Don't MAKE me come DOWN there!

"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:33:18 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:


"The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
...
"Honest John" writes:

"The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
...
Cujo DeSockpuppet writes:

Wally AngleseaT wrote
in
:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:14:15 +0000, Peter J Ross

wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:07:35 -0600, Honest John
wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Dickhead!

Yes, you really are this stupid.

So are you, penis breath!

And now, the IKYABWAI lame.

You aren't quite as dumb as you look!

No scat lame this time, projectorboi?

Naah, you've got enough problems being married and gay at the
same
time. Say, when are you going on the Jerry Springer Show?

The cheerleaders say:

H.J. for B.U.A. All The Way!

Does anybody need more evidence? The above post is typical of
dozens,
maybe hundreds. Any seconds?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

IDIOT!

Indeed, you are...your village right across the fence from LRAFB
definitely
isn't being deprived.

I don't live anywhere within a 70 mile circle of Jacksonville, IDIOT!

Clueless, as always.

Yes you are, dog!

HJ

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:33:18 -0600, "Honest John"
wrote:


"The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
...
"Honest John" writes:

"The Chief Instigator" wrote in message
...
Cujo DeSockpuppet writes:

Wally AngleseaT wrote in
:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:14:15 +0000, Peter J Ross

wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:07:35 -0600, Honest John
wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Dickhead!

Yes, you really are this stupid.

So are you, penis breath!

And now, the IKYABWAI lame.

You aren't quite as dumb as you look!

No scat lame this time, projectorboi?

Naah, you've got enough problems being married and gay at the same
time. Say, when are you going on the Jerry Springer Show?

The cheerleaders say:

H.J. for B.U.A. All The Way!

Does anybody need more evidence? The above post is typical of
dozens,
maybe hundreds. Any seconds?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

IDIOT!

Indeed, you are...your village right across the fence from LRAFB
definitely
isn't being deprived.

I don't live anywhere within a 70 mile circle of Jacksonville, IDIOT!

Clueless, as always.
--

http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Chief Instigator wrote:
Cujo DeSockpuppet writes:

Wally AngleseaT wrote in
m:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:14:15 +0000, Peter J Ross
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:07:35 -0600, Honest John
wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Dickhead!

Yes, you really are this stupid.

So are you, penis breath!

And now, the IKYABWAI lame.

You aren't quite as dumb as you look!

No scat lame this time, projectorboi?

Naah, you've got enough problems being married and gay at the same
time. Say, when are you going on the Jerry Springer Show?

The cheerleaders say:

H.J. for B.U.A. All The Way!

Does anybody need more evidence? The above post is typical of dozens,
maybe hundreds. Any seconds?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Fifthed! (I'll drink to that)

Did your mama have any kids that lived?

HJ

"Honest John" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Chief Instigator wrote:
Cujo DeSockpuppet writes:

Wally AngleseaT wrote in
m:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:14:15 +0000, Peter J Ross

wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:07:35 -0600, Honest John
wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Dickhead!

Yes, you really are this stupid.

So are you, penis breath!

And now, the IKYABWAI lame.

You aren't quite as dumb as you look!

No scat lame this time, projectorboi?

Naah, you've got enough problems being married and gay at the same
time. Say, when are you going on the Jerry Springer Show?

The cheerleaders say:

H.J. for B.U.A. All The Way!

Does anybody need more evidence? The above post is typical of dozens,
maybe hundreds. Any seconds?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Fifthed! (I'll drink to that)

Did your mama have any kids that lived?

Clueless Newbie is the first award a non-kook spamming poster gets. So
relax.


HJ

"Honest John" wrote in message
...

"Dr. Why" wrote in message
...
"Honest John" wrote in message
et...

"Kali" wrote in message
...
In article , posted
Sun, 19 Feb 2006 07:21:28 -0900, Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
says...

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:33:15 -0600, Kali wrote in
alt.fan.art-bell in message
:

In article , posted Sat,
18 Feb 2006 15:30:36 -0700, Art Deco says...

Charles D. Bohne wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:43:52 GMT, "Greysky"

wrote:

I applaud your fearlessness in accepting that it would be
good to make FOC even if the death rate exceeds 12% by a large
margin. It
puts you and a few others in the Sean Minority, but you stick
to
your guns.

Greysky

Seconded by
Charles

:-Y

The saucerheads are high-fiving each other again.


I note Chuck gave the signal for f0rked tongue slurpage.

Kali

It's so he can slurp GaySky's balls and anus at the same time. The
Swiss are notoriously for their efficiency.
--
V.G.

Ut oh, I just gave Mr. Deco "the signal" *giggle*

If Art was proven to be in the 12%, would you "aliens" go ahead with
FOC
?

HJ



This is an unliklihood, HJ, because Art is one of the least fearful
humans
we know.

________________________________________________
How do you figure that, he got so exited about me discussing theology on
another thread that he came over there personally to inform me that I hurt
the tender feelings of one of his croneys and nominated me for some crap.
Further, I think that he ****ed his pants.
________________________________________________

LOL, you must be speaking from a position of strength to say that. G









Also, there is no way of telling who will be snap crackle popping when
they
find out about FOC.
If there were such a way of telling, we would be able to contain at
least
some of the carnage.

To answer your question, IF Art were more fearfully prone to be in the
12%,
and IF there were a way to predict this, and IF Art were proven to be in
the
12%, then yes.

__________________________________________

I knew that you had human qualities.

__________________________________________

Heaven knows we do try.




When the PSR reaches 12%, and other important factors also meet our
standards, we will initiate FOC.
We don't get to "pick the vics".

Y

PS: I see you don't consider a *giggle* as profoundly idiotic as a
hee
hee .
Are you improving? or merely sucking up! G

___________________________________________

Probably sucking up since I ****ed off the "invisible power structure"
here.


HJ
___________________________________________



TINC

Dr. Y

"Kali" wrote in message
...
In article _L6Kf.428442$qk4.333241@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:00:10
GMT, Dr. Why says...

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .
In article Wm3Kf.41820$id5.19657@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:08:38
GMT, Dr. Why says...

[...]

Please be more specific, Kali.
I have read all the websites and found nothing to indicate that I'm
believed
to be incorrect.
Perhaps I missed something?

Please provide evidence for your claim that "humans are
...genetically fearless human beings".

Okay, I shall provide evidence, but please be patient now as I have other
duties that must come first.

Take your time.

I've provided references to a body of evidence that contradicts
your claim. Look up "visual cliff" experiments with 6 month old
infants, in which they fear a perceived drop-off. They didn't
learn to feel the fear, it is innate. In other words, we are
hard wired to experience fear. It is important to our survival.
If you say that we are genetically fearless, then you'll need to
back up your statement with sound reasoning about evidence.

[...]

As usual, you and others are mistaking fear for something else.
Assume for the moment that I'm correct, please, Kali.
If they indeed are noting fear in these 6-mo. old infants incorrectly,
what
else could it be?

Would you like a hint?

Actually, something straightforward would be nice for a change.
But okay.

Drop a live mouse in a deep tub of water.
It scrambles in an attempt to escape drowning, and it eventually gives
up.
As you may say, though not yet dead, it has resigned itself to its fate.

Exhaustion is resignation to one's fate?

If you provided an example of a field mouse being chased by a
cat, who "plays dead", you might have something interesting.
Animals of prey will do this. Do *you* know why? Want a hint?

Now you reach in and save the mouse, let it run around a bit, then toss
it
back in the tub.
What is the difference in the way the mouse behaves from its first
attempt
to escape the tub?

You tell me.

Figure out why the mouse gave up the first time, and you will know what
the
infants are really feeling.

Exhaustion? Helplessness? What does this have to do with infants
who will instinctively avoid a visual cliff?

Don't believe me?

Actually, I'm having trouble understanding how you are putting
things together. There is an assumption that you seem to have
made about a 2nd trial stressed rat that I wouldn't make, and
then you suggest it has something to do with infants in the
visual cliff experiment. And I really, really don't know how any
of this suggests that "humans are genetically programmed to be
fearless."

Conduct the infant experiment yourself, but this time, after "saving" the
infant, subject the infant once more to the visual cliff.
You will note the same difference in behavior that you noted in the
mouse.

And the difference is? Just leave the infant out and tell me
what you think the mouse does. The rats I've worked with, when
they are put in water over several trials, generally behave the
same way; they swim and swim and swim until you take them out.
If we left them in, I imagine they'd become exhausted and drown
after a while.
Dr. Why

Kali
--
A bore is simply a nonentity who resents his humble lot in life,
and seeks satisfaction for his wounded ego by forcing himself on
his betters. - H. L. Mencken

It's obvious to me that you've been playin' wif me.
If you are indeed into neuroscience, which I doubt, then it must be at the
most rudimentary level.
No matter, Kali, because things have changed.

I was just speaking with Darla, and she reminded me of one of our
directives.
If humans already have evidence for something, and they are presently just
misinterpreting the evidence, then we can only guide you.
We cannot "silver platter" it for you.

In the case of the mouse, the first time in the water and the mouse gives
up, feels helpless, long, long before it becomes exhausted.
But you take the mouse out, then put it back in the water, and it won't stop
trying to escape until it becomes completely and totally exhausted.
Because the second time it knows something it did not know the first time:
there just might be a chance, however tiny, to escape.
If you were truly into neuroscience, you would have known about this long
tried and true experiment.
It's a classic.

As for the fearless gene, you already have the platter and it's not silver.
The evidence is there before you easily found and just as easily
misinterpreted.
Your science found this evidence without any help, but has not yet realized
its significance.

When it comes to fear, you're just going to have to go back and begin at the
beginning.
And stop judging observations and experimental results through a veil of
fear.
This is the greatest human barrier of all.

On a brighter note, we will be out of your hair soon.
Our study of individual human behaviour has reached another milestone, and
it is time to move on.
We will be ending our presence in alt.astronomy soon.
I will try to talk to as many as possible individually, and also to post a
goodbye message.

Darla and Pom will return in the Spring hopefully to initiate official
global contact.
And Darla may want to post a few thoughts at that time.

So goodbye, Kali, and whether or not you're truly into neuroscience, I do
still consider you to be one of the smartest people I've met.
(Well, you DID take notice of my "extraordinary talent", didn't you? G)

Yubiwan

"Charles D. Bohne" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:43:21 GMT, "Dr. Why"
wrote:

It was always thus, Charles.
And it's especially easy in this medium.

In this country internet providers do not allow for fake identities, at
least that's their official credo. In combination with local laws this
makes calumniation and libel a little bit more risky :-)

However, one must not neglect that if there were no kooks, there would be
no
Art Deco et al.

There are dumb and dull people, some of them might hold very insane
believes some might have nasty posting habits, calling them names and
label them "kooks" doesn't change much, does it?

So if someone shows up who is not a kook, but who exhibits a few
unmistakable kook signs,

:-) If this someone were one of their own pack, they would award
him/her with their "hook & sinker award" :-) ... but they are to anxious
to be ready to admit they have been taken in ;:

perhaps they bring all that down on themselves?


Whatever else it is, it's an internet and specially a Usenet education.
Eventually, the smart people change their handles and either tone it
down,
or they become superkooks.

Kookiness is in the mind of the beholder ;

Art and crew have probably Created far more kooks than they've ever
"killed".

Is this good or bad ;- ?
I would not mind their games as long as they'd stick to their rules and
they'd stay in AUK among themselves.

And my guess is this is precisely what they want to do.

Usenet --- Love it or Leave it! (and then return to Usenet as someone
else).

Changing my Identity is nothing I'd really ever thought about :-)
I love my product: C D B ;.

Anonimity breeds aliens and other kooky people, products of the
Remarkable
human imagination!

It does?

An awesome venue for studying individual human behaviour.

Indeed, ... you know that this is my profession.
Yubiwan

C.

And on that note, Charles, it is time to bid you adieu.
Our human study here in alt.astronomy is coming to a close.
We have disrupted the group long enough, now, and it's time to move on.

Darla will probably want to post a few thoughts when she returns in the
Spring.
Also, I intend to post a goodbye message soon.
I want you to know that I consider you to be one of the most fascinating
people I've ever known!

Y.

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:03:59 GMT, "Dr. Why"
wrote:

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .
In article _L6Kf.428442$qk4.333241@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 23:00:10
GMT, Dr. Why says...

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .
In article Wm3Kf.41820$id5.19657@bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, posted Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:08:38
GMT, Dr. Why says...

[...]

Please be more specific, Kali.
I have read all the websites and found nothing to indicate that I'm
believed
to be incorrect.
Perhaps I missed something?

Please provide evidence for your claim that "humans are
...genetically fearless human beings".

Okay, I shall provide evidence, but please be patient now as I have other
duties that must come first.

Take your time.

I've provided references to a body of evidence that contradicts
your claim. Look up "visual cliff" experiments with 6 month old
infants, in which they fear a perceived drop-off. They didn't
learn to feel the fear, it is innate. In other words, we are
hard wired to experience fear. It is important to our survival.
If you say that we are genetically fearless, then you'll need to
back up your statement with sound reasoning about evidence.

[...]

As usual, you and others are mistaking fear for something else.
Assume for the moment that I'm correct, please, Kali.
If they indeed are noting fear in these 6-mo. old infants incorrectly,
what
else could it be?

Would you like a hint?

Actually, something straightforward would be nice for a change.
But okay.

Drop a live mouse in a deep tub of water.
It scrambles in an attempt to escape drowning, and it eventually gives
up.
As you may say, though not yet dead, it has resigned itself to its fate.

Exhaustion is resignation to one's fate?

If you provided an example of a field mouse being chased by a
cat, who "plays dead", you might have something interesting.
Animals of prey will do this. Do *you* know why? Want a hint?

Now you reach in and save the mouse, let it run around a bit, then toss
it
back in the tub.
What is the difference in the way the mouse behaves from its first
attempt
to escape the tub?

You tell me.

Figure out why the mouse gave up the first time, and you will know what
the
infants are really feeling.

Exhaustion? Helplessness? What does this have to do with infants
who will instinctively avoid a visual cliff?

Don't believe me?

Actually, I'm having trouble understanding how you are putting
things together. There is an assumption that you seem to have
made about a 2nd trial stressed rat that I wouldn't make, and
then you suggest it has something to do with infants in the
visual cliff experiment. And I really, really don't know how any
of this suggests that "humans are genetically programmed to be
fearless."

Conduct the infant experiment yourself, but this time, after "saving" the
infant, subject the infant once more to the visual cliff.
You will note the same difference in behavior that you noted in the
mouse.

And the difference is? Just leave the infant out and tell me
what you think the mouse does. The rats I've worked with, when
they are put in water over several trials, generally behave the
same way; they swim and swim and swim until you take them out.
If we left them in, I imagine they'd become exhausted and drown
after a while.
Dr. Why

Kali


It's obvious to me that you've been playin' wif me.
If you are indeed into neuroscience, which I doubt, then it must be at the
most rudimentary level.
No matter, Kali, because things have changed.

Kali hace achieved much SPNAK!


I was just speaking with Darla, and she reminded me of one of our
directives.
If humans already have evidence for something, and they are presently just
misinterpreting the evidence, then we can only guide you.
We cannot "silver platter" it for you.

Evasion noted.

In the case of the mouse, the first time in the water and the mouse gives
up, feels helpless, long, long before it becomes exhausted.

Evidence?

But you take the mouse out, then put it back in the water, and it won't stop
trying to escape until it becomes completely and totally exhausted.
Because the second time it knows something it did not know the first time:
there just might be a chance, however tiny, to escape.
If you were truly into neuroscience, you would have known about this long
tried and true experiment.
It's a classic.

This relates to "fear" how"? Oh, that's right - it's an assertion
without evidence. How typical of a fake "alien".


As for the fearless gene, you already have the platter and it's not silver.
The evidence is there before you easily found and just as easily
misinterpreted.
Your science found this evidence without any help, but has not yet realized
its significance.

Evasion noted.


When it comes to fear, you're just going to have to go back and begin at the
beginning.
And stop judging observations and experimental results through a veil of
fear.
This is the greatest human barrier of all.

Still evading.


On a brighter note, we will be out of your hair soon.
Our study of individual human behaviour has reached another milestone, and
it is time to move on.
We will be ending our presence in alt.astronomy soon.
I will try to talk to as many as possible individually, and also to post a
goodbye message.

And another "goodbye forever" k'lame.


Darla and Pom will return in the Spring hopefully to initiate official
global contact.

Yeah, right.

And Darla may want to post a few thoughts at that time.

Talkig about yourself in the third person is primary ko0ksign,
"Darla".


So goodbye, Kali, and whether or not you're truly into neuroscience, I do
still consider you to be one of the smartest people I've met.

You should, considering how she humiliated you.

(Well, you DID take notice of my "extraordinary talent", didn't you? G)

Yeah, you are extraordinarily talented at ko0king out.

Note: Kali's evidence that infants are inherently afraid of "visual
cliffs" have been completely avoided.

I DECLARE KALI HACE ACHEIVED MUCH SPNAKNESS!1!

ESL!


--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
Monthly Hammer of Thor award, October 2005
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
"ASK THE NWS, YOUR TAX DOLLAR GOES TO THEM NOT TO DR.TURI."
- Mr. Turi explains how to accurately predict hurricanes
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html

Dr. Yubiwan, for Darla ---

"Bookman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 07:03:59 GMT, "Dr. Why"
wrote:

"Kali" wrote in message
.. .

And the difference is? Just leave the infant out and tell me
what you think the mouse does. The rats I've worked with, when
they are put in water over several trials, generally behave the
same way; they swim and swim and swim until you take them out.
If we left them in, I imagine they'd become exhausted and drown
after a while.
Dr. Why

Kali


It's obvious to me that you've been playin' wif me.
If you are indeed into neuroscience, which I doubt, then it must be at
the
most rudimentary level.
No matter, Kali, because things have changed.

Kali hace achieved much SPNAK!

SO true!



I was just speaking with Darla, and she reminded me of one of our
directives.
If humans already have evidence for something, and they are presently
just
misinterpreting the evidence, then we can only guide you.
We cannot "silver platter" it for you.

Evasion noted.

Couldn't be helped, BM.
Your initials? BM?
How unfortunate! G


In the case of the mouse, the first time in the water and the mouse gives
up, feels helpless, long, long before it becomes exhausted.

Evidence?

DYOHW


But you take the mouse out, then put it back in the water, and it won't
stop
trying to escape until it becomes completely and totally exhausted.
Because the second time it knows something it did not know the first
time:
there just might be a chance, however tiny, to escape.
If you were truly into neuroscience, you would have known about this long
tried and true experiment.
It's a classic.

This relates to "fear" how"? Oh, that's right - it's an assertion
without evidence. How typical of a fake "alien".

No, it's Not an assertion w/o evidence, Bookman.
It's an assertion w/o REFERENCE.
There is ample evidence in your own science journals for the unlazy person
to discover when ready.

How typical of a fake "bookman". (juuuust kidding)



As for the fearless gene, you already have the platter and it's not
silver.
The evidence is there before you easily found and just as easily
misinterpreted.
Your science found this evidence without any help, but has not yet
realized
its significance.

Evasion noted.

Misinterpretation noted.



When it comes to fear, you're just going to have to go back and begin at
the
beginning.
And stop judging observations and experimental results through a veil of
fear.
This is the greatest human barrier of all.

Still evading.

PKB



On a brighter note, we will be out of your hair soon.
Our study of individual human behaviour has reached another milestone,
and
it is time to move on.
We will be ending our presence in alt.astronomy soon.
I will try to talk to as many as possible individually, and also to post
a
goodbye message.

And another "goodbye forever" k'lame.

Never say forever.



Darla and Pom will return in the Spring hopefully to initiate official
global contact.

Yeah, right.

That's the spirit! G
Good, healthy skepticism is OK.


And Darla may want to post a few thoughts at that time.

Talkig about yourself in the third person is primary ko0ksign,
"Darla".

Where would you Be without those neat koOksigns?
(Personally, I think the capital "oh" sukeys better than the zero, ymmv)



So goodbye, Kali, and whether or not you're truly into neuroscience, I do
still consider you to be one of the smartest people I've met.

You should, considering how she humiliated you.

redfaced
I AM SO CONFUSED!!!!


(Well, you DID take notice of my "extraordinary talent", didn't you? G)

Yeah, you are extraordinarily talented at ko0king out.

Note: Kali's evidence that infants are inherently afraid of "visual
cliffs" have been completely avoided.

I DECLARE KALI HACE ACHEIVED MUCH SPNAKNESS!1!

ESL!

aS iF aNYbODY gIVES a dURN, boOkman.

I am SO sorry I failed to include your name personally on the thankyou list,
Bookman!
There were some brief but interesting discussions, I remember.
If you'll forgive me for this humongous oversight, I promise to show you
some interesting books we have rescued from library fires over the years.
Lost but not forgotten.

Yubiwan

"Real Friendly Neighborhood Vote Ranger" wrote in
message ...

"Honest John" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Chief Instigator wrote:
Cujo DeSockpuppet writes:

Wally AngleseaT wrote
in
m:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:14:15 +0000, Peter J Ross

wrote:

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:07:35 -0600, Honest John
wrote in alt.usenet.kooks:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Honest John wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...

Thanks, Dickhead!

Yes, you really are this stupid.

So are you, penis breath!

And now, the IKYABWAI lame.

You aren't quite as dumb as you look!

No scat lame this time, projectorboi?

Naah, you've got enough problems being married and gay at the
same
time. Say, when are you going on the Jerry Springer Show?

The cheerleaders say:

H.J. for B.U.A. All The Way!

Does anybody need more evidence? The above post is typical of
dozens,
maybe hundreds. Any seconds?

Seconded.

Thirded.

Fourthed.

Fifthed! (I'll drink to that)

Did your mama have any kids that lived?

Clueless Newbie is the first award a non-kook spamming poster gets. So
relax.

Hey, I'm cool with the award, I just don't like drunks.

HJ