The Raging River Game

[Cosmo]

When I had an open slot in my university schedule, I often went for a philosophy or ethics class; as such, among these electives were three different ethics courses each taught by the same professor. On the first day of each of these three courses, he would open class by playing this game.

"I'm going to read to you a story," he would say. "It contains five characters - A, B, C, D, and X. At the end of the story, I'd like each of you to rank these five characters from the one you like the most down to the one you like the least. Then, I'm going to invite you to defend your ranking to the rest of the class."

The Raging River Game

There is a raging river which can be crossed only by means of a boat. The only boat is owned and operated by a person we shall call A (in order to protect the innocent as well as the guilty). On the same side of the River is a person, X, who is deeply and sincerely in love with a person C on the other side of the River. X goes to A, asking to be taken across the River and offering to pay whatever the charge for the service. A declines any money, but agrees to take X across the River, if X will sleep with A. Person X refuses, of course (!), but argues and then pleads with A to name some other price. A, however, remains firm.

Person X leaves but returns a second day to seek a way across the River. A remains as adamant as before. In frustration, X seeks out a third person, B, who hears of the situation sympathetically, agreeing that A is certainly a rogue. But B says, "I have other matters concerning me just now and am not able to help you."

In desperation X goes to A a third time only to be met with the same offer for the trip across the River. X finally agrees to the price and sleeps with A, who then delivers X across the River as promised.

X and C are joyously reunited, until C asks how X got across the River. X truthfully replies, "I had to sleep with A to earn the trip across the River." C replies indignantly, "Out of my life ! I will have nothing to do with one who holds honor and principle so lightly!

X, of course, is frustrated and desperate again, and appeals to Person D who replies, "I understand and am deeply sympathetic. I'd do anything I can to help you."

(The curtain falls.)This part to be read after you have written your ranking and perhaps read the justifications of other posters:

As you might have suspected, no two people would have the same ranking of these five characters. The professor would allow debate to rage for a good 5 or 10 minutes, with each new person proposing his own ranking and trying in vain to defend it to the entire rest of the class.

After a while, he'd stop debate and say something like, "Ok, ok. I confess I've been deceiving you all. There is no right or wrong answer to this exercise, as your choices are a product of, among other things, your personal values. You see, values are one of the important parts of ethics we'll be covering in this course..."

Thanks for playing! :)

Edit:

People would also invariably refer to these characters with pronouns; i.e. "X is bad! He did such-and-such..." but there is not a single pronoun or gender reference in the entirety of the story. He'd then say, "If all of these characters were the same gender, would you change your answers? If so, that might say something about you. And if you wouldn't change your answers, that might also say something about you." :)

[TragicMonkey]

I find X to be tediously wishy-washy. He/she shouldn't have had to take crap from C, but was stupid to be honest about A.

B was in the right to stay out of the drama, but should have told X to grow a pair (of whatever X's gender has) and make a decision on his/her own.

D is annoying, and clearly trying to score on the rebound.

C is an ungrateful prude. He/she should have found out whether A was hot, and considered a threesome. Or slept with A him/herself to even the score.

A seems pretty cool. At least he/she is honest and upfront about what he/she wants, and doesn't run around angsting all the time. I wonder if A and B should hook up? They'd probably get along pretty well.

And if X is rejected by C, he/she should try going back to A. A's pretty cool, and owns a ferry.

[Jekyll]

I say X was caught with his/her pants down and made the whole thing up.

"Sorry honey, but the was this raging river you see, and A had a boat and, well, one thing lead to another....."

[Myriad]

B is blameless. Since we're told that A has the only boat, B's preoccupation with other matters is irrelevant. B cannot possibly help X cross the river (except perhaps by sleeping with A in X's stead, but we don't know that).

X and A both seem sexually amoral (technically, X is a prostitute and A is a john) and generally honest.

D and C have probably been carrying behind X's back, having been on the same side of the river all along. (X is now stuck there too, since A went back in the boat, taking along the fox and the corn.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe it turns out that B, C, and D are all figments of X's imagination.

[FaisonMars]

The one you like most to the one you like least...


Well, B gets the most respect from me for sympathizing with X but not getting involved. There was nothing B could have done.

As the story is told, I like X next best, because X wanted to get to C, but sensed that sleeping with A would bother C, and so s/he sought out every possible opportunity to get to C: appealing to B and appealing multiple times to A. X's choices seem to be: 1) Not be with C on this side of the river or 2) get across the river and risk not having C because of having slept with A (and if that's a deal-breaker for C, X should dump him/her anyway). The clear choice for X is #2, since with choice #1, s/he can't have C regardless.

D's motives are unclear, so I put him/her third.

C is a prude and an idiot... s/he should give X credit for trying to find some other way to get across the river, and forgive X for using any means necessary.

I dislike A the most, since s/he was unwilling to help X. Even if A is unmoved by X's story, s/he should have been willing to take money to defray the costs of the ferry ride and make whatever profit A wanted.

For me, it's B-X-D-C-A

[ChristineR]

Wow, I'm surprised at how many people like B. I would have expected people to trash B. I like X, because this is a story about X. No one else has enough personality for me to judge their motives. I put A last, because A is the only person in the story who has committed an actual crime (extortion). I don't count prostitution as a crime.

[Myriad]

Wow, I'm surprised at how many people like B. I would have expected people to trash B. I like X, because this is a story about X. No one else has enough personality for me to judge their motives. I put A last, because A is the only person in the story who has committed an actual crime (extortion). I don't count prostitution as a crime.

Extortion?

I want a 60-inch widescreen flat-panel TV a whole lot. Every day I don't have one, it makes me unhappy.

But the guys at Best Buy won't give me one unless I give them money.

Now that I know that's extortion, I'll call the cops and have them thrown in jail.

Seriously, A's only crime is solicitation, not extortion. If we're not regarding prostitution as a crime, I don't see it making much sense to regard solicitation as a crime either.

(Of course, you have every right to dislike A anyhow, if you're so inclined.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ChristineR]

Extortion?

I want a 60-inch widescreen flat-panel TV a whole lot. Every day I don't have one, it makes me unhappy.

But the guys at Best Buy won't give me one unless I give them money.

Now that I know that's extortion, I'll call the cops and have them thrown in jail.

Seriously, A's only crime is solicitation, not extortion. If we're not regarding prostitution as a crime, I don't see it making much sense to regard solicitation as a crime either.

(Of course, you have every right to dislike A anyhow, if you're so inclined.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

But X offers A money. A specifically demands sex. Only sex will satisfy him/her. Demanding money for a service is not comparable to demanding sex.

[Myriad]

It might not be exactly comparable, but it's not extortion. It's still an entirely optional deal for X. C's life is not in danger if X doesn't cross the river. X's life is not in danger if X doesn't cross the river. Even if life or health were at stake, it would still not technically be extortion. A does not threaten to do any harm to X if X doesn't sleep with A. All A does is refuse to do what X wants A to do, unless X does what A wants X to do in return. In modern life A's demand would probably contsitute illegal discrimination (assuming A normally does accept money for the use of the boat) and/or sexual harassment, as well as solicitation, but it's not extortion.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[ChristineR]

Well, I'm assuming that A knows that X will eventually give in and sleep with A. This is not mentioned, but if A normally takes money for river crossings, then A is singling X out because X is desperate to cross the river and A knows he/she can get sex out of this.

If A's normal position was only to take people across who agreed to sleep with him, that would make him/her a pervert, but not a criminal. But that is a rather odd possibility and since the story doesn't mention such a thing, I'm assuming that this is not the case.

[bruto]

B and D are both irrelevant, offering nothing but sympathy when they cannot actually do anything. They may be nice guys, but they have no real role in the dilemma.

Unless it's a life or death rescue, X appears to be not very creative, or very patient. X should plan better and try to figure out what the journey is actually worth to the whole relationship.

C may be a prude, but has a point. On the other hand, what does C do to help with the situation? The river has two sides. Is it endless in all directions? Can nobody figure out a better way to resolve the situation? Can they not communicate in some way to determine what price the passage is worth to them both?

A is a nasty piece of work. X should have mugged him/her and taken the boat.

I don't think much of the story anyway.

[The Atheist]

A is the clear winner. He/she got what was wanted and everybody else failed.

[Meadmaker]

OK. I'll play along. I haven't even read the spoilers.


(I'm going to call everyone "he", just to make it easy to read.)
A is bad. Very bad. Just plain bad.

C. Don't like him. A did what he had to do.

B. If indeed his only problem was "too busy", then I have some objections. Was he really "too busy", or did he "just not want to get involved". If the latter, he loses, but still no worse than C.

D. No major objections, but knowingly offering "to help" when you know you can't/won't is a pet peeve.

X. No objections. Seemed to do the right thing.

[Beleth]

My order, from most-liked to least-liked:

D is the only one whose motives could be argued as being potentially altruistic. I therefore like D the best.

B, while doing nothing good, at least didn't do anything bad. I am neutral.

X was in a no-win situation whether X realized it or not. I have some sympathy for X because of that, but not much. What did X think would happen when C found out?

C is not looking at the whole picture. C's ethics are getting in the way of two people's happiness and possibly destroying X.

And A is just a slimeball.

[skeptifem]

1.d- could have helped if x wasnt so impulsive.

2. b- didnt get involved in a situation that didnt concern him/her, but listened and validated x's feelings.

3. x- really wanted to get over to c, and was the only one giving enough of a **** to do anything about the situation. I didnt really enjoy how they couldnt wait a few days before giving in to sleeping with a, but still.

4. c- they werent doing anything to get over to the other side, leaving x to deal with a flippin pervert, and got mad about an affair that x didnt even want to be a part of and was completely honest about.

5. a- what a pervert. really. Couldnt they have gotten money and bought multiple prostitutes (and much more sex than they got from x) if they had just let x pay? A was just being disgusting and toying with x for no reason but a's own pleasure. ick ick ick

[Antiquehunter]

Haven't read any of the spoilers.

I like B the best because B had the sense to stay out of a lose-lose scenario. Smart person.

I like A because they are the most honest. They have a valuable resource, set a price and stick to their guns to get what they want. Although I can't personally imagine wanting a sexual liasion more than a significant financial reward. $1,000,00 or a night of nookie with (insert sexual fantasy here) - give me the $1,000,000 any time. I suspect that A must have a pretty awful sex/relationship life if they need to get their kicks this way - but you have to respect their integrity in dealing.

I can't really rank C D or X in order of preference - they're all goofs.

C for being a silly prude. Its not like X went off and had an affair - X did what X had to do. Sexual infidelity does not HAVE to end a relationship.

X for realizing that C would be offended if X sleeps with A but doing it anyway. If to get C one needs to offend C, then what is the bloody point?

D looks to be purely manipulative.

I guess C-X-D would be the ranking of the last 3.

[Cosmo]

Very interesting to read different rankings and the justifications for them. And shame on those who read the spoilers before posting. ;)

[Beerina]

I say X was caught with his/her pants down and made the whole thing up.

"Sorry honey, but the was this raging river you see, and A had a boat and, well, one thing lead to another....."

Ya, really.

"I, uhh, uhhh, yeah, A made me have sex with her or she wouldn't let me come to be with you!"

"And you couldn't find another way across?"

"I, uhh, ummm. No! I couldn't! I had sex with A for you, honey!"


:rolleyes:

[Marquis de Carabas]

B is the best. I like people who mind their own business.

A is next. A could be the best if willing to negotiate down to oral or something. Absolutism knocks A down a notch.

X is right in the middle. Loses points for stupidity in telling C the truth.

D. What a carpet.

C is the worst. Gets all indignant about a bit of the old in-out. What did C do to reunite the pair anyway?

--------------------

I have heard a variation on this story...

Same basic setup, a river passable only by boat. A lady (L) is separated frome her man (M). The boatman (B) won't take her across unless she pays him $20. A stranger (S) offers to give her $20 for some boink-boink. She initially refuses, but eventually relents. She pays B, reunites with M, and they are happy until one of M's friends (F) tells him how she got the money. He then leaves her.

In this story, the rankings one gives supposedly reveal the way one prioritises...

L-love
M-morality
B-business
S-sex
F-friendship

I don't remember how I originally ranked them, save that I had B first and F last. (And I strongly suspected that S and F weren't different people. Heh.)

[roger]

I don't get what is supposed to be so bad about A, but then I don't get why prostitution is illegal. What if A had demanded a back rub? Or for X to muck out their stalls? Depending on the person, sex could be more pleasant than mucking out stalls.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I don't get what is supposed to be so bad about A...
You and me both.

[Beleth]

I don't get what is supposed to be so bad about A, but then I don't get why prostitution is illegal.
What A did wasn't prostitution. Prostitution is offering sex for compensation. What A did was asking for sex for compensation.

Personally, I'm amused at the amount of conclusion-jumping done to D's motives by people who claim to be critical thinkers.

[bruto]

What A did wasn't prostitution. Prostitution is offering sex for compensation. What A did was asking for sex for compensation.

Personally, I'm amused at the amount of conclusion-jumping done to D's motives by people who claim to be critical thinkers.

I don't question D's motives. Nothing in the story concerns D, really, and it ends before we see what D might or might not be able to do. As far as I can see, both B and D are red herrings with regard to the ethical dilemma at hand. B is unavailable and D is not in the picture until it's all over. Nothing in the story tells us where D was during the action, so we can make no conclusion about his/her potential role, except that X did not seek D out, and D is not known to have been present. The only real role I can see for D extrapolative: if D was in the neighborhood during the whole transaction, then X could be faulted for not having appealed to D for help, as he/she did to B, before settling for A's extortionate demands.

[FaisonMars]

Personally, I'm amused at the amount of conclusion-jumping done to D's motives by people who claim to be critical thinkers.

There's really not enough information in the story to make strong conclusions about whether or not B or D acted ethically, so people are imagining more to the story. This seems like one of those stories where you have to assume that there are no other options than what are in the story (such as that stupid story about the fat guy on a bridge over a runaway trolley).

D was on the wrong side of the river, so there was no way s/he could have helped X before the fact.

It's not explicit in the story, but we are led to assume that A would normally accept cash to ferry people across the river, and so A is being opportunistic in trying to score with X. If A normally only accept sex and no cash (or other, more neutral compensation) for transit and is clear about that regardless of the client, then s/he would go up a bit in my ranking.

On more reflection, I might lower B a bit, because it's possible that s/he was lying about being "too busy" just to avoid helping X, and perhaps B and X together could have browbeat A into help X or accepting other compensation.

I read the spoilers after my first post in this thread, but I don't think they contain any surprising information, and they would not have changed my ranking. You can see that the JREFers have been much more careful about pronouns than your average class of college freshmen might be.

[Beleth]

(For the record, I was not referring to either bruto or mfaison in the last sentence of my previous post.)

Since it is not said that X crossed the river a second time, I have to conclude that X, D, C, and A are all on the same side of the river at the time X talks to D.

Given that, D has many options open at this stage in the story. D could, assuming the best intentions, act as a mediator between X and C. Or if D was sleazy, D could seduce C, thereby putting C in the same boat (no pun intended) as X and therefore more likely to reconcile with X. There are other options as well which I leave as an exercise for the reader.

But given where the story ended, there is no reason to dislike D and a shadow of a reason to like D.

[Marquis de Carabas]

But given where the story ended, there is no reason to dislike D and a shadow of a reason to like D.
There is no reason for you to dislike D, perhaps. Personally, I despise doormats, and D comes across that way to me, with the "anything I can to help" bit.

[Cosmo]

Personally, I'm amused at the amount of conclusion-jumping done to D's motives by people who claim to be critical thinkers.

The (un)stated purpose of the exercise was to reveal something about the values of those who participate and develop a ranking. It's true that D enters only at the very end of the story and little information is available about him/her.

I think, however, that criticizing others for "jumping to conclusions" is missing the point. The story is purposefully vague and there are very few - if any - conclusions that "people who claim to be critical thinkers" could declare with any degree of certainty.

If you think D was trying to take advantage of X's situation, then that probably says something about you. If you think D wanted to be genuinely helpful, that says something about you too. That's all. Faulting others for their conclusions in a scenario with a gross lack of information is disingenuous.

[FaisonMars]

I find C particularly loathsome because I've never understood why some people absolutely equate sex with love (which is the basis of the plots of many movies such as "Indecent Proposal"). X clearly loves C, wants to be with C, and despises A, so why should C care if A had some pleasure spasms with X?

[Beleth]

I think, however, that criticizing others for "jumping to conclusions" is missing the point. The story is purposefully vague and there are very few - if any - conclusions that "people who claim to be critical thinkers" could declare with any degree of certainty.
I find the assumption that D is up to something assumes more facts not in evidence than the assumption that D is being altruistic. That's why I consider it jumping to conclusions.

And actually, I find the lively discussion we are having right now entirely on the point.

[Cosmo]

I find the assumption that D is up to something assumes more facts not in evidence than the assumption that D is being altruistic. That's why I consider it jumping to conclusions.

Ok.

And actually, I find the lively discussion we are having right now entirely on the point.

Perhaps you misunderstand - I'm fine with the discussion. Each poster has reached different conclusions and we are all defending these conclusions to the rest of the forum.

What we are not doing, however, is criticizing the fact that others may have reached a different conclusions. "Jumping to conclusions" is a subjective judgment; you're faulting someone else for reading the facts differently or ending up somewhere you did not.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I find the assumption that D is up to something assumes more facts not in evidence than the assumption that D is being altruistic. That's why I consider it jumping to conclusions.
Neither assumption relies much on facts. There's only one fact present--D's own words. One's valuation of D, then, is more a reflection of one's own outlook towards strangers offering assistance. A suspicious-minded person would tend to rate D lower. They would not be rating D based on facts about D they presume to exist, but rather on their preconceived notions of how humans in general operate. (Such notions may, of course, be wrong.)

ETA:

i.e.
Humans behave in manner x
D is human
D behaves in manner x

[Beleth]

A group of people posting their opinions, with no interaction, is not a discussion. Discussion requires interaction. That's why I posted what I did. Yes, perhaps I was more caustic than I needed to be. Then again, perhaps being less caustic would not have led to a discussion at all.

[Beleth]

Neither assumption relies much on facts. There's only one fact present--D's own words. One's valuation of D, then, is more a reflection of one's own outlook towards strangers offering assistance. A suspicious-minded person would tend to rate D lower. They would not be rating D based on facts about D they presume to exist, but rather on their preconceived notions of how humans in general operate. (Such notions may, of course, be wrong.)

ETA:

i.e.
Humans behave in manner x
D is human
D behaves in manner x
That D is a stranger to X is one of those facts not in evidence that I was referring to earlier. If we are going by human behavior, then it is far more plausible, given that X is petitioning D for help, that X knows D.

[bruto]

Here's a possible scenario. Let's assume that D is the same sex and orientation as C. D would like to get together with X, but cannot help X since he/she is on the wrong side of the river, and because C has precedence; and there's nothing he/she can do for C, even if he/she genuinely cares for C and wishes the relationship well. D stands by, powerless to help and unwilling to harm, but expecting both that X will sell out to get across the river and that C will be priggish about it. D then steps in to pick up the pieces. D's offer is opportunistic but genuine, and X and D live happily ever after.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That D is a stranger to X is one of those facts not in evidence that I was referring to earlier. If we are going by human behavior, then it is far more plausible, given that X is petitioning D for help, that X knows D.
I would say that assuming two people in a narrative are strangers is the default unless otherwise instructed. Furthermore, the story is careful to point out the nature of the relationship between X and C. If there exists any relationship between X and D, it is not mentioned. I find that omission informative. It says to me that either there is no relationship or that it is of such a nature that no relevant information would be given by detailing it.

Even assuming that X and D have some knowledge of each other is not necessarily enough to persuade one that D is altruistic, of course. Of all the people I know of who might approach me with a problem, the subset of those I would help without ulterior motive is rather small.

[Beleth]

I would say that assuming two people in a narrative are strangers is the default unless otherwise instructed.
Given no other information, I agree. But we actually know quite a lot about D, without assuming anything not in evidence.

D is on the same side of the river as C.
D is the first person X turned to after being spurned by C.

Furthermore, the story is careful to point out the nature of the relationship between X and C. If there exists any relationship between X and D, it is not mentioned. I find that omission informative. It says to me that either there is no relationship or that it is of such a nature that no relevant information would be given by detailing it.
It tells me entirely different things. First off, the story hinges on the relationship between X and C. The story makes no sense, and the discussion dissolves away, if we do not know that bit of information. The story still makes sense, and discussion is enhanced, by leaving the other relationships unspoken.

Even assuming that X and D have some knowledge of each other is not necessarily enough to persuade one that D is altruistic, of course. Of all the people I know of who might approach me with a problem, the subset of those I would help without ulterior motive is rather small.
The fact that D is the first person X turns to is telling. It either means that D was either simply the closest person to X in distance, or was X's closest confidant on that side of the river, or the only one besides C (and A of course) on that side of the river.

And I spend all day helping others without having an ulterior motive. Perhaps that comes out in how I see this scenario.

You know, the more I think about this scenario, the less I like C. If the only way across the river is A's boat, then it is likely (given what we know about A) that C slept with A too.

[Marquis de Carabas]

And I spend all day helping others without having an ulterior motive. Perhaps that comes out in how I see this scenario.

And this was my point. The differing views have very little to do with the facts as presented, being as bare as they are. It's all about the differences between you and I (and everyone else) that unfailingly color the way we view the participants in this little playlet, and even how we view the story itself.

Consequently, convincing another that your ranking system is "correct" is not merely a matter of showing them a few facts they got wrong, or a few unwarranted assumptions they may have made. To change someone's mind on this (assuming they thought it through fairly well the first time) would call for a fairly fundamental change in someone's biases and values.

I can understand your points perfectly well, as I am sure you can mine, but I can never accept them, for in so doing, I'd end up quite a different sort of me.

[bruto]

You know, the more I think about this scenario, the less I like C. If the only way across the river is A's boat, then it is likely (given what we know about A) that C slept with A too.

I suspect that the problem here is more with the story than with C. After a certain point interpretation becomes indistinguishable from repair of a defective story, or invention of our own back story.

Why are X and C separated at all? Was crossing a routine event until A changed the rules? X was able to wait a day. Why couldn't he/she wait a little longer, perhaps until B was less busy?

I'm inclined to think that rather than an ethical exercise, the point of this story is more to illustrate how difficult it is to make useful inferences from a poorly framed story.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I'm inclined to think that rather than an ethical exercise, the point of this story is more to illustrate how difficult it is to make useful inferences from a poorly framed story.
Actually, I sort of agree with this. The point of the story seems to me to be to root out one's biases about human nature. One action or one statement made by another is hardly enough to draw firm conclusions about character, yet that is what we do all the time, filling in the blanks with our own preconceptions. As fair-minded people, we do not cling to that initial impression, I hope, but allow it to develop as new data comes in, our image of a person's character gradually replacing and correcting, though probably never abolishing, our initial biases. In the story, though, there is no new data. It is an attempt to catch our evaluations of others in an embryonic stage. This tells us next to nothing about persons A, B, C, D, and X, but can reveal loads about the respondent.

[Beleth]

[C]onvincing another that your ranking system is "correct" is not merely a matter of showing them a few facts they got wrong, or a few unwarranted assumptions they may have made. To change someone's mind on this (assuming they thought it through fairly well the first time) would call for a fairly fundamental change in someone's biases and values.

I can understand your points perfectly well, as I am sure you can mine, but I can never accept them, for in so doing, I'd end up quite a different sort of me.
This is a very depressing conclusion.

If it isn't possible to agree on something like this, how can we ever agree on something with even less information, like the origin of the universe, or the origin of life?

Doesn't this conclusion kind of make this whole R&P subforum absolutely pointless?

[Marquis de Carabas]

This is a very depressing conclusion.

If it isn't possible to agree on something like this, how can we ever agree on something with even less information, like the origin of the universe, or the origin of life?

Doesn't this conclusion kind of make this whole R&P subforum absolutely pointless?
Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. It is not that the poster known as Marquis de Carabas can never be in agreement with you on this (though I do find it unlikely); it is that if I came to be so, I would be a significantly different MdC, enough that I might as well be a different person.

My initial reactions to people are based on the experiences I have had with people up to now, as are yours. I cannot help that, nor can you. We can both ameliorate the situation by keeping in mind that initial impressions are often wrong, and withholding judgment on any important matters until the facts are in, but this story game simply asks us for those initial reactions to isolated pieces of data.

It is of little to no surprise that you and I (and others) do not have the same reactions, not having had the same experiences. Our reactions reflect what has happened to us, hence who we are. Unless we are the same person, why should we reach agreement?

[Antiquehunter]

Dude. You're getting all deep and almost... lucid.

Back to the goat jokes, please.

;)

[Marquis de Carabas]

See, this illustrates my point. As Antiquehunter's contact with me has been largely confined to these forums, he has built the impression that I'm nothing but a goat-joke machine. Now, in reality of course, I am much mo--

Oh, sod it. First impressions aren't always mistaken.

[SezMe]

Antiquehunter stole my thunder! I am thoroughly enjoying this thread and especially the revelation of a new dimension of the MdC which he has kept hidden under goat skin for 12K+ posts. I find this revalation to be a delight.

PS: Can goats swim?

[Antiquehunter]

No MdeC - when I met you at TAM V, and you said something complimentary about my posts, I knew then once and for all that you are a complete nutter. ;)