User talk:THE/arkive two

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search



Mr. Kearsy so cool, he doesn't have to say anything in order to thank you. Just look into his eyes and you'll know.

A nice way to break in the new talk page, no? Thanks so much my friend. :) --THINKER 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. and congragulations on the feature!
PS, will the main DVD page you've been talking about just be, like, a DVD menu or something? Just a kind of centerpiece that links to all the various sub-projects? --THE 17:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[1] (the preceeding unsigned komment was left by this guy sometime in the past)

PS again...I will be able to get back to editing the script tomorrow, Thinker. Sorry about the lag in edits lately, I've had finals exams. --THE 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah my thoughts were that it would be a DVD Menu that you see when you pop in the DVD. And I was thinking also that another feature could be a Chapter selection (linking each individual Act, with a picture for each hopefully).
And don't worry about the commentary dude, take your time. I think of SS as a fun side project for both of us, so there is no reason to rush it, or not study for finals. :) -THINKER 00:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added some more to the commentary, including a kind of odd moment where Unrelated quotes guy says something related, just to stir things up. I wasn't quite sure how to work bogdanovich's response to this, I was trying to have him being shocked and incredulous while simultaneously talking in his usual deadpan, disinterested way. Feel free to change it around all you want though if you don't like the way it turned out. and as for breaking it up into seperate acts, I'll have to think about that one. On the one hand, it might make it easier to read if it's broken up into smaller sections, but on the other hand breaking it up into seperate acts might make it more fractured and hard to "the young and the uncyclopedians". I'll give it some thought. --THE 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll go check it out in a sec. About the acts though, thats just for the DVD Chapter selection menu. The articles would remain the same, it'd just be linked to each individual act on that page. Like, it would have a picture of the scene, then link: Act III: The Feeding Party. It wouldn't create any new pages for the actual scripts themselves; that would be overkill x10. I'm just thinking of ways to full-out the DVD if we do it, even though its a while off still, I guess. :) --THINKER 23:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Yeah, a scene selection thing like that would work fine. As for the DVD page itself, I've started thinking that maybe you should take over as the writer of the initial "drafts" when and if we start in with the DVD page. It seems that you have a pretty good idea of where the DVD page is going with the "trailers" and things like that, so I was thinking maybe we should reverse the formula we've been working with when and if we start the "joe smiths" page and the other sub-pages of the DVD. Maybe. Like you said, it's still a long way off, since we've been working on the commentary at a fairly leisurely pace. So they'll be plenty of time to think about the possibilities for further expansion :) --THE 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh and PS, yesterday I came up with another idea we could possibly use for the DVD page: a deleted scenes section! Perhaps there could be one scene filled with avant-garde babble written by UQG but not used in the film (could be a deleted part of the "Dream sequence"). I'm sure we could think of some other deleted scenes too, perhaps. Whaddya think? --THE 12:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooooo I like that!!! --THE 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)That's awesome actually, yeah!! I'm going to get back on the SS tip shortly, try to get the rest of the commentary done (coming along swimmingly I might add, great work so far, I'm lovin' it!!). After that I'd be glad to helm the DVD part of the project when its my 100 Worst article, there are still some formatting issues I wanna have worked out before we begin, so its good we're kinda just working at our own pace on it (aint wikis cool? lol).
BTW: here we goez again! :-D --THINKER 23:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Voted :). I added some more to the commentary today, a lot from Bogdanovich especially. I was full of inspiration for commentary from him after watching this youtube vid of Bogdanovich rambling for seven minutes about filmmaking and how he "doesn't believe in luxury." Provided for some excellent inspiration. --THE 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you buddy!! And yeah, that video is classic.. Peter and his "master" scenes, lol.. but, he doesn't stumble and sigh in that one much, which made me worry that it might've been isolated to Citizen Kane and Sopranos. But no worries, it isn't. HA! :) --THINKER 21:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
lol, hilarious! I watched that one too, after watching the "master scenes" one. That's why I had him referring to His Girl Friday and Grapes of Wrath in there, because he says (after several minutes of struggling to find the right words) that they are some of his favorite Films. --THE 21:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Added some more today. I'm savin' some room for you to add some commentary though, if you want to. --THE 12:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bajoodle!

You're welcome --THE 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back from the desert.

The long brutal trip was pleasing. Time away from uncylopedia was brilliant. I love the occasional vacation. I hope you took good care of the website for the past 5 days, Mr. THY.

Sincerely,--Fonchezzz 00:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond anymore. Yes. --THE 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

  • ERRGGHH* I'm sorry the correct answer is The B-52s

--Fonchezzz 23:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at me! Look at me! I'm a soap Bobba JEE!--User:Fonchezzz/sig 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. what a hideous signature. --THE 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
good greibancee! thats the regarde!
--User:Fonchezzz/sig 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You reviewed my article

And I fixed a section you commented on. Perhaps you could up the score a bit...:)-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look :))))))))))))))))))))) (a very fat person smiling) --THE 12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And now it's nominated for VFH. Not doing so well either. Every vote counts!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 20:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

With Thanks

Detective1 A tall, dark man pushes a note into your hand; it reads:
"The The Don thanks you for voting for
Film Noir. He offers a free secret from
Jimmy the Shoeshine Boy as a reward."

The man turns away, muttering he has an appointent with someone's mom...


Thanks for your vote. Don alun 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BB thanks thee!


Thanks again! -- Big_Brother_Sig_Part_1.pngCUN PLS VFH (MiniluvMinitrueUnsoc) 11:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I need help....again

Can you help me out with this? I'm hopelessly stuck and it needs a push. -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 12:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I threw my two cents in, though it was pretty funny already. --THE 21:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Page et al

Very good, well done. Not too out blatant (which is apparently bad around these parts), so good. Put it in the Pee so I can do this formally.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pee Review submitted. Oh, and don't be too upset about your article getting voted down. You win some, you lose some. Not everyone will be crazy about every article you write. Like overtly political humor, sexual humor just isn't to everyone's taste. --THE 15:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


I think we're killin em, kid. ;) --THINKER 06:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow...35 votes...insane! Is that really a record? --THE 15:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a pretty substantial one at that; the old one was 28 (Horton Hires a Ho and UnBooks:The Anarchist Cookbook). And then, the day after this mirth-filled occasion, I come home to a ransacked apartment. FUCK! :( --THINKER 21:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Shamu The Led Balloon has awarded you a piece of Floridian swampland. They're goin' quick!
PS: You get this for voting on that UnNews thing I made. Thanks for putting up with my excessive Votewhoring. Stay dry now!

Seems like I'm thanking you a lot today...

GoldenShower Rejoice, THE! You have been entitled to the
Golden Shower Award
For donating high quality material to the Pee Review.

Thanks for the review, very helpful. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey no problem. Great article, by the way..."The show was very popular, especially among parents who wanted their children to "be more like that Satan." hilarious! --THE 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A slightly belated thank you

Thanks for the pee review as well. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --THE 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't know if you saw the little box on my user page, but I got robbed a couple of days ago, and that new computer I loved so much is now in the hands of some god aweful piece of shit (one that isn't me).. I promise I haven't abandoned our project, and once the next new computer is secured, I will be right back at it. --THINKER 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, man! I'm sorry to hear about your apartment :(. But it's good that you're looking from it with a mellow, comedic perspective as opposed to a "OH MY FUCKING GOD I'M GONNA SUE THE ASS OFF THE FIRST PERSON I MEET" perspective. It's what Alister would have done, if his...uh...apartment had been robbed. And no worries about SS. I'll be going away for about a week pretty soon, so I won't be able to work on it for a little while either. --THE 14:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Which means I can work on the commentary, right? -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111 No offense. But it's a project that ME and The Thinkerer have been working on. For like, 80 years now. GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!1 Don't exploit the fact that we'll both be absent to flood the thing with your unrelated quotes guy quotes. IT'S OURS IT IS!!!!! AND WE WANTS IT!!!!! </obligatory lord of the rings reference> --THE 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, fine. Settle down.-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I REFUSE TO SETTLE DOWN!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! Okay. Rant over. Sorry if I seemed offensive, uh, ish. Good thing you didn't say "Which means I can work on the commentary right, you terrorist?" or my rant would have been at least eighty pages long :) --THE 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
But it does mean I can work on the commentary. And you are a terrorist. -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NO I'M NOT NO I'M NOT OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAMMIT!!!!!! DON'T MAKE ME START RANTING ABOUT POLITICS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111 --THE 15:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Global warming is a conspiracy! Global warming is a conspiracy! Global warming is a myth! Global warming is a myth! -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to start ranting...but...*twitches compulsively*...JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, BUDDY!!!! IT INDICATES TO THE CONTRARY!!!! Scientists actually look at evidence first, and THEN arrive at a conclusion, unlike what YOU have done, which is just as you described it. In your own words, you've decided already what you want to believe, and now you refuse to change your mind, no matter HOW much evidence says your preconcieved notions are WRONF. Sometimes, changing one's views can be a GOOD thing. It's not easy, but it's healthy and good for the soul to realize that it's possible to be mistaken. Or misguided. Look at me. "It's good for the soul." I'm talking about the nature of the human soul. Like Alister. In sex seafood. Or in the commentary. The commentary that you should leave alone. That rant just came completely full circle. --THE 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
PS, did Bruce mess up your average in his class the way he did mine? I'm curious if this was just an isolated incident or if it was something he did to everybody. --THE 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
No he did it to mine too. My semester average was three points lower than it was supposed to be. He gave me an 81 and I should have an 85. Just when I thought I had set things straight with him... -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
HA! I figured he'd done that to more than one person. Hell, I bet everyone in all of his classes has been facing the same problem. I bet little miss C.R. is at his house, strangling him as we speak. --THE 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fun Read

Why is it so foaming?

Mmmmm...a fun read indeed. First of all, allow me to call the reliability of your source into question. It's obviously an inherently biased page. The very first thing you see on the homepage is a large-font template bellowing about Al Gore being a hypocrite because he uses up co2 himself. Also, the site links to the bullshit movie "the great global warming swindle" which aired at 3 A.M. in Britain and features a scientist who was also notable for claiming that cigarettes had no effect on the health of smokers.
Now, allow me to address the so-called "evidence" presented in this essay. Sure, CO2 is good for plants, at its NATURAL LEVEL in the atmosphere. We emit SIX BILLION tons of co2 into the atmosphere yearly, and have been doing this for quite some time, and our atmosphere is thin. The site argues that only about 3% of co2 emmissions come from people, yet makes no attempt to explain what "natural sources" there are for co2. Rocks? Trees? Apparently, I'm to believe that if humans are a mere 3% of the planet's yearly co2 emmissions, there's some mysterious "natural source" that's pumping out 199 billion tons of co2 on a yearly basis. Hmmm...I don't know of any natural sources capable of producing that much co2, do you? They argue that the warming of our planet is insignificant because the moon is much more extreme. That argument is so stupid I don't even want to address it. Nobody lives on the moon, do they? They claim that co2 and the greenhouse effect do NOT trap heat, although the fact that venus is the hottest planet in the solar system because of GREENHOUSE GASSES indicates otherwise. It is true that water vapor makes up the majority of greenhouse gases, but the amount of water in our atmosphere hasn't changed. The amount of co2 has. They argue that it is a good thing because it might increase the rate at which crops grow, while they conveniently ignore the melting polar ice caps which have enough volume to raise the sea level by at least 20 feet, enough to displace millions of people, along with the many other downsides to global warming that I'm too lazy to write down here.
What's more, I've read many anti-global warming essays accusing scientists of having some sort of "hidden agenda." This is just preposterous. Whenever there's been a debate between a mass amount of scientists and the "common folk," the mass amount of scientists have turned out to be right. This article makes a lot of profound statements (almost none of which are sourced, and those that are refer to an IPCC report made in 2001. Interestingly enough, the IPCC, upon seeing evidence in recent years, concluded in their 2007 report that global warming is indeed a threat. Oh yeah,, those are some lovely outdated statistics you've got there.) Also, it makes absolutely no coherent argument at what actually could be causing global warming. What mysterious source could cause such a massive, and incredibly rapid, rise in Earth's temperature? Nothing much in there actually explaining an alternative cause. Scientists look at facts first, and THEN arrive at a conclusion. They looked at the fact that greenhouse gasses can increase temperatures, the fact that humans put out greenhouse gasses, and the fact that temperatures are rising, and put them all together. This isn't all that hard to figure out. Whereas global warming opponents arrive at their conclusion beforehand because they refuse to accept that the human race can have negative effects on the planet, then, when they realize that evidence does NOT support their viewpoints, they frantically google "global warming myths" until they find a rant written by another person who has preconcieved notions about global warming. Scientists who believe in global warming come from all over the world, not just America, and can be found at a wide variety of well respected institutions. Opponents, on the other hand, are often sponsored by oil companies, and typically are American. What's more, they typically operate sites that openly condemn science, or even better, sites like "" or "". If global warming is such an easy to figure out scam, then why did the Bush Administration find it necessary to pay government scientists not to support the theory? If it is so glaringly obvious that a scientist who looks at the evidence will arrive at an anti-global warming conclusion, then why was it necessary to pay them? I'll tell you why. Because an unbiased, unpaid scientist would look at the evidence and conclude that global warming is a threat, and the human race is the cause. That is the reason most scientists support this theory, because if you use the scientific method (assessing the evidence THEN arriving at a conclusion), that's the conclusion you're gonna get. In conclusion...POOPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --THE 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT polystyrene man!!! That website pissed me off so much, it triggered probably the longest rant I've ever written!! I didn't realize how long that baby was until after I hit "save"!!! I was thinking of shortening it, but I suppose it's better in its original, "raw and uncut" form. --THE 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

HOLY SHIT THE!!! I never realized how passionate you are about this subject. I mean, we've had a few heated debates regarding global warming, but I had no clue you were capable of unleashing a rant of such epic proportions! -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 21:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT LEOISPOTTER... hmmmkay, I was just posting a link. It's not my opinion, but I thought you would like to take a look at the other side of the issue. I don't think anyone should be allowed to say for certain that human-caused global warming does(n't) exist. Face facts: There's plenty of evidence against it, just as there is evidence for it. So what if the sources are from 2001? That's also the year we went to Jupiter and got sucked into another universe to see the Starchild. Also, peeps have been pushing the "greenhouse effect" since the 90s at least... old data? Also so so so... you can't argue that Al Gore is a dumbass bitch crackwhore-fucker. He represents the ugly politics behind global warming that make it so hard to say for certain whether it is a human-caused phenomenon. Also, the statistics about CO2 in our atmosphere are entirely true- I've seen them in other places, as well. Nevertheless, we might be riding on a fragile planet where the tiniest change in atmosphere composition can bring about crazy ass changes and hair loss. I don't see this source as "poopy" in any way. You've just decided on your opinion and refuse to change it... sound familiar, Dannnnnnno? At least accept the possibility that global warming might not be human-caused.
I continue to support the mass-slaughtering of cows, so as to remove the obscene amounts of methane that are being pumped into the air day after day life turns grey they don't like him the fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head see the world spinning around the universe which revolves around me and my best friend.
In conclusion: Global warming will bring about mass cannibalism around the equator. --Polystyrene Man 04:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT POLYSTYRENE MAN!!! Why is this incoherent rant being addressed to me? I agree with you! And in addition, I also believe that global warming was caused by greedy scientists who enslaved the Eskimos and forced them to hack up the ice caps with ice picks. Since the ice caps started melting, the libs panicked and gave scientists shitloads of money to research global warming. Then, the scientists hoarded all the money and used it to buy themselves mansions and fancy cars. Hmm... I should write an UnNews about this... -- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
HOLY SHIT EVERYBODY. Time for my rebuttal. Well, first of all, the fact that the sources are from 2001 and come from an organisation that now fully supports the theory of global warming says something to me. Secondly, yes, people have been predicting global warming since the early nineties, and guess what? EVERYTHING THEY PREDICTED IS HAPPENING TODAY. Al Gore does NOT represent the real arguments behind global warming, the planet's scientists do. Scientists who look at evidence FIRST. As I said before, scientists all over the world (not just from America) believe in global warming. Scientists, unlike you, do NOT decide their opinions first and refuse to change them. I am NOT doing what you accuse me of, because there was a time when I had the exact same opinion that you did, a time when I believed, like you, that human beings were not the cause of global warming. Then I took another look at the facts and the opposition. The facts:co2 causes a planet to warm up. Whether it's because it traps heat, or it radiates solar waves or whatever the fuck that website of yours was saying is not important, either way it STILL causes, erm, warming. Humans put out a hell of a lot of co2. The earth is warming up as we speak. People who deny global warming have no unifying concept. They all loudly say "humans don't cause it!!!" yet they offer no other legitimate scientific cause for what is happening today.
Now time for a poetic analogy. Leoispotter knows how much I love philosophical analogies. Let's say, you're in a room with three of your family members and a little kid, and you are continually pouring a liquid down the little kid's throat. 18 chemists are in the room with you, and 17 of them say the liquid is poison. 1 of them claims it is not poison, but he's the one who sold it to you. You and your family ignore the 18 people, saying "I don't see any evidence that this is poison," and you continue pouring down the little tyke's throat. Within several minutes, the kid is turning a sickly shade of gray, his nose is bleeding, and he is trembling violently. Basically, everything that the 17 chemists said would happen to the child is happening. The one chemist who sold it to you says "oh, this is just a phase. He'll be back to normal in no time." Yet, do you really want to take the risk? That is the same thing that is happening to earth. Years ago, scientists predicted this, except for a few who had cozy relations with oil companies. We ignored them. Now, all the "symptoms" the scientists predicted are happening, just as the scientists said they would. I say the idea that there is some miraculous "OTHER source" of global warming is preposterous, especially since the so-called scientists who deny global warming have suggested no plausible alternative theory for what is causing this warming. Yes, there is an extremely slim chance that humans aren't the cause. But can we afford to take the risk, and gamble the future of the planet on the basis of the words of a very small, not very well respected group of so-called scientists? Or should we just suck up our pride, listen to the 17 chemists, and change our ways? If we lower our co2 emmissions, then we find out we didn't cause global warming, then great! We won't ever have to worry about co2 warming our planet the way it warms venus. But if we DON'T lower our co2 emmissions, and we find out that we WERE the cause of global'll be too late. The little kid will be too poisoned to save. And we will look back on this time as the time when we could have chosen to act, but chose not to, and therefore screwed up the future of the planet. In conclusion......--THE 12:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah PS--I'm leaving to go on vacation in several seconds, and consequently I won't be available to rant for about a week. --THE 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Have fun with this poetic analogy: We're back in the middle ages and 100% of Europeans believe the earth is flat. They've got tons of proof (just look out the window), and it's widely accepted and indisputed... until... A MAN-EATING POLAR BEAR FILLS IN THE BLANKS --Polystyrene Man 01:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


The US Government Salutes You!

Hope you're enjoying sabbatical; did a little more on the commentary, will rock it some more tomorrow! :) --THINKER 04:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Newcookie Gert5 has awarded you a cookie!
Now go play in traffic.
Floppycake Gert5 has awarded you floppy cake!
Floppies are easy to transparentize, as they are square.

For your general asomeness. --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 12:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you! You're pretty "asome" yourself! :-D --THE 12:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pee Review

Sorry I forgot to thank you until now, THE, but I've been so busy. Anyways, thanks for the review you did for 667:Neighbor of The Beast. I very much appreciate the constructive criticism. Also, the reason the last two sections were weaker was general laziness on my part. XP Thanks again, -P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 15:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Leoispotter has awarded you a helmet!

Now you can bash your head against a brick wall safely and in style!

Woohoo, I got one too! Thanks for helping me out with this one-- Phlegm Leoispotter * (garble! jank!) 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mucho, mucho, cootchie cootchie!

Personal tools