Proposal: The Baghdad Bob Awards

[rikzilla]

I propose this booby prize be awarded to posters who's arguments are defeated in an obvious and demonstrable way, and in the face of this they then declare themselves the victor.

This award will usually have to be given in absentia as the winner usually has left the forum, hoping that forum denizens will forget their gaffe.

I nominate the lovely and talented Shemp for his performance in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33763)

We'll have to decide on what to use as a trophy though. :rolleyes:

(edited to fix stupid link mistake

[hgc]

I vote for rikzilla.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hgc
I vote for rikzilla.

Sorry, but due to the nature of this forum, your nomination will require evidence of actual Baghdad Bob-like posts. If you find any, I will then own-up to them....(hint: Owning up to any mistakes I've made will make me immediately ineligible for this award, as conduct must be Baghdad Bob-like in every important way!)

-z

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sorry, but due to the nature of this forum, your nomination will require evidence of actual Baghdad Bob-like posts. If you find any, I will then own-up to them....(hint: Owning up to any mistakes I've made will make me immediately ineligible for this award, as conduct must be Baghdad Bob-like in every important way!)

-z Sorry, but I voted before you changed the rules.

I suspect though that if I find the evidence, you will not own up to it anyway. You might as well have started out with a rule excluding yourself from the competition.

[rikzilla]

In order to be both Fair and Balanced ;) Perhaps a Darth Vader action figure (in honor of the memory of one of the greatest of the Baghdad Bob-like posters) should be mailed to the "ahem" winner. :rolleyes:

-z

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I nominate the lovely and talented Shemp for his performance in this Thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33703)

I don't see any posts by Shemp in that thread.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hgc
Sorry, but I voted before you changed the rules.

I suspect though that if I find the evidence, you will not own up to it anyway. You might as well have started out with a rule excluding yourself from the competition.

The details are still being hashed out here matey. I am not changing any rules, merely clarifying what kind of posts are "Baghdad Bob-like" BB is our guide on this, we should seek to find people who demonstrably emulate him as our honorees, no?

You may suspect all you want, but if you cannot demonstrate as I have with Shemp, you are merely attempting to obfuscate.

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


I don't see any posts by Shemp in that thread.

DOH!

Stupid cut/paste function.... :hit:

I meant to link to this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33763)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

[Hexxenhammer]

Is this limited to the politics forum? I can think of so many good ones over in religion and philosophy. Interesting Ian, Lifegazer, and Iachuus all spring to mind...

[BTox]

Same question - only politics? Any thread with rouser or ion clearly qualifies.

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla


The details are still being hashed out here matey. I am not changing any rules, merely clarifying what kind of posts are "Baghdad Bob-like" BB is our guide on this, we should seek to find people who demonstrably emulate him as our honorees, no?

You may suspect all you want, but if you cannot demonstrate as I have with Shemp, you are merely attempting to obfuscate.

-z Demonstate?!? Oh, if by that you mean post a link to a thread where you had an argument with someone, then I can do that. But it's still just your peevish opinion that he was refuted.

Grow up, matey..

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hgc
Demonstate?!? Oh, if by that you mean post a link to a thread where you had an argument with someone, then I can do that. But it's still just your peevish opinion that he was reputed.

Grow up, matey..

Look, I only have one trophy. If you want me to keep it you will have to demonstrate that my behavior warrants it. Please either put up or shut up.

-z

PS: To all, one need not look very far to find worthy candidates for this award. Mr. hgc has put in a bid. Perhaps he will now declare victory and depart? One can only hope!

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Look, I only have one trophy. If you want me to keep it you will have to demonstrate that my behavior warrants it. Please either put up or shut up.

-z

PS: To all, one need not look very far to find worthy candidates for this award. Mr. hgc has put in a bid. Perhaps he will now declare victory and depart? One can only hope! Having voted under the original rules, I'll now take my leave of this sandbox. You got your wish!

(btw, I might be lying, and return later anyway.):p

[rikzilla]

Btox, Hexxenhammer....

Honestly, if a candidate exists on any JREF board who can top the current nominee he shouldl be considered.

If the shoe fits, as they say.

Indeed! a very good idea...go out and spread the word!! I'll spring for the first winner's trophy, shipping, etc..... :D I wonder if we'll get an address though? The nature of a BB, is that he's fairly elusive! Being able to be found might actually disqualify them!

Arrrrgh! We may be derailled by this Catch-22!

-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hgc
Having voted under the original rules, I'll now take my leave of this sandbox. You got your wish!

(btw, I might be lying, and return later anyway.):p

Your self nomination is amusingly noted. :rolleyes:

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Well, I all I saw in your link was some squabbling between you and shemp. At least shemp didn't annoy the crap out of the other posters in this forum by starting an, "I think rikzilla sux" thread disguised as an '... award' thread.

[hgc]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Your self nomination is amusingly noted. :rolleyes:

-z translation: I know you are, but what am I?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Well, I all I saw in your link was some squabbling between you and shemp. At least shemp didn't annoy the crap out of the other posters in this forum by starting an, "I think rikzilla sux" thread disguised as an '... award' thread.

MM, as much as I personally despise all that you represent I would never nominate you for the BB. When you are shown to be wrong, as you were on the question of UN approval of the Kosovo action, you promptly fess up to it.

This is not a pissing contest between myself and Shemp. This is a recognition that Shemp's tactics in the afore mentioned pissing contest were distinctly Baghdad Bob-like, and as such should be condemned by all people who post to a JREF forum. This is a forum for people who should abhor such illogical and irrational tactics. Isn't it?

This is not a disguised anything....it merely is what it is. I think there may be a market for it??? Time will tell.

-z

[Cleon]

For the love of Jebus, rikzilla, get the #$%^ over yourself.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon
For the love of Jebus, rikzilla, get the #$%^ over yourself.

But I don't love Jebus. This is not about me in the least. I am merely the inventer/discoverer. Are the Hawaiian Islands all about Capt. Cook? Is the electricity coursing through your computer all about Thomas Edison, is there really a guy named "Oscar" who tells us which movies to watch??

-z

;)

[ceptimus]

Rik,

You'll note I said in the other thread that your behavour is boring.

People have an argument with you. Sometimes they win. But you never acknowledge that. You keep twisting and turning, moving the goalposts, droning on and on about the same topics, until the other (sensiible) poster thinks, "I've had enough of this drivel", and leaves. Then you make your claim, "Ha! - such and such a poster has left - therefore I have the last word, and win!"

Winning an argument is not about having the last word. If it were, then only bores could ever win arguments.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Rik,

You'll note I said in the other thread that your behavour is boring.

People have an argument with you. Sometimes they win. But you never acknowledge that. You keep twisting and turning, moving the goalposts, droning on and on about the same topics, until the other (sensiible) poster thinks, "I've had enough of this drivel", and leaves. Then you make your claim, "Ha! - such and such a poster has left - therefore I have the last word, and win!"

Winning an argument is not about having the last word. If it were, then only bores could ever win arguments.

Again, your opinion is appreciated, but was not asked for. What was specifically asked for were clear instances of BB type behavior. Anything else is a distraction from the thread topic.

Honestly, I must ask you, is declaring yourself the winner without actually winning, and then running away a valid tactic? (Now, I am asking your opinion) Anyone else want to tackle that? Please post.

Whether you are from the left/right/or Mars, that tactic is reprehensible. On this board at least, a clear win or logic over illogic should not only be recognized, it should be applauded. Not just for me, but for anyone who suffers this kind of abuse.

[patriotic music plays softly]

Carl Sagan codified most of these flights of illogic in his "Baloney Detection Kit"...however the BB tactic is so absurd that Mr. Sagan never even mentioned it. It's so damned absurd, it doesn't even have a name Well now it does my friend,....now it does!!!
:usa:

-z

[ceptimus]

I agree with you that declaring yourself the winner, and running away is not a legitimate debating tactic.

The point I was making, is that continuing to debate once all the substantive points have already been discussed, is not legitimate either. The last person to leave a discussion is not necessarily the winner.

If you want to have a fair discussion on a topic, you should arrange in advance how many posts (or maybe words) each you will have, and who will have the last post. Also, a closing date for the discussion should be set. Then you need some kind of jury to determine who has won. That might be interesting.

[Ed]

Originally posted by hgc
Demonstate?!? Oh, if by that you mean post a link to a thread where you had an argument with someone, then I can do that. But it's still just your peevish opinion that he was refuted.

Grow up, matey..


Well,well, well. Who knew?

Hello sailor.

[Ed]

Rik,

I am sorry, but Lucianarchy wins. There is no contest at all.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I propose this booby prize be awarded to posters who's arguments are defeated in an obvious and demonstrable way, and in the face of this they then declare themselves the victor.

This award will usually have to be given in absentia as the winner usually has left the forum, hoping that forum denizens will forget their gaffe.

I nominate the lovely and talented Shemp for his performance in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33763)

We'll have to decide on what to use as a trophy though. :rolleyes:

(edited to fix stupid link mistake

Well that is a really sweet idea, but according to the vaunted Rikzilla guidelines, since 'Shemp' made a posting a just a few hours before you started this thread and due to his high volume of postings, one should conclude that he has not left the forum and is thus not eligible for the contest you are sponsoring.

Therefore, I suggest that you find someone else to rail against and/or make another change to the rules.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by Ed
Rik,

I am sorry, but Lucianarchy wins. There is no contest at all. I dunno, I've been pretty impressed with Rouser's qualifications. Luci sure has the staying power, though. LightPiercingDarkness is another fine candidate, but really only on one issue.

None of them are really political, so far as I can tell. If we're going for politics then Malachi has an impressive track record of being flat out factually wrong. Not sure if he ever claims victory, though. Usually just disappears for a bit and then posts another link. Huzington is another contender, but I'm fairly sure that was somebody's character and not a real person.

This award will end up being most appropriate to the people we least want to encourage. :p

[Ed]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I dunno, I've been pretty impressed with Rouser's qualifications. Luci sure has the staying power, though. LightPiercingDarkness is another fine candidate, but really only on one issue.

None of them are really political, so far as I can tell. If we're going for politics then Malachi has an impressive track record of being flat out factually wrong. Not sure if he ever claims victory, though. Usually just disappears for a bit and then posts another link. Huzington is another contender, but I'm fairly sure that was somebody's character and not a real person.

This award will end up being most appropriate to the people we least want to encourage. :p

Again, I must, respectfully, beg to differ. I offer in evidence the following topics (the references are ubiquitious and almost occur on each of it's posts.)

-Computation of probabilities
-appearence of certain numbers in lotteries
-support for schwartz against all odds
-"Ladybrook"

The list goes on. Criminey, Claus even posted it!

Perhaps we ought to think about a "Lifetime Achievement Award"? This would allow us to honor long time posters and not force them into a grubby competition with relative newcomers.

Does that make sense? For further contributions, we can award Oak Leaf Clusters as is done in the US military for a second or third award.

I should also put forward Paul "Blinding" Bethke. You may recall he insisted for some number of weeks running that we would all be blinded each and every week. A protean effort in my book, and surely worthy of reward. I have nothing against Shemp or the others mentioned, I simply suggest that when a Bethke comes into the room, they are eclipsed. They are, alas, not on the A-Team in this particular arena of human attainment.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ceptimus
I agree with you that declaring yourself the winner, and running away is not a legitimate debating tactic.

The point I was making, is that continuing to debate once all the substantive points have already been discussed, is not legitimate either. The last person to leave a discussion is not necessarily the winner.

If you want to have a fair discussion on a topic, you should arrange in advance how many posts (or maybe words) each you will have, and who will have the last post. Also, a closing date for the discussion should be set. Then you need some kind of jury to determine who has won. That might be interesting.

Well, that's not really a valid point since I am the one who made substantive points, and Shemp either responded with opinion, invective, or some combination thereof. He then declared he'd "swept the floor with me" and ran away.

That's the very essence of Baghdad Bob in a nutshell.

It doesn't matter how many posts, or who gets the last word...it's substance, substance, substance. If I make an illogical statement, you correct it with a logical and sourced response unambiguously showing me I'm wrong, I declare victory and run away, then I am wrong.

The absurd emulation of BB should be despised by all skeptics no matter their political bent. After all, how is the truth ever served when some individuals will never recognize it? I'm not trying to change these people, just attempting to organize some (in)formal recognition of it.

Is that wrong?
-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well that is a really sweet idea, but according to the vaunted Rikzilla guidelines, since 'Shemp' made a posting a just a few hours before you started this thread and due to his high volume of postings, one should conclude that he has not left the forum and is thus not eligible for the contest you are sponsoring.

Therefore, I suggest that you find someone else to rail against and/or make another change to the rules.

Perhaps. But I meant left the thread...the subject as it were. Has he returned to it? Not yet. If my nomination to the BB award prods him back to the discussion in question then this thread will have had the desired effect. Hopefully the BB award will have the same effect in other threads as well.

One can hope.
-z

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I dunno, I've been pretty impressed with Rouser's qualifications. Luci sure has the staying power, though. LightPiercingDarkness is another fine candidate, but really only on one issue.

None of them are really political, so far as I can tell. If we're going for politics then Malachi has an impressive track record of being flat out factually wrong. Not sure if he ever claims victory, though. Usually just disappears for a bit and then posts another link. Huzington is another contender, but I'm fairly sure that was somebody's character and not a real person.

This award will end up being most appropriate to the people we least want to encourage. :p

Whoa! Did icantakepicturesofdemons come back?? :D What a hoot!

How 'bout the guy who was going to blind everyone?? I got on his "to be blinded" list, but my vision seems not to have suffered too much. Perhaps it's a slow blinding and won't be total until I'm 110?? If so, then I guess he done got me. ;)

-z

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

How many times has Rikzilla moved the goal post in this thread alone? I am finding it difficult to keep track of what rules are currently en vogue.


First Rikzilla links to a thread that has no posts by shemp,

hgc makes a nomination, which is rejected as the nominee is deemed unqualified by re-edited rules. We finally get a relevant link

And since when did shemp leave the forum? What thread can you link to, Rikzilla, that shows that shemp has stated he is leaving the forum? Please provide a relevant link this time.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Whoa! Did icantakepicturesofdemons come back?? :D What a hoot!
Yeah, he's been over in the challenge forum. Last I looked it had pretty much gotten down to him talking about god and demons and a bunch of people asking him to seek professional help. As far as I can tell he's still going strong.

Paul Bethke was the blinding guy... he did admit the whole blinding thing didn't work after each attempt, so I don't think he qualifies for this award. He kept thinking it would work the next time, but that's more of a "South shall rise again" thing, I think. ;)

There's a guy in the science forum who makes Luci look lucid, but I think he's disqualified based on actually being insane. He seems pretty much a one issue guy as well.

[Zep]

Hmmm...

I think we should all vote to change the "Baghdad Bob Award" rules and make it for something else entirely. Obviously Rik got the dog's lead tangled up in his own legs and pitched himself onto the floor, but the name of the award is still inspiring.

For example, to the most outrageously humourous purveyor of pseudoscientific piffle per annum, similar to the Bent Spoon Award that the Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/spoon/bs-home.htm) presents now. The trophy should be something like a gilded E-meter mounted on a nice tilted plinth.

I'd like to start by nominating Sylvia B.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I like the idea , but the name of the award is not evocative enough. Like, "It looks like my uncle Oscar" , or "Emmy"...what does that mean? Some inside joke no doubt . How about the "Hairy Dounut Award" it's both self-explainatory and descriptive at the same time.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
I dunno, I've been pretty impressed with Rouser's qualifications.

Qualifications as what, other than a raving lunatic? This opinion based on science forum experience only.

[shemp]

Originally posted by rikzilla


DOH!

Stupid cut/paste function.... :hit:

I meant to link to this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33763)

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Yeah stupid, you can't even get your pitiful award right! Why don't you give it to yourself, so you'll have a medal to pin on your chest? Oh, be careful you don't prick yourself and let all the hot air out.

[shemp]

I guess in the small, airless confines of rikzilla's mind, being tied up with employment and family constitutes "leaving the forum." I'm so glad for him that he hasn't got those distractions; his only interests are the PCE&H forum and Whack-a-Mole.

[Crossbow]

Since rikzilla is unable how to define the criteria for the "Baghdad Bob" Award that he is advocating, I suggest that he withdraw the creation of such an award until he can determine what it is actually supposed to represent.

Further, I think that this thread should have placed in Flame Wars in the first place since it is more about personal attacks instead of Politics, Current Events, and History, but since that was not done I suggest that it be moved there now.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Since rikzilla is unable how to define the criteria for the "Baghdad Bob" Award that he is advocating, I suggest that he withdraw the creation of such an award until he can determine what it is actually supposed to represent.

Further, I think that this thread should have placed in Flame Wars in the first place since it is more about personal attacks instead of Politics, Current Events, and History, but since that was not done I suggest that it be moved there now.

This is not a simple flame. I have done nothing here to "flame" Shemp besides point out his own bogus debate tactics.

He then shows up and flames me. This isn't really about Shemp, it's about the Baghdad Bob tactic itself.

Alot of people have come here and posted who they think is most deserving of this award. We've had nominations of:

Paul Bethke
Lucianarchy
Huzington
and
Shemp

The most telling thing so far is that those first 3 clowns are solid well known trolls. Shemp, for all his failings, has not ever to my knowledge been accused of actually being a troll.

Personally I find it odious that a well known poster to this forum should suddenly stoop to the debate tactics of the forum troll.

We have enough ways to recognize the classic troll, I think the BB award should find it's niche in that it is not for the classic troll. It's for that special creature; the "stealth troll". Otherwise known as the JREF poster most lacking in integrity.

-z

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by rikzilla


This is not a simple flame. I have done nothing here to "flame" Shemp besides point out his own bogus debate tactics.

He then shows up and flames me. This isn't really about Shemp, it's about the Baghdad Bob tactic itself.

Alot of people have come here and posted who they think is most deserving of this award. We've had nominations of:

Paul Bethke
Lucianarchy
Huzington
and
Shemp

The most telling thing so far is that those first 3 clowns are solid well known trolls. Shemp, for all his failings, has not ever to my knowledge been accused of actually being a troll.

Personally I find it odious that a well known poster to this forum should suddenly stoop to the debate tactics of the forum troll.

We have enough ways to recognize the classic troll, I think the BB award should find it's niche in that it is not for the classic troll. It's for that special creature; the "stealth troll". Otherwise known as the JREF poster most lacking in integrity.

-z

You need to add:

cain
A_U_P
KOA
Malachi151

"dodge and weave" experts all...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Kodiak


You need to add:

cain
A_U_P
KOA
Malachi151

"dodge and weave" experts all...

Cain,...yes...I can see the possibility.
A_U_P? Hell yes. I'm surprised at myself for not recognizing him myself!
KOA? Naw, he's a simple troll. I don't know of anyone who comes close to taking him seriously.
Malachi51? I'll give him a maybe along with Cain...I just haven't had enough interaction with them to make the call.

But AUP fits...he's almost as perfect a fit as Shemp is.

-z

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by BTox


Qualifications as what, other than a raving lunatic? This opinion based on science forum experience only. Qualifications for this award, of course. ;)

See the theads on the JFK conspiracy or vaccinations for how impressively he manages to deny reality. Despite being shown just how wrong he is again and again he keeps coming back with the same exact arguments.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shemp
I guess in the small, airless confines of rikzilla's mind, being tied up with employment and family constitutes "leaving the forum." I'm so glad for him that he hasn't got those distractions; his only interests are the PCE&H forum and Whack-a-Mole.

You're not tied up with anything Shemp. You are right here, comenting on this thread. How much effort would it take to go back to the thread in question and answer this:
Shemp's salient points:


#1. The President and his administration are violating the constitution.

#2. The Supreme Court of the United States validates this illegality.

#3. Rikzilla, along with the overwhelming majority of the American people agree with these violations of law.





...along with my reply which got me into Shemp's bad book:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These seem to be your 3 main points of logic. Lets take them one at a time shall we? You are accusing the President of the United States with nothing less than violating his oath of office.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That is a very large accusation, do you have evidence for this? If you do then I'd advise you to write your congressional representatives, because they need to know this stuff. If GWB is in violation of his oath of office, then he should be impeached. I guess the only reason that congress is not drawing up articles of impeachment at this time is because of the "vast right wing conspiracy"?? (just trying to help you out a little there bub,..you need it) You have made what is called in skeptical circles "an extraordinary claim" as such it will require a coresponding amount of "extraordinary evidence".

Point #2: The SCOTUS is not only complicent in this Presidential malfeasence, but has actually upheld it. This is of course absurd, and is also an extraordinary claim. I will even go so far as to say that anyone stupid enough to "believe" this nonsense is a political woo-woo. Prove me wrong....

Point #3: The majority of Americans agree with the POTUS's alleged violation of his oath of office. I believe you mean that the majority of Americans agree with GWB's prosecution of the WOT. If that's what you mean, you would be correct. But that is not what you said. Therefore, you are wrong again.


There, now you don't even have to spend the effort to switch threads...admit your mistake. It won't cost you one damn nickle, and would earn you a free pass off this particular hook. Otherwise you can offer a rebuttal showing me the error of my ways. Your choice. Unless you like having your "ahem" good name besmirched. Who knows, maybe you do?

-z

After all, its hard to smear the good name of a guy who's best lines can always be traced back to the astrological influence of Planet X.

[shemp]

rikzilla came up from the murky depths and spewed:

Alot of people have come here and posted who they think is most deserving of this award. We've had nominations of:

Paul Bethke
Lucianarchy
Huzington
and
Shemp

The most telling thing so far is that those first 3 clowns are solid well known trolls. Shemp, for all his failings, has not ever to my knowledge been accused of actually being a troll.

Why you scurrilous swine! How dare you impugn my integrity!? I have spent years building my solid reputation as a troll, and you try to shoot it all down with one shot! Hah!

I would call you out upon the field of honor at dawn, but I don't get up that early!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shemp
rikzilla came up from the murky depths and spewed:



Why you scurrilous swine! How dare you impugn my integrity!? I have spent years building my solid reputation as a troll, and you try to shoot it all down with one shot! Hah!

I would call you out upon the field of honor at dawn, but I don't get up that early!

I congratulate you Shemp. Like a true woo-woo you have figured out a way to take the dilemma right between the horns haven't you?
The Shemp is proven wrong dilemma:

Horn#1: Shemp remains silent and unrepentant earning himself a place in the Baghdad Bob hall of shame.

Horn#2: Shemp admits his error, but at least is no longer in the hall of shame. However admiting such an error is possibly more galling to Shemp than the hall of shame. :o


Shemp's solution is as simple and elegant as it is stupid. He has learned to like and embrace the troll label....a distinction even more repulsive than the BB award.

Thank you. You have effectively poisoned your own well. My work here is done. :dl:

-z

[Ed]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Further, I think that this thread should have placed in Flame Wars in the first place since it is more about personal attacks instead of Politics, Current Events, and History, but since that was not done I suggest that it be moved there now.

Not at all. This thread is about history and current events: Ours. It is no more flamey than other topics of current events.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by rikzilla


My work here is done. :dl:

-z
No Its not rik, you normally end each of your dickhead cycles with an apology before you start a new cycle....who gets the apology for your recent efforts? Maybe the guy you wished had a penis infection? Classy stuff rik....right up there with your best.