Uber-poll: What Am I? Some Kind of Asshole? (1272 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.83 on 68 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Teephphah (View user info) at 2007-03-19 10:44:15 EDT
What am I? Some kind of asshole?
I've asked myself this question literally TENS of times over the past 34 years but now YOU get to make the call!
Let's brief the case like so:
Parties :
Plaintiff - Teephphah's Wife. Hard-working, loyal, long-suffering, patient as a saint, slightly OCD, mild enabler, real tiger in sack.
Defendant - Teephphah. Yours truly, dry drunk, generally oblivious to world around him, impatience of a lesser demon, raging ADD, materially possessive, does not play well with others.
Issue: What is Defendant? Some kind of asshole?
Facts :
Defendant and Plaintiff are husband and wife, living together in a new, swanktabulous, pimp-o-licious, custom, designer, bling-bling, yadda-yadda home (no, there will be no photo tour). Of significant note here may be the fact that Defendant PAYS for that damned house by working his slender, delicate (yet strong) hands to the bone.
During negotiations between the Parties regarding the design of the above-mentioned primary place of residence, Defendant was heard on numerous occasions advancing the argument that a certain wall in the Great Room on the first floor needed to be moved out by a minimum of six feet. Per the testimony of <witness' name redacted>, Defendant was heard to state emphatically, "Once you get all the kids' shit in here, in addition to all the furniture that is already going to be in here, this room is going to start to feel kind of small." Defendant's arguments in this vein were summarily overruled by Plaintiff.
Upon habitation of the premises and finalization of furniture placement, Plaintiff was heard to exclaim, "Dang. Once you get all the kids' stuff in here, in addition to all the furniture that is already here, this room starts to feel kind of small."
At this point, uncontested witness testimony shows that, contrary to his well-established common-law right to do so, Defendant did NOT jump up and down and scream, "I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! I TOLD YOU SO! NEE-NER! NEE-NER! NEE-NER!" Instead, Defendant took the (in the opinion of the Court) higher moral road and simply did what he could do to alleviate the room congestion by purchasing a large screen high-definition, liquid crystal display television set (replacing a large and space-consuming large screen, high-definition, cathode ray tube television set).
When making said purchase, Defendant took not only Plaintiff's spatial needs into consideration but also gave recognition to the fact that Plaintiff is stingy as hell and wouldn't know quality electronics if they bit her in the ass. Therefore, going against the interests of his valuable time, Defendant made a special effort to negotiate a sweet bargain on the new television . . . for his family.
The problem leading to the case at hand arose when the above referenced television was determined by the merchant with whom Defendant had so successfully negotiated his oh-so- sweet deal, to be out-of-stock. This necessitated waiting on the part of the Defendant (but not on the part of the Plaintiff because she frankly could have cared less. T.V., SCHMEE.V.). Defendant freely admitted during testimony that he tends to be impatient and strongly dislikes waiting on other people in any capacity.
Defendant was originally told that the television would be back in stock on the 2nd of March, 2007. It was not. Then Defendant was told it would arrive on the 7th. It did not. Defendant was then told that the 10th was the day. The 10th was not the day. Finally, on March 16, 2007, the television in question arrived at the store.
On this date, Defendant was working late and following his work, Plaintiff had scheduled a Social Event with friends of hers that Defendant never really liked in the first place. But he was going anyway because that's just the kind of swell guy that he is.
Knowing that Defendant would have no interest in the Social Event if the television he had been waiting for was sitting helpless and unloved in some cold store-room, Plaintiff, understanding the male brain in no way, shape or form, attempted to "fix" the situation.
Witness testimony enables us to construct the timeline below, showing the events as they transpired.
11:00 am - Electronics retailer telephones Plaintiff and informs her that the TV is FINALLY in-stock.
11:15 am - Plaintiff calls Defendant at work to inform him that TV is FINALLY in stock and recommends that he leave work early. Defendant informs Plaintiff that he is busy WORKING so that he can pay for that damned house and (testimony is conflicting here) possibly also mentions under his breath that they should have made the great room larger in the first place.
11:30 am - Plaintiff telephones HER BROTHER, noted technophile and busybody, and explains the situation to him. Plaintiff's BROTHER then leaves work, travels to the electronics store with Plaintiff, picks up DEFENDANT'S television, takes DEFENDANT'S television to DEFENDANT'S HOME (which he is at work so that he can PAY FOR) whereupon he, with, in the opinion of the Court, blatant disregard for Man-Code, REMOVES THE TELEVISION FROM THE BOX AND HOOKS IT UP TO THE VARIOUS OTHER ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS COMPRISING DEFENDANT'S HOME THEATRE SYSTEM.
5:30 pm - Plaintiff calls Defendant at work, so as to inquire when he will be leaving. Defendant tells Plaintiff that he will be leaving work in approximately one half hour, to which she responds, "Oh, so we'll have to leave as soon as you get home then, huh?" Which Defendant, not being a complete idiot, interprets to mean, "I went and picked up your TV and I want to surprise you with it."
6:30 pm - Defendant arrives home and notes that the TV is not only ON the premises, but also hooked up (incorrectly) to the various other electronic components comprising his home theatre system. Defendant attempts to express gratitude and appropriate surprise, but as Defendant is not one to front and is known to kick it on the real at all times, his insincerity is palpable.
6:45 pm - After approximately 5 minutes of "quality time" with his new TV, Defendant is dragged away to attend Plaintiff's Social Event.
12:30 am (March 17, 2007) - Plaintiff and Defendant arrive home after Plaintiff consumed many alcoholic beverages over the course of the evening and Defendant DID NOT because he's all fucking SOBER and shit now (Go eight months on the wagon, woo).
12:40 am (March 17, 2007) - Plaintiff and Defendant kick out Plaintiff's parents who had been babysitting Plaintiff and Defendant's childrens whereupon Plaintiff and Defendant (CENSORED) like this. Plaintiff and Defendant (CENSORED) like that. Plaintiff and Defendant (CENSORED) with a wiffle-ball bat, soooooooo I'm on the run, the cops got my gun, and right about now it's time to have some fun . . .
7:30 am (March 17, 2007) - Defendant wakes up and drives to his poor, widowed mother's home where he begins work finishing her basement. You know, construction stuff. For his poor WIDOWED mother. Not playing with his TV. Doing construction work for his poor widowed mom. Talk about baseball and apple pie and shit.
9:00 am - Plaintiff calls Defendant and informs him that Plaintiff's Brother had just called her wanting to know if DEFENDANT wanted him to come over and finish fine-tuning the television, to which Defendant responds in a snotty tone of voice, "Yeah. (pause) Yeah. I bet he did."
9:01 am - Plaintiff files Complaint against Defendant by stating, "Well I don't know why you have to be such an asshole about it."
There you have it Ladies and Gentlemen, the Case of the Century! You make the call! What am I? Some kind of asshole?
User Reviews
Submitted by corn_nugget (user info) at 2007-04-03 19:10:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have a question for you, mister. email me if you have a minute cornnugget.at.gmail.com
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-03-21 09:15:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-03-20 18:58:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what a waste of my time
_________________________________________
DesperateNincompoop - Forgive me for pointing this out, but that statement easily surpasses "re: 16 yr olds" as the most idiotic thing ever typed on this website.
You understand that you're on Ubersite, right? Everything about this place is a waste of time. It's almost as if wasting time here was the whole point.
But I will give you this, dropping the -2 along with the previously cited idiotic statement makes you seem REALLY edgy and cool. Almost as if you're some kind of loner who hates people or something. I'm picturing you as kind of a Weapon-X/Wolverine type character . . . except without the claws, muscles, cigars, personality, hairstyle, snappy one-liners or anything remotely resembling anything even half-way cool.
Plus, as I may have alluded before, based on the crap you type, you seem really, truly, incredibly stupid.
Sorry about that. Good luck though. =)
Submitted by DesolateMisanthrope (user info) at 2007-03-20 18:58:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what a waste of my time
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-03-20 11:11:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
well apollo if you want revenge... opening someone else's mail is a federal offense. turn him in :D
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2007-03-20 10:54:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2007-03-20 10:31:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"11:30 am - Plaintiff telephones HER BROTHER, noted technophile and busybody, and explains the situation to him. Plaintiff's BROTHER then leaves work, travels to the electronics store with Plaintiff, picks up DEFENDANT'S television, takes DEFENDANT'S television to DEFENDANT'S HOME (which he is at work so that he can PAY FOR) whereupon he, with, in the opinion of the Court, blatant disregard for Man-Code, REMOVES THE TELEVISION FROM THE BOX AND HOOKS IT UP TO THE VARIOUS OTHER ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS COMPRISING DEFENDANT'S HOME THEATRE SYSTEM."
People have been killed over much much less.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2007-03-20 08:01:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
All I can say about Apollo's little situation is the same thing I think we've all been saying for years:
Down with Israel.
For the rest of you, those possessed of penii . . . solidarity my brothers.
I've proven my point to my betrothed. Sunday I bought her a coupon for an hour-long massage at a fancy local spa.
Yesterday afternoon, I took the liberty of going ahead and getting that out of the way for her. As a favor for her.
I'm also planning on pre-opening all of her birthday/Christmas presents for her from now on. As a FAVOR for her, and GOD FORBID, if she doesn't bend right over and kiss my ass in gratitude there will be hell to pay.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2007-03-20 05:26:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-19 14:05:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have a similar case but I am the Plaintiff.
Whilst I was in COLD CANADA my betrothed asked a neighbour to look after our dog i.e. let him out for a shit twice a day.
This neighbour is a pussy whipped cockbag.
His wife FORBID'S him to have an Xbox or Playstation or any kind of games consoles.
Forbids. Mel would just about get the 'for' out of her jew lips before I hit her with a cricket bat.
But I digress.
Now consider this. I have an Xbox 360. I am rarely home, thus I rarely get time to play. I bought a couple of games on Amazon and they arrived in the week.
Mel says to Israel (yes that's his fucking name), (knowing how much of a pussy he is) 'you can use the Xbox if you like'.
So - HE OPENS THE BRAND NEW FUCKING GAMES AND SAVES THE GAMES UNDER A USERNAME OF 'ISRAEL'.
SO MY BRAND NEW GAMES HAVE BEEN PLAYED BY SOMEONE ELSE AND WHEN I LOG INTO TIGER WOODS 2007 IT SAYS 'CONTINUE WITH ISRAEL?' - FUCK FUCKING ISRAEL.
My bird could not for the life of her see the issue in this.
So I hit her with a brick and now she sleeps with the fishies.
-------------------------------
The man has a point. After all if you were about to marry and the priest was doing that whole "If any man here knows any reason these two should not be wed" bit; some bloke at the shouted out that he'd fucked her in the arse...
Well, you'd clearly have to call the whole thing off wouldn't you? I mean you wouldn't put your cock in a used condom you found on the street would you?
I'm sure we can all see the relevance of that to Teep's little tiff.
Submitted by Flying_buttmonkey (user info) at 2007-03-20 04:16:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This isn't even a case of Man Code VS Woman Code, even as a bird I can appreciate how many levels of wrong this is. She let someone play with your new toys, which is uncool.
Tar and feather her. Haven't had a good tarring and feathering in ages.
Submitted by Benny (user info) at 2007-03-20 02:53:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not Guilty
Messing with your home theatre system was the equivalent of messing with your wedding tackle. Are you going to let him get away with that?
APOLLO88 - WTF? Who opens peoples brand new things (no matter what it is) and uses it before the owner? My head would have exploded in rage if somebody did that to me.
Submitted by zxcvvcxz (user info) at 2007-03-20 02:28:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You got married. In so doing, you summarily waive all rights, priviliges, and reasonable expectations. Thusly, despite said logic and reason, you are an asshole. So sayeth the wife, so sayeth the lord, or somesuch.
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2007-03-20 02:27:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Brilliance!
Yes yes B@W!
Submitted by kuroneko_sama (user info) at 2007-03-20 00:42:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
ummm...
...yep
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-20 00:00:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
still awesome
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2007-03-19 19:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Does your brother-in-law know the fly spot where you got the champagne?
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-03-19 18:52:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"as Defendant is not one to front and is known to kick it on the real at all times"
gold
and I'm much more of an asshole than you are
Submitted by eric_the_bread (user info) at 2007-03-19 18:32:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You could be an asshole for all I know. But not in this case.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-03-19 18:23:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well I'm really glad I read this... I was unaware that such actions violated the man-code... seems to me like she was trying to be nice :p
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-03-19 16:38:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
auto +2 for Paul Revere
Submitted by _God (user info) at 2007-03-19 16:35:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You are most definately not an asshole.
You waited -how long?- to pick up that tv an enjoy setting it up and using it...and then that right gets snatched away from you? And your wife fails to see any problem with this? No, my friend, you are most certainly not the asshole here.
Submitted by Cyrus (user info) at 2007-03-19 16:17:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Man-Dog Love Association will investigate
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-03-19 16:06:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Should Apollo be allowed to have a dog?
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-03-19 15:33:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-03-19 15:33:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-03-19 14:13:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Pretty much.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-19 14:05:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I have a similar case but I am the Plaintiff.
Whilst I was in COLD CANADA my betrothed asked a neighbour to look after our dog i.e. let him out for a shit twice a day.
This neighbour is a pussy whipped cockbag.
His wife FORBID'S him to have an Xbox or Playstation or any kind of games consoles.
Forbids. Mel would just about get the 'for' out of her jew lips before I hit her with a cricket bat.
But I digress.
Now consider this. I have an Xbox 360. I am rarely home, thus I rarely get time to play. I bought a couple of games on Amazon and they arrived in the week.
Mel says to Israel (yes that's his fucking name), (knowing how much of a pussy he is) 'you can use the Xbox if you like'.
So - HE OPENS THE BRAND NEW FUCKING GAMES AND SAVES THE GAMES UNDER A USERNAME OF 'ISRAEL'.
SO MY BRAND NEW GAMES HAVE BEEN PLAYED BY SOMEONE ELSE AND WHEN I LOG INTO TIGER WOODS 2007 IT SAYS 'CONTINUE WITH ISRAEL?' - FUCK FUCKING ISRAEL.
My bird could not for the life of her see the issue in this.
So I hit her with a brick and now she sleeps with the fishies.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:46:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not Guilty
And Auto +2 for BB reference.
Submitted by coley (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:37:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NOT GUILTY
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:37:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Shit.
meant to rate.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:36:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:59:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not guilty - bro in law broke the 'I bought it, I get to set it up' man rule.
-------------------
Absolutely. Half the fun is in setting up your new toys.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck...even Loki's REVIEWS are boring, bloggy pieces of shit.
Submitted by ubetidid (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:25:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
no, you're not.
your bro-n-law is, though.
he violtated the man code.
KICK HIS ASS.
Submitted by sweetcheebs (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:16:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
a sad tale indeed
Submitted by Zod (user info) at 2007-03-19 13:09:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You're not an asshole simply because of the fact that the Man Code was violated in your own home with your own tv. That's blasphemy. Your brother in law should be publicly disemboweled on a large stone slab in the town square. Wait, what did he do again? Steal your livestock? I should re-read this...
Submitted by Foolproof (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:37:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
yes
Submitted by skrapmetal (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I b'lieve I married your wife's sister. We had a substantially similar conversation/argument/glaring contest over surround sound speakers just yesterday. I was informed that I'm an asshole too, because I foolishly thought the main function of speakers was to provide good quality sound. Silly male. The main function of speakers is apparently to be invisible.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:24:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
, REMOVES THE TELEVISION FROM THE BOX AND HOOKS IT UP TO THE VARIOUS OTHER ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS COMPRISING DEFENDANT'S HOME THEATRE SYSTEM.
---------
KILL HIM NOW!
He might have well raped your mother the fucking slimy cunt.
But on a related note, I now watch most of my football on a 65 inch TV.... in YOUR FACE!!!
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:23:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
YES! A GEUINE TEEPH POST.
I'M GOING TO SAVE THIS FOR LUNCH.
Submitted by Hilarity_Ensues (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:13:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Love me some Teephahahhahpha.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-03-19 12:07:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I could have done without all the pliantiff/defendant "play on words" bullshit, but it's a fine story.
Why are you "on the wagon"? "On the wagon" sucks.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:48:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
TEEEPHPHPAHPAHPAHPAHPHAHAPHAHAAHAHHHH!!!!!!
So good to see you around here.
Great post...
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:45:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Most definitely.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
youre a lawyer, arent you? shouldnt that answer your question sufficiently?
by the way, be sure to high five your evil lawyer cronies for beinging about the death of fun, and the pussification of western society, and basically all the ills that plague mankind except hope.
cunts.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:42:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Your plight amuses me.
Know what pisses me off? Well lots of things but there is the one thing in particular that causes me undue stress. First of all, let me by quite up front about my utter disdain for one Billy Packer supposed sports television announcer but in reality, walking hard on with ears. Further consider the religious like reverence for all things Carolina Blue in the Old North State as it were. Now further consider that the Holy City of Charlotte is considered "local" to Chapel Hill for broadcast reasons even though the even Holier Township of Chapel Hill is located no less than a two hour drive from the Holy City of Charlotte.
Meaning that
When the local stations score on the broadcast of Chapel Hill basketball they black out the national ESPN coverage, coverage which it should be noted is in HD whereas the local stations are in pitiful kicking it old school whatever non-HD is called.
So
We the People are forced not only to watch the holy tarheels play basketball in less than optimum resolution but are also inflicted with color commentary from one Billy Packer, asshole at large.
Can I sue for that?
Submitted by Creepy_guy (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:38:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Haha...wow...
Submitted by particle_man58 (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:35:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That dude set your TV up..... you should have killed him, no jury would ever convict you.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:25:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
never ever ever EVER marrying a lawyer.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:23:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Only an asshole wouldn't stay dead after I killed him so hard.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:20:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I find the defendant not guilty under man law ruling articles:
5.1: "I have bought a thing but have not been allowed to play with it yet"
and
6.2: The "Give me PEACE woman" act of 1988
and article 22 of the "Keeping the Peace" act of 1954 whereby you followed all rules of this article by not rubbing her face in it when she really really deserved it, just so that she would not get pissed at you despite being in the wrong when you know for a FACT that if the situation were reveresed she would not do the same.
Plaintif is ordered to shut the fuck up and get this man a beer.
Court is adjourned.
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:19:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Have another - this was good
Submitted by Grownasskid (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:19:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Depends on which court you are being tried in.
Court of Man will rule not guilty.
Court of Women will rule guilty.
Either way, this was funny.
Submitted by FlakMonkey (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i laughed.
Submitted by sicosemen (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:09:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not only are you not guilty, but you should counter-suit under the B & I clause: a Bitch and Ignoramus.
Submitted by JoeyG (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:09:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:08:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
GIVE US BARABBAS!
Submitted by LittleMonster (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:06:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Crucify him
Submitted by Circe (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:05:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Defendant attempts to express gratitude and appropriate surprise, but as Defendant is not one to front and is known to kick it on the real at all times, his insincerity is palpable.
_________________
I laughed so hard i woke up the dog.
You're not an asshole, Teeph... you're dreamy.... and nifty.... and so on.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-19 11:03:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
submitted. good luck.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:59:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not guilty - bro in law broke the 'I bought it, I get to set it up' man rule.
-------------------
Absolutely. Half the fun is in setting up your new toys.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:58:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dare I say this is good enough for B@W?
I dare. It's pretty good, even with defendant's use of "Defendant" and "Plaintiff" rather than a more brief-like D & P.
Submitted by MichaelJackson (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That's ignorant! You're innocent! Like me!
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Crucify him
Submitted by odin (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:55:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Not guilty - bro in law broke the 'I bought it, I get to set it up' man rule.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:52:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hereby find you guilty of being an asshole in the second degree.
However, I shall suspend sentencing due to the Man Law infractions against yourself and your properties...and the gratuitous use of Beastie Boy lyrics.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:51:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I've never seen a case more fit for the death penalty, besides the bush Presidency.
Submitted by rorrim (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:51:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You got married....you tell me.
One bridge i'm not daring to cross.
Submitted by pen_name (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:50:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hated briefs. I couldn't make them brief.
Submitted by Timmaaaaah (user info) at 2007-03-19 10:46:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Didn't read it
GUILTY AS CHARGED.
PEDO.