Only 13 for me, which seems about right.
I wonder how many they deducted for having short arms -- that doesn't seem like it would make a big difference.
If a child is knocked unconscious, he is "out."
My experience fighting swarms of five-year-olds tells me this is very, very wrong
My height, excellent sense of balance, and willingness to grab one of them and swing him or her like a club is, I think, what really helped my score.
30, ogged? I got 26, and I've been in lots of fights, and been trampled. You must have agreed that you'd enjoy clawing and pile-driving, right?
I am not convinced that swinging and/or throwing the five-year olds would really be an effective fighting technique.
You must have agreed that you'd enjoy clawing and pile-driving, right?
Indeed.
I'm thinking "long arms" and "athletic" (which, hey, will give him: the guy needs his self-confidence) helped ogged's score. Anybody smart is going to say yes to clawing and pile driving.
On the other hand if ogged picked "very tall" he's just trolling.
I am not convinced that swinging and/or throwing the five-year olds would really be an effective fighting technique.
Agreed. As I pointed out in the original thread, when you swing one as a weapon, you'll actually stumble for a moment when you connect, and then you're done.
15, but I contend that the test is inadequate, as it doesn't account for experience with actual five-year-olds, and supposes that the children will show no fear. Fear is your best weapon against five-year-olds. I could subdue hundreds without shedding blood.
I got 14, but I was probably lying.
I'm fairly certain there's a 5-year old there that could take me one on one.
supposes that the children will show no fear
Well yes, this is what makes it interesting. These are trained, bloodthirsty five-year-olds.
7: It just seems like showboating. It's the kind of trick you might pull in choreographed WWE-sponsored five year old fighting, but will get you stomped in real world five year old fighting.
15: see, I think using the one five-year-old to clear some distance around you is the only way you're going to keep them from swarming all over you.
w-lfs-n and I got the same score, which is only a little less disheartening than getting outscored by a blogger who doesn't even have a complete set of internal organs.
16: But that's a temporary advantage, unless you plan to keep swinging and spinning in circles until the five-year-olds give up and go home. And as ogged says, swinging the five-year-old puts your balance at risk, and balance is everything in this fight.
You need to keep moving and hit them as you go. One thing that's unclear is whether there's an infinite mass of five-year-olds and we're asking how many of them you can knock out before they get you, or whether we're trying to figure out the discrete number you could take at once. It makes a difference in terms of your freedom of movement and their ability to swarm you.
Christ, you amateurs. You don't swing an *entire* five-year-old. You just tear off a leg and use it as a club (and an example).
What kind of crazy self-assessment is this? What's an average body? What's average reach, etc.?
18: you swing them to clear a path to move, and then you throw them. Then you move to set up somewhere new, and wait for them to come at you from a single direction. Just moving around a lot and hitting them, per ogged, isn't going to work, because they'll be able to get behind you and trip you. You need to use them ballistically to shape their attack.
Also there's no way you're going to be able to do this and keep your balance the whole time. Knowing how to fight from the ground, and having the core strength to get back on your feet and fling a five-year-old or two off of you is going to be key.
You all do realize that if you allow a d20 to sit nearby, at rest, you are indistinguishable from D&D rules lawyers arguing over some obscure ruling, don't you? I respect that; the question of swinging a 5-year-old immediately made me smile as I recalled the time I got to say to a player, "You'd probably count as a modified club, wouldn't you?" I just want to make sure you're aware.
I got 12. But in actual experience I have dealt with groups of 20 kids between 5-9 and lived to tell about it, so.
These are trained, bloodthirsty five-year-olds.
This indicates the key to achieving a high score: evaluating your puny opponents strictly in terms of their ability to harm you, and thereby liberating yourself from the psychological and moral compunctions which would otherwise constrain your fighting ability. Listen, people, I have two five-year-olds try to take me down every day, and I know their tactics, up to and including bashing me in the forehead with a baritone ukulele. And now I will go retrieve them from school; sometimes I take them both home on my shoulders, because it weakens them as it makes me stronger.
Also, why is there no comment 12? Server glitch?
23: you can take the nerd out of the Strategic Games Club, but you can't take the Strategic Games Club out of the nerd.
I'd like B to weigh in on this thread.
Does the "everyone is wearing a cup" restriction favor the 5 year olds or the adult?
In fact, this could be the anti-unfogged that would make both groups combust if they attended the same party.
19: it's got to be a discreet number you can take on at once. Otherwise, the numbers would be much higher, one would think.
28 see 24.
My 7 year old regularly tries to knock me over, and he can almost succeed. In a couple years he'll be able to.
Jesus is, however, correct in saying that there's a lot to be said for being able to predict what your opponent will do, which 5 year olds can't.
Does the "everyone is wearing a cup" restriction favor the 5 year olds or the adult?
I've yet to take the test but I would imagine it could only favor the five-year-olds. They are less emotionally or morally constrained; they will use any physical advantage without hesitation.
Does the "everyone is wearing a cup" restriction favor the 5 year olds or the adult?
Because, like all native North Carolinians, my testicles are made of chrome-vanadium steel, I'm going to say the five-year-olds.
As the father of daughters who straddle that age, I confess that I could not take a single five-year-old in a fight, provided they executed the right strategy. A single female five-year old would merely have to approach me, barely visible teardrops welling in her eyes, tilt her head slightly to the side, and say in a soft voice, "Can you look at my boo-boo?"
I would let down my guard and get on my knees, and then the rest of the five-year-olds could jump me as I knelt there, paralyzed.
Does the "everyone is wearing a cup" restriction favor the 5 year olds or the adult?
It favors men. The test is totally sexist.
Because, like all native North Carolinians, my testicles are made of chrome-vanadium steelpork barbecue, I'm going to say the five-year-olds.
The test only scored me as a 25, but that's got to be on the low side given my natural disgust for children.
19: it's got to be a discreet number you can take on at once. Otherwise, the numbers would be much higher, one would think.
A discrete number will yield a higher score, because once you've finished off most of them, the rest will be weaker (as they rely on swarm tactics to be effective). If you are faced with an infinite number of 5yos, you can never whittle them down to a manageable number.
By the way, in the original thread, this was my conclusion:
no way you can take more than 35, but you can take at least 15, and probably 20, pretty handily
I am not convinced that swinging and/or throwing the five-year olds would really be an effective fighting technique.
Five-year olds are heavier than they look. I can still swing my five-year old niece around by her ankles, but swinging more than two or three five-year olds in a row would exhaust me.
37: Let's assume that RMMP knows better than Apo what North Carolina testicles actually taste like.
34: Well, yes, but does the average 5 year old know groin kicking is especially effective? If so, then obviously it favors the adult.
I actually think endurance is going to be the key to this contest; you have so much more mass, and they have so little punching power, that really the only way for them to win is to wear you down. So maybe ogged is right that something very energy intensive like picking them up and throwing them would be a bad strategy, and trying to keep out of their way and clocking them when possible would be better.
On the other hand, that means the test is skewed, since it clearly values picking up and throwing.
42: I don't think you're being fair to Apo.
43: It doesn't matter. Think of the height of the average 5 year old and where punches are likely to land.
44: Well yes, this is what the parents have been trying to say.
Another good method would be to just huddle on the floor like a turtle until they end up hurting each other and all start crying.
What you really, really want to avoid is having even one latch on to your leg. If that happens, you're done. Picking up and throwing is bad not just because of the balance issue, but because it takes (relatively) a long time. You need to hit and move, hit and move.
pork barbecue
If you can figure out how to open the chrome-vanadium steel casings, sure. Like little piñatas. But these are five-year-olds.
45: I did think about that. But still. I don't think *you're* being fair to RMMP. Just because he doesn't talk as much shit as Apo doesn't mean he's not a big old slut. (If anything, talking shit suggests the opposite. And I should know.)
47: I think you're going to have to deal with that no matter what. You need to be ready with a firm blow to the top of their head, or possibly use the other knee, to knock them off quickly.
even one latch on to your leg. If that happens, you're done.
Ogged, don't you watch MMA. A five-year-old latched onto your leg has left his face totally exposed at exactly arm's length. How hard could it be to shatter a little kid's orbital socket? HAMMERFIST!
For latching onto your leg, I bet you could get them off pretty easily if you just grabbed them by the hair, and wrenched them away. Sensitive scalps, crybabies - I think they'd peel right off like teflon.
47: Nonsense. The leg latch is only a problem if you're not willing to smack the kid hard on the head.
Apo gets it right in 51. I'm also thinking -- if their head is on the front of your leg -- you could knee across your body pretty effectively.
It's not the issue of that one five-year-old, who is DEAD FUCKING MEAT, but the precious seconds you give up and the momentary loss of mobility. I think it's probably best to think of them not as individuals, but as a grasping mass. You need to keep the grip of the mass on you below a certain level, or it'll take you down.
Crap, pwned.
I think this is a very rare case where Heebie's wrong, though. A really determined child would just bite you if you pulled their hair.
55: well but I think you have to be prepared to fight your way out of the mass; there's no way you're going to be able to avoid getting pulled down once or twice. The UFC, which the importance of ground fighting, again provides a useful lesson.
Listen to Jesus, folks! Listen to Jesus!
Jesus knows five-year-olds. I've met his, and they're hard core.
To put it another way, without HTML errors, a fight with the minimum number of children that can defeat you will end with you disabled and a large number of children still ready to inflict damage, whereas a fight with the maximum number of children that you can defeat will end with only you still standing. If you see someone defeated by N children with M left standing, one cannot conclude they could only defeat N-M children. It will likely be significantly higher.
It doesn't matter if they take you down. You huddle, and wait until they accidentally all hurt each other. I said this.
23. Heh. I also thought to myself that I had encounter this problem before, in D&D. We modified the rules to allow for a damage on multiple targets in one strike, if the damage roll exceeded the hit points of the original target. Sort of a "seven in one blow" scenario.
As to the 5 year olds, one cannot allow them to grapple at all, or the day is lost.
56: if you really flung them by the hair? Like, grab their pony-tail and fling 'em like a barbie doll? I remember my brothers dragging me around by my ponytail a lot.
there's no way you're going to be able to avoid getting pulled down once or twice
If they take you down, it's over. Five-year-olds are massless. If there are ten of them on you, you're not getting up.
63: You can't do that if they're grabbing onto you. (Also, I do actually sometimes use PK's ponytail to control him. Grabbing it is a good way of getting him to hold still.)
I think none of you are being fair to apo; the man eats robots for breakfast. If either of us knows the taste of chrome-vanadium steel then it is surely the apostropher.
If there are ten of them on you, you're not getting up until they start fighting with each other and you have to stand up and sort it all out.
Come to think of it, actually staying down probably *is* the best bet. Okay, kids! You win! Call 911 and have the ambulance come take me to the nice quiet hospital now!
The best strategy is to wade in like Godzilla, punching and kicking at the ones around you, which will send the swarmers falling back crying and sobbing and vulnerable to a few well-placed knock-out hits. Then stand back and get ready for the second wave. Because only a certain number of them can attack you at any one time, you only have to deal with those ones and then wait for the others to follow suit. Children, being basically retarded sociopathic midgets, will never catch on, and repeat their same flawed strategy over and over until they're exhausted - or, more likely, until the last stragglers panic and scatter. But don't let them get off that easily - chase them down and finish them off. Otherwise they'll return to their hive for backup.
65: not necessarily! You have to understand how to use their mass against them; Five-year-olds are unlikely to have enough coordination to use their combined masses effectively. If you could free an arm, for instance, you could get the leverage to hit one, and then go from there.
the man eats robots for breakfast
Tiny, colon-scrubbing robots.
If you go down, your only hope is to go for their eyes.
I think it's probably best to think of them not as individuals, but as a grasping mass.
Like a gelatinous cube.
Holy shit - my daughter is already above the 95th percentile height for a 5-y.o. boy!
OK, now that I feel more certain about what I'd be up against - I think the child-swing would be worthwhile. I can still swing her fairly easily (not into other children, obvs.), and she's got some serious moment out there at the end. Pretty much every kid she hit would be done for, as would she. I have no doubt that I could pick her up by the waist (getting her feet and hands away from my torso and head), kick away any clingers, then pretty quickly get her spinning fast enough to knock out 3-4 others.
One thing to bear in mind (and I know 5-y.o.s are a bit more coordinated) - little kids are really easy to sweep off their feet. At which point they're at your mercy.
Proof that women are inferior smarter.
Does "The children are merciless and will show no fear" mean that, e.g., if I slap one he/she will not react like a normal five year old and go running off crying in pain?
And 57 "there's no way you're going to be able to avoid getting pulled down once or twice" is right, no way you avoid getting your legs grabbed by at least two or three of the little bastards right off the bat.
69: Proof that women are inferior.
Clearly you missed 35.
76: perhaps bowling is good early model.
Another thing we've been ignoring in this scenario is the sound of a bunch of five year olds screaming. Think of it for a second, and then recalibrate how well you'd do in a fight.
77: Proof that women are inferior at html.
77: "inferior smarter" is bad grammar, B. "not as smart" is the correct way to phrase it.
82 is a good point. The assessment quiz should include a way to indicate that you are deaf. If so, your number doubles.
77, 78: I'm going to sic my child on both of you.
the sound of a bunch of five year olds screaming.
It would wear me down eventually, but it would give me a useful early burst of hate and rage.
Does "The children are merciless and will show no fear" mean that, e.g., if I slap one he/she will not react like a normal five year old and go running off crying in pain?
This has probably already been covered, but IMO it's gotta be that they're unaffected by the sight of their compatriots' pain, but not Terminator-style impervious to pain. Maybe a bit tougher/more determined than a real 5-y.o., but not as tough as, say, a 12-y.o.
Otherwise it may as well be "How many midgets could you take in a fight?"
Midgets are driven by bitterness and have the strength of two chimpanzees.
88: that makes sense, but I suppose it also means, once they get over the pain and can start functioning again, they won't fear getting hurt and will come after you again.
87: You'd think so, but then again, you might just cover your ears.
89: that's going to lose you the lollipop guild endorsement, Apo.
The scientific model does seem to operate from the flawed assumption of a generic, average five year old. One thing I've learned in this line of work is that averaging out variability within a population in order to facilitate calculations is a surefire way to make costly errors. To wit: there are significant variations among five year olds in terms of strength, fearlessness, and pain tolerance. Just last week I attended a birthday party where one girl cried like a baby over a scraped knee, while another kid got knocked face-first into a plexiglass screen and bounced up smiling. Moreover, the sequence of attack is not likely to be random. The more fearless, pain tolerant ones (the two do seem to correlate) will strike first. So there is a very real possibility that the first wave will strike you with unexpected force and fury, possibly creating an opening for the reserves to take you down and immobilize you.
What I'm saying is, for any given person, there is a non-zero chance that the adult may take down many fewer than his or her theoretical maximum, just because of the exigencies of statistical variability. Statistical variability plus dependent events equals non-linear system changes.
Statistical variability plus dependent events equals non-linear system changes.
How many butterflies do you think you could stomp before the hurricanes got you?
93: and that's even assuming the five-year-olds are not selected for their pain tolerance and willingness to fight. These may be grizzled, battle-hardened five-year-olds.
I think tripping the kids is really the key: you want every interaction with a kid to be geared toward making him fall down and making other kids stumble over him. There's no picking up a kid and throwing him—by the time you've got him you've got two on each leg, and that means that you are no longer throwing a kid, you're being swallowed under. This is a game of whack-a-mole: You keeps your legs under you and back and you tip them forward by the crowns of their heads and you keep moving.
On the other hand, Knecht, the "fearless first" scenario you envision might better be modeled as effectively reducing the number of attackers to be overcome (albeit heightening their effectiveness), since if the adult defender is able to take out the initial wave of fearless five-year-olds, the remaining wussies are likely to be easily scared off.
The more fearless, pain tolerant ones (the two do seem to correlate)
Sorry. PK is definitely not fearless, but he's very much the "eh, I'm all right" type when he does get hurt.
He's also prone to fits of rage if he thinks someone's being unfair to him, and isn't terribly inhibited about attacking adults. A group of kids like him would be really annoying to have to fight, but you'd have to attack first.
On the other hand, Knecht, the "fearless first" scenario you envision might better be modeled as effectively reducing the number of attackers to be overcome
Also a possible outcome. Indeed, I believe the correct answer the the question of the number of five-year-olds you could take down is expressed not as an integer, but as a probability distribution function.
Statistical variability plus dependent events equals non-linear system changes.
No plan survives first contact with the enemy
In my youth I worked at a summer day camp. I have fought off a swarm of 25 9 and 10 year olds under similar conditions as the experiment, except for the blood thirsty part. The key was to push/ throw the leaders into the pack and knock them down. Finishing them off would have been easy.
96: Yup. The surface on which you will be fighting is also crucial--pushing/tripping little kids onto conrete is going to up you chances a lot over the same strategy on a wrestling mat. Anytime you touch a kid, you should be knocking it down, putting it into debillitating pain (eye gouges, ear claps), knocking it out (head kicks, solar plexus strikes), or killing it--throat punches, crusing rib cages). And never, ever stop moving.
The surface on which you will be fighting is also crucial
YAMMA PIT!
I got 22, but that was in a good mood.
5 year olds vary enormously though - my current 5 year old (girl) is crap in a fight, whereas C and I used to play a fighting 'game' with our son when he was about 5 which would end up with him just throwing himself at us, with no thought for pain or safety whatsoever. Ones like that would be tricky.
(He's 7 now, and the little fucker tripped me up the other day. I did that thing to him where you hook someone's leg and take them down - except I was holding onto him, and just dipped him and stood him up again. So then he did it to me, with his foot twisted round my leg at least 3 times (somehow) and we both fell over, hard. "What the fucking FUCK did you think was going to happen there?" was just one of my questions for him.)
If you're old enough to play, you're old enough to lose, asilon.
He hurt himself too. And then I made him cry. It was a draw, at least.
105, 107: But you seemed so sweet-natured and pleasant in DC!
And then I made him cry.
It occurs to me that a lot of minor techniques - pinches and the like - would slow down the hordes, and they'd have no comparable response. Biting, I suppose. Can I be wearing Carhartts and gloves?
But you seemed so sweet-natured and pleasant in DC!
Only because you left the kids behind.
Yeah, so, you're pinching two kids, one with each hand, and three more are putting outward pressure on your knees. Good luck, JRoth.
Can I be wearing Carhartts and gloves?
Golf spikes, dude.
Well sheesh why not kevlar, or chain mail, or kevlar and chain mail plus an external layer of shaped charges.
If you go down, that's not "out"- the rules say they have to knock you unconscious. How easy is it for a 5 year old to actually knock out an adult without use of some kind of weapon? The only way I can think of is if they smother you, which would take a long time since they'd have to all climb onto a big pile, during which you can mess up the ones on the bottom and possibly escape to fight more.
Thanks for the ideas on strategy guys, I'm headed to the elementary school with an indoor basketball court in a few minutes.
is expressed not as an integer, but as a probability distribution function.
But but but, that describes virtually any phenomenon! People are bad at dealing with probabilities and want firm numbers, so we're talking median or mean here.
Probably median, as I bet this is a fat-tailed distribution and it has to be positively skewed due to the close lower bound.
(Man, this is actually something that really bugs me in my day-to-day. I could go on for far far too long about the problems with people not really grasping probabilistic thinking with respect to potential outcomes. And forget intelligent thought about joint distributions... *sigh*)
Only because you left the kids behind.
Absolutely. I am without them tonight too, and don't get them back until tomorrow afternoon. Woot!
Best strategy is to get your back against the wall so they can't surround you, then kick for the sternum.
The only way I can think of is if they smother you, which would take a long time since they'd have to all climb onto a big pile, during which you can mess up the ones on the bottom and possibly escape to fight more.
My high school did a lot of "birthday pile-ons," something to which I didn't fall victim until my fellow seniors realized I'd always gotten away. When a tender forearm appeared before me, bured beneath a dozen or more people, I simply bit down and let the other guy do all the work of getting everyone off of me. I'm guessing five-year-old limbs fit even more easily between adult jaws.
118- Without ability to move, though, you're subject to kids using their backs as platforms so others can attack higher. You really need to keep that height advantage.
23? I've also been in a fair number of fights, have a long reach and a lot of bodyweight, have a reasonable amount of martial arts experience and have been trampled. I call bollocks on their algorithm.
If McGrattan can't take more five-year-olds than w-lfs-n, all is lost.
Ah, I was once wrestled to the ground by a 10-year-old when I was ... 15? I was working at the local youth library and the little shit tackled me; he'd called me "Ma'am" and I'd called him on it. Mortifying.
Now, could I have taken him? Sure. But I was not free to do so. That is all.
Next time it happens you have my permission to kick the kid's ass, parsimon.
What the hell, McG? How do you get 23? I assume you said you'd have no compunction about hurting them any which way. Are you older than 35?
127: I only got 27. I think they value athleticism and "very tall" highly.
What the hell, McG? How do you get 23?
It autodetected his nationality and asked a series of questions about how much drink he'd have already consumed before the fight started.
I said I was "tall," not "very tall." I also didn't pick the maximum number of fights and I've never been trampled.
ttaM hasn't been in many fights because people are scared of him.
If McGrattan can't take more five-year-olds than w-lfs-ns, all is lost.
Best strategy is to get your back against the wall so they can't surround you, then kick for the sternum.
And never, ever stop moving.
I'd combine those; your primary advantage is the ability to jump higher and move faster, and overwhelming strength against any one attacker. These are fearless not fearfulfive-year olds. So, say, grabbing one kid and swinging them around and around as a clearing move isn't going to work. Take a couple, and bounce out, whereupon they may all pile into each other and start fighting; certainly they're going to slow each other down. Take them piecemeal, three at a time, and bounce away. Do ten times and that should be the bulk of them.
37.
max
['And I have fought a crowd.']
I think y'all have misread "been trampled." They're putting a lot of weight on how easily knocked down you are. Evidently ttaM is like a top-heavy vase in crowds - not a good sign when Damien and his pals come after you.
FWIW, I got 23 - tall, medium build (I'm actually on the thin side, but stronger than "thin" probably suggests in their algorithm), 1-2 fights, long arms, no trampling.
Silly, silly people! The best way to deal with a horde of fearless five-year-olds is to wave your Gold Card and shout "Who wants ice cream?" at the top of your lungs. They will then form a reasonable facsimile of a queue and follow you anywhere.
Of course, if you fail to provide said promised treat, they will skin you alive with their needle-like teeth and dance through Baskin-Robbins waving your flayed body parts as a warning to others.
American Express - never leave home without it!
Alternatively, turn off the lights and make scary monster noises. They will be cowering in fear as you dispatch them at your leisure.
re: 127
Yeah, I'm older than 35. By a matter of weeks, but yeah. I also selected 'overweight'.
Yeah, no way are Tannargramat and I equally qualified to take on 23 five-year-olds.
it's spelled "Tetragrammaton".
Yeah, I'm older than 35. By a matter of weeks, but yeah. I also selected 'overweight'.
Ah, there you go. America is ageist and anti-fattist.
Assuming that the 5-year-olds are average in size, strength, and coordination, but way above average in fear/pain tolerance, I agree that the key is to keep moving and avoid group attacks. Ideally, this will be a long series of one-on-one or one-on-two fights. As long as your jogging speed is greater than their top running speed, this seems doable.
But what is the right strategy for the five-year-olds? If you got to train them ahead of time for the fight, what would you do?
If they get the opportunity for a group attack, I think they should all dive for the legs. From there it should be easy to knock the adult off balance. I'm not as sure about what they should do from there, but my main question is how they could counteract attempts to avoid a group fight altogether. Maybe they should remain stationary in a group and wait for the attack. What is their tolerance for hunger? Do they need nap time?
Clearly this is preparation for the looming Zombie Menace...
What is a modern 5 year old, if not a faster, slightly smarter zombie?
Somewhere there's a kindergarten class that's going to take Ogged's score as a challenge.
Beware that knock on your door...
Somewhere there's a kindergarten class that's going to take Ogged's score as a challenge.
I believe that's Unfogged.
We should have Unfogged Summer Olympics. Each poster gets a team, and each team comes up with an event that can be performed online. Also each team figures out prizes for the even they are hosting.
Clearly this is preparation for the looming Zombie Menace...
According to the test on the same website, I have a 76% chance of surviving the Zombies.
When you all re-invent Unfogged Summer Olympics at some point in the future, I'm going to feel very indignant.
Whoo-Hoo! 28! Ima kick some five-year-old ass tomorrow; first one I see. Oh, 'scuuuse me, first twenty fucking eight I see.
If they exhibit adult intelligence, and really show no fear, there's no way you're getting more than ten. Your advantage in mobility is meaningless, because they stay bunched together and move in on you in tandem. Consider -- how many adult males would it take to beat a gorilla? Sure, he's hyper strong, but two guys suicide rush and grab his legs, and I think at that point it's Bedtime for Bonzo.
Sure, he's hyper strong, but two guys suicide rush and grab his legs, and I think at that point it's Bedtime for Bonzo.
Clearly an excellent argument for staying in Iraq for a hundred years.
max
['So they're fearless and sticky five-year olds.']
Science thread?
I made one of those "Song Chart" things. Do not have a flickr account. So, please enjoy couple seconds of hilarity resulting from a half hour of work on my part.
Ned's out of his mind. And I don't (just) mean the .bmp part.
Gorillas can really bite, among other things.
It just takes one pygmy to kill and elephant, though.