The Bacstrom translation is notably corrupt.

From Madame Helena Blavatsky, unknown date, mid 19th century.

2) Two splurgs and a gloopy conjoin to form The One 3) All things are produced by conjunction of Splurgs and Gloopy 4) Poured up a gloop, a gloop and a splurgy are Complete.

Notes: It is not known why Blavatsky omitted the first line.

From Fulcanelli, translated from the Sieveking french, 18th century.

1) One malicious gloop, and what is yoinky shall be done by her. 2) By divine conjunction, two big splurgs produce gloopy most grand 3) Upon three additional yoinks, the ONE sires the smoothie 4) Here, a gloop and and a splurgy are poured upon the chalice

From Fulcanelli, revised translation, early 19th century

1) One bad gloop, and what is yoinky be done 2) Two big splurgs, to this, a big ass gloopy 3) Upon three yoinks a smoothie is sired 4) Upon pouring of the gloop, a splurgy and a gloop are produced

I had fun writing this. If you want my actual alchemy research you can find it here.

[mint-swirl]

could not find the original unextended version of this anywhere on this hellsite to try and reblog it so im just reuploading it myself

[silavut]

OK, so who remembers One Bad Gloop by Ricebubs? A while back I went searching and hunting relating to it. Don't remember why now. But I found the full song and lyrics. So here's a new version with the original (HQ) image and updated text. Enjoy!

[urcatisacunt]

I remember the first time I ever yoinked my pp I was listening to Panic at the Disco's "Lying is the Most Fun a Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes Off" because it was the most sexual song title I could find on my stupid little ipod. My dumb, uneducated, unexperienced younger self had not read the puberty education books I was given, so I was not prepared for what was going to happen. Long story short, I yoinked with some liquid hand soap and glooped so hard that I nearly fell over. The soap, unfortunately, left me with cracked and dry skin - a punishment for the sin of self abuse. It was worth it, though. To this very day, I've never been able to recapture that feeling.

Anyway, I relistened to that song recently and it wasn't anything like I remembered. Is it the hormone-addled minds of youth that distort the memory? Perhaps our memories are just warped by the passage of time, like books in a poorly maintained archive? Kinda mid song tbh, but it does have some vocals that stick in your mind. 7/10

[stellabat]

happy 4 years of gloopin

[21stcenturyschizoidfag]

said the phrase "it's just like snoop dogg invented coinstar for cheese" to my gf forgetting that we grew up in very different online environments and she was like "what the fuck did you just say" and it had me in pieces

[pondering-gales-left-orb]

Im really sad about how people are taking others criticism of DATV on a personal level guys you are fine if you enjoy it you are fine if you hate it or dislike it and you are fine if you dont feel anything for it you are fine one is not a criticism of the other and all of these things can exsist and be true at the same time and in the same sentence even.

If you feel weird about your opinion (positive neutral or negative or a mix of those even) please look at the older games and how to this day all opinions exsist next to each other in the fandom literally just scroll the DA2 tag on her and reddit you will see its okay to have different opinions its okay to enjoy a game your friends don't like its okay to dislike a game your friends enjoy genuinely.

[dormiloncito]

what do you mean the fingers in his ass song isn't the original

[rosedosed]

Hey girl gloop da yoink.

[tellokinesis]

one bad gloop and she do what i yoinky

one bad gloop and she do what i yoinky

[dispilag]

everyone still posting about stranger things i hope you die painfully and violently

[unicarcass]

youve activated my stim phrase

[riotdyke]

I think people today have really forgotten that it only takes one bad gloop and she do what I yoinky. I mean really.

[goldevolution]

it is insanely effed up that when you harbor a deep sadness the most effective way to lessen it is to talk but when you have no one you can talk to about it its like. well what do i do with this mass in my hands. just hold onto it? forever?

[fatliberation]

Roald Dahl was a prolific children's author who passed in 1990. He wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, among many other then-bestsellers. Two years ago, his publishing company completely removed all instances of "fat", "ugly", and "crazy", and made many other politically-correct changes. Bad and neutral characters are marked fat or ugly much more often than good ones; Augustus Gloop is now simply "enormous". What do you think? Should we not be afraid of the word "fat", even if used pejoratively, or should it be erased?

All changes can be found if you search "roald dahld changes telegraph", I can't post the proper link

I did not know this! interesting. I find it strange of them to try to “update” the original work when the entire thing is baked in racism, antisemitism, fatphobia, ableism, etc. it’s a product of its author and we should be able to teach children to look at it critically instead of try to erase the uneraseable. augustus gloop for example - “enormous” is just another way to say fat, so that seems confusing to me. his existence in the book is a caricature of greed & gluttony and he is punished for it. I don’t think that’s something you can rewrite unless you make an entirely different story. trading “fat” for “enormous” doesn’t remove the fatphobia whatsoever. it just treats “fat” like a bad word that we shouldn’t say. and if other fat characters are no longer described as fat - is it better to erase the existence of fat characters? I think it’s better to understand how fatness has been horribly misrepresented in the past. if they want politically correct stories, they can make new ones.