Farker dies in car accident

February 5, 2003 5:31 AM

The denizens of Fark are having a crisis of conscience after one of their members died in a car accident. There are only a few holdouts against the outpouring of sympathy from the biliously sarcastic community. "Farkers, seriously - where's your irreverence?" asked Labberdasher. "Not one 'he should have gone for a Darwin award' ... ?"
posted by rcade (60 comments total)

Wow... I was just typing this into a new post and saw the new FFP when i went to look for a Shuttle link...

What defines when we grieve? It's an odd question, but it's kind of relevant. 7 people die on a shuttle, and a nation grieves. 40 people die on a train and very few people notice. A girl dies in the playground and no-one cares. A 'farker' who appears to have posted just twice dies, and an entire site seems to go into mourning. What controls our community and our sphere of mourning?

posted by twine42 at 5:42 AM on February 5, 2003

I didn't/don't dare say it on Fark, but if you don't wear a seat belt, you are asking for trouble. Yes, you'll probably never crash, but in that case why not take out the air bag, the side protection bars and crumple zone bits? It'll make your car lighter, faster and cheaper to run.

Using a seatbelt may not save your life, but you can bet your life not wearing one will risk your life...
posted by twine42 at 5:44 AM on February 5, 2003

Ah, the heartbreaking poignance of the 'sad' emoticon.

:-(

[/heartless asshole]

This is very strange, actually, because in the wake of the recent shuttle blowup and other noted-by-Metafilter tragedies, of the questions which have been posed about the nature of grieving and mourning, of the suggestions from some quarters that it would behoove people to feel more heartache over a hundred dead in a traincrash in SomewhereElsistan than 7 dead in an American shuttle accident... well, in the wake of all of that, I found myself musing the other day about how Metafilter might respond as a community to the death of one of its own high-profile (or even low-profile) participants.

In the meantime, resquiat in pace to the dead Fark member.

[And no, I wasn't thinking of killing hama7, honest.]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:57 AM on February 5, 2003

twine42:
it's an interesting question, and we were talking about it last night. it bothered me that one suggestion was that it's not the person/people that we grieve, but the cost of their means of demise.

the more expensive their means of transport (in this instance) the bigger the grief, irrespective of the number of lives lost.

for example, would a train crash in which people die generate as much interest as an aircraft crash? and in turn would this generate as much interest, as in this instance, a space shuttle. (given the same number of deaths in each case)

it bothers me greatly, that a nation can come to a standstill and get blanket TV coverage, when seven people die, but when many more die in less 'impressive' ways, the nation maybe pauses, then shrugs and carries on.

please feel free to criticise me, i want to be proved wrong on this.
posted by apidya at 6:03 AM on February 5, 2003

apidya:
Generating interest, the scale has to go car crash, train crash, air crash, shuttle crash, but that's because of the rarity of the incident.

Personally I believe that how you grieve depends purely on how your life was effected by the life/death of the person. Very few of those people on Fark would have known the kid, just as very few would have been effected by the shuttle crash...
posted by twine42 at 6:07 AM on February 5, 2003

I found myself musing the other day about how Metafilter might respond as a community to the death of one of its own high-profile (or even low-profile) participants.

Well, if the member is high-profile enough, and the death is tragic enough, even the death of a MeFi member's friend is going to generate a great deal of expressed sympathy.
posted by dgaicun at 6:11 AM on February 5, 2003

[I must stop replying to myself]

to kind of prove my point I guess, the death of my father didn't bother me, because we weren't seeing eye to eye for a long time before hand. I was angry about some things, but I didn't grieve... When my dog died at the age of 12 (her, not me) it destroyed me. Her presence had much more impact on my life (if you ignore the obvious one... ;) )

Right... I'm going to leave the thread for at least an hour or I'll take over again... ;)
posted by twine42 at 6:15 AM on February 5, 2003

Not to knock the few people on Fark who actually knew the guy, but every online discussion about a death turns into an excuse for people to mourn their own future demise.

When someone dies and my only connection to them is virtual, it feels distasteful and phony to express grief among people who might have had a genuine relationship with the person. It's like elbowing into a stranger's funeral and taking a front-row seat.
posted by rcade at 6:15 AM on February 5, 2003

twine42: That's intuitively sensible, but not actually the case. The type that got the most attention at a single event was obviously car crashes - Lady Di. One might argue that her celebrity status distorts the scale, but one could equally say that about NASA and the Astronauts, really.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 6:19 AM on February 5, 2003

Pseudoephedrine:
That's intuitively sensible, but not actually the case.

Yes, celebrity status comes into it... If Dubya had died in a car crash the same day as the shuttle, Dubya would probably have got star billing on the news.

As for Lady Di... thousands lined the route of the funeral procession - to the extent that they had to use their wipers to knock the thrown flowers off the windscreen so they could see where they were going. But how many of those people had the right (if you see what I mean) to mourn her loss? How many had seen her in the flesh, been effected by her work or even given money to a charity because she was patron.

To a certain extent it's almost like mourning the loss of a character in a film although the actor goes on.
posted by twine42 at 6:25 AM on February 5, 2003

that's farked.
posted by quonsar at 6:31 AM on February 5, 2003

I think it's the rarity of the event, and how rare the media makes it out to be. How often does royalty die in a car accident? How often does the shuttle blow up? How often do terrorists fly planes into buildings? It's the I-didn't-think-THIS-would-happen aspect of it that gets us.
posted by agregoli at 6:38 AM on February 5, 2003

When someone dies and my only connection to them is virtual, it feels distasteful and phony to express grief among people who might have had a genuine relationship with the person. It's like elbowing into a stranger's funeral and taking a front-row seat.

I disagree that a "virtual" connection between people is, by definition, less real. Now, in this case, you might be right, since no one knew him very well. However, that does not mean the same is true in all cases. In many more tight-knit net communities (IRC channels and gaming in particular, but some web sites as well), you honestly do get to know people in a way that is "really real". When that DAoC funeral happened a few months back, many of those people had spent dozens of hours a week spending time with the deceased. I'd say their connection with him was just as legitimate (if not more so, in some cases) as the people who knew him in the "real" world.

On preview: apologies for all my "quotes", really annoying, I know.
posted by malphigian at 6:39 AM on February 5, 2003

Addendum: I don't think this comparable to the space shuttle crew -- each of them was a walking symbol of the explorer's spirit and hope for a better future. We all get the right to mourn that, I think.
posted by malphigian at 6:43 AM on February 5, 2003

walking symbol of the explorer's spirit

How were they different to a group of scientists working to cure a virus but manage to infect themselves? There would be nothing. I think it has more to do with the balls of flaming metal falling to earth...
posted by twine42 at 6:51 AM on February 5, 2003

A lot of the shuttle stuff is tied up in people's rememberance of the Challenger, too.
posted by agregoli at 6:55 AM on February 5, 2003

Wow, when I came into this thread, I was expecting a bunch of FARK Photoshop comments, but it's not so. Thanks for a good discussion for a horrible accident.
posted by mkelley at 7:01 AM on February 5, 2003

each of them was a walking symbol of the explorer's spirit and hope for a better future

True enough. I know that my vision for a better future involves big shiny things flying through the air and cities on the moon. Oh, and lots of freeze-dried space food! That shit rules.
posted by Polo Mr. Polo at 7:05 AM on February 5, 2003

I don't want to sounds rude on something so bad as death, but I hate any kind of eulogy (definition of) I mean what's the point of praising the good personality, actions and past of a man who died ? Don't wait till he/she dies, praise now before it's too late. If one really believes what he's saying in eulogy...why wait ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:11 AM on February 5, 2003

A community's reaction to a death is very similair to the news values (impact, prominence, timeliness, relevance, etc) so while this death doesn't compare to the shuttle in its impact and prominence, it does hit a little closer to home in that its reminds us that there are real people on the other side of all our stupid comments.
posted by yeahyeahyeahwhoo at 7:11 AM on February 5, 2003

02-05-03 07:28:27 AM
Leshik

in death farkers have no login. His name is cliff wilson
RIP...'tis a sad day

best comment ever.
posted by angry modem at 7:16 AM on February 5, 2003

Polo Mr Polo: Cute. But I was trying to state what I think the common perception is, not necessarily what *I* think it is. This goes to what twine42 said, too.

A lot of people's dreams (or at least buried childhood dreams) are tied up in space exploration. Think of the common answers to "What do you want to be when you grow up?". Virus research scientist is not one of them. That's what I was trying to get at with the distinction between mourning individuals (like this case) vs. people whose profession carries a lot of symbolic weight. Maybe they no you, or me, but that doesn't mean they don't represent something personal to a lot of people.
posted by malphigian at 7:21 AM on February 5, 2003

By "Maybe they no you" I meant "Maybe not to you", of course, just a, uh, slip of the keyboard.
posted by malphigian at 7:23 AM on February 5, 2003

the more expensive their means of transport (in this instance) the bigger the grief, irrespective of the number of lives lost.

I don't think it's the worth of the vehicle they were traveling in at all. As has been discussed before, the train wreck in Zimbabwe didn't get coverage stateside because we were busy dealing with what happened here with Columbia. It was closer to home. It's also not like other train wrecks haven't gotten coverage.

People who die in military service often are in rather expensive vehicles but we can't even agree on how many have died in recent action (damn was that ever a tough post to find). Phedrine also brings up a great point: how much is a limo worth? And what did Lady Di do, anyway?

Something closer to home for me were three kids from the same family dying in a flaming car wreck of their very own while I was at home over christmas.

On preview: what agregoli said and not what quonsar said.
posted by mr_mindless at 7:27 AM on February 5, 2003

I think this raises another issue. I think it calls into question the nature of community. Because FARK is set up in a way that most (and this is a huge generalization, we all know that Sept. 11 was an emotional time for all online communities, and fark was right up there in posting every little piece of information on it that I think there possibly was on the Internet) communication is superficial, and a majority of the posts revolve around humor and sarcasm, even if one of their higher profile posters was to die, how many people would know anything about him or her, other than they are great with photoshop and they were witty?

I guess what I am saying is that I think that the virtual self we create is based as much on the community as it is in how we conduct our selves. ( and I am proud to say that I have been a farker longer than a MeFi'er as I think there is room to be both, but where FARK makes me laugh, MeFi makes me think, and therefore, I would expect that it would hit me harder if someone from here was to die an unfortunate death, virtual or not)
posted by Quartermass at 7:34 AM on February 5, 2003

[And no, I wasn't thinking of killing hama7, honest.]

Huh?

Please don't tell me that was some partisan cheap-shot.
posted by dhoyt at 8:37 AM on February 5, 2003

Perhaps people jump at a car crash death moreso than other types of accidental death because driving is one of the riskiest things we do, and many of us are at risk of dying in a car crash every single day. Twinges of mortality?
posted by scarabic at 8:49 AM on February 5, 2003

it bothers me greatly, that a nation can come to a standstill and get blanket TV coverage, when seven people die, but when many more die in less 'impressive' ways, the nation maybe pauses, then shrugs and carries on.

please feel free to criticise me, i want to be proved wrong on this.

OK, let me offer this for thought: which should affect the nation more, which should be the source of greater news coverage, which should be the source of more grief: ~3000 people who died in the U.S. on 9/11/2001 due to terrorist attacks, or ~10000 people who died in the U.S. on 9/11/2001 due to natural causes?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:59 AM on February 5, 2003

I think a lot of it is how well people can relate, and how terrible the accident is.

Pretty much everyone here has been in a car crash. We can all relate.
Pretty much everyone here has dreamed at some point or another of being an astronaut. On top of that, imagine the realization of the moment of death -- knowing that in just a second, you're going to burn up and your ashes will be spread, whether you want them to be or not, all over the south central united states. That's horrible, and people are going to react to that.
Pretty much everyone here has flown somewhere, so we can all imagine the horror of a plane crash... the plummeting feel, etc. Additionally, it's horrible because everyone knows the weakness of being a passenger and not having any ability to change what's going to happen next. It's not a fun way to die and, well, people react to that.
OTOH, not many people in the US have ridden a train. Additionally, train accidents here are pretty rare. It's hard to imagine any terror that could come from that.
We're numbed to insensitivity by deaths from wasting diseases. As far as we know, diseases like that have been with us from day 1.

So yeah. If people can relate, and/or the death is horrible and either shoots down our dreams or could have happened to us, we mourn it more.
posted by SpecialK at 9:05 AM on February 5, 2003

It's easy to blame the media for over-reporting celebrity or VIP tragedies, but these events do have genuine emotional resonance for many people. I think much of the commentary on the media coverage and people's response to these event is neglecting the symbolic aspect of the tragedies. After all, we are talking about astronauts. Who here hasn't dreamed about going to the stars or walking on the moon? Astronauts are supposed to boldly go where no man has gone before. They are not supposed to get blown up.

I think it was a similar feeling with Princess Diana, emphasis on Princess. I don't how many of the rough and tumble women or men of Mefi would admit to playing princess as a small child, but I bet a lot did. Intellectually you may know Diana was a human being with her own foibles and flaws, but in your heart you think that dying in a car wreck after being chased by paparazzi is a tawdry death for a princess. When Diana died, people were grieving for their own hopes and dreams, as much as the princess they didn't really know.

As for the Zimbabwean train wreck tragedy, that pretty much fits in with most peoples ideas of what happpens in third world countries. They shoot each other, they starve, and their villages flood on a regular basis. It's not news. There is no connection and why should there be?
posted by monkeyman at 9:14 AM on February 5, 2003

Please don't tell me that was some partisan cheap-shot.

Oh shut up. Quit stirring the shit can.
posted by jpoulos at 9:30 AM on February 5, 2003

I was inquiring about what seemed like a weird offhand shit-can-stirring comment. No one asked you, Jpoulos.
posted by dhoyt at 9:34 AM on February 5, 2003

Please don't tell me that was some partisan cheap-shot.

I think it was a joke, Sir.
Made me smile.
posted by ginz at 10:01 AM on February 5, 2003

Made me smile too. Some people need to grow a sense of humor.
posted by SpecialK at 10:12 AM on February 5, 2003

Okay... who's been visiting fark?

02-05-03 10:53:59 AM TickleMeElmo
/devil's advocate

Ok, hands up. Who here, posting these terribly sensitive emotional responses, recognized his nickname at all?

Sucks that someone died, but statistically, several farkers a year must be dying, and this is the first time I've seen this kind of story.
posted by twine42 at 10:20 AM on February 5, 2003

I'm a member of a few sportsbike forums. It's absolutely amazing and sad how often the members of those boards die or get injured very seriously.

You can expect a few deaths/serious crashes a week!!! Very, very sad.

Also, since many guys also make videos of their riding or stunting, there's videos of the accidents as well out there somewhere. (They are not released for all to see, however)

Witold
posted by Witold at 10:28 AM on February 5, 2003

Mourning is always a selfish act. It's not a gesture on the part of the dead. Mourning is for the purpose of the living, so that we feel better about those we've lost and about our own mortality. Someday we're gonna join them, be it in an afterlife or in oblivion, and we give others whom we cared for in life as good a sendoff as we can, in hopes that others will do the same for us when our time comes.

Mourning is inherently subjective. There are inconsistencies and injustices. A guy who made a brief appearance in a seventies tv show may get ninety seconds on national news programs, while a man who died a great grandfather and saved many lives in some war and became a part owner of some small business that was successful and employed hundreds of people will get lucky to see a paragraph in the backpages of the local paper. Mourning is not supposed to be fair. It's whatever it is for whoever needs it. Not enough for someone you care about? Too much? It's up to you to either ignore it or do something about it if it's what you need.

Didn't know the Fark guy? Then the mourning is not for you. Need to mourn anyway? Maybe you're mourning your loss for never having made a chance to meet the guy. Think about that and next time someone online is only virtually your friend, if that bugs you, do something about it. Learn from the mourning. Move forward.

But make no mistake. Mourning is selfish. It's for the living and not the dead. If more people approached acts of mourning with that sensibility and logic, we'd have far less people going around saying, "that person's being distasteful / heartless / selfish / insensitive / etc." Of course it's distasteful, heartless, selfish and insensitive. Mourning is selfish. It's supposed to be. Quit trying to make it all holy and pious. It's an opportunity to honor the memory of a person, and that memory comes from you and not from him.

I prefer a partying wake to a solemn boring funeral. When I die, if you survive me, please get drunk and rowdy in my honor. Pee on my tombstone. Be irreverent. Snort my ashes. Get lucky. Have fun with your mourning of my death. I won't be here to appreciate it anyway so ya might as well. Just don't be all boring and solemn and pious cuz I'll come back and haunt your sorry butt until you remove the plug from it.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:58 AM on February 5, 2003

Pretty much everyone here has been in a car crash. We can all relate.

OTOH, not many people in the US have ridden a train

Is that really true???
posted by Orange Goblin at 11:28 AM on February 5, 2003

ZachsMind:
I can go with that... I want tarts dressed as nuns with split crotch habits, free alcohol for all, a bloody great bonfire, a 10 pint minimum on the door to the crematorium (including the officials) and a little mechanism that automatically taps on the inside of my coffin during quiet parts of the service...
posted by twine42 at 11:46 AM on February 5, 2003

Mourning is selfish.

[pedant]
Mourning lacks the element of deliberate disregard for others that is implied by selfishness. I don't think anyone would challenge the assertion that the focus is internal, though. If the intention is to strip guilt from mourning (or the feeling that mourning is unnecessary), it is easy enough to acknowledge that your personal reaction to any death will change based on circumstance and time, and is more unpredictable than idiosyncratic. There are selfish mourners, but mourning is not by nature selfish.
[/pedant]
posted by eddydamascene at 12:28 PM on February 5, 2003

I think ZachsMind was going for the broader definition of "selfish," i.e., motivated primarily by self-interest. In that sense, selfishness doesn't necessarily imply a deliberate disregard for others.

The fact that I work is selfish in that sense (I wouldn't do it if they didn't pay me), but that doesn't mean I'm disregarding the welfare of others as I work.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:41 PM on February 5, 2003

Thank you, DA. You hit the nail on the head.

Mourning is needed. I used to think it a waste, but experience over the years has corrected me in that matter. It's a human ..thang. While not a requirement it's certainly useful in keeping one's own sanity and good spirits. However, it's not doing favor to the dead. It is an act of self-interest, which is why I call it selfish. That doesn't mean I insinuate it's a bad thing, just that it should be treated and acknowledged for what it is. Treating mourning as if it were not selfish would be like treating fire as if it were not hot. People do it all the time which I find rather silly and even unhealthy or dangerous.

Anyway, perhaps the people at Fark poured out their sympathy regarding an irregular poster because so many felt a need at that time for community, and mourning does tend to get similar birds to flock together. It can be a good and healthy thing. For the community. It did no good nor ill for the one who has passed, either way. No harm no fowl. *whistles innocently*
posted by ZachsMind at 12:54 PM on February 5, 2003

I am not mourning the astronauts, actually, as now they are beyond my (or anyone else's) sympathy.
What makes me grieve is the pain of the survivors-I think of the fact they were expecting their loved ones to be home in literally minutes, and instead to be confronted by the fact they weren't coming home at all...I think of the children (no cliche intended) and I think of the wives, and of the mothers and the fathers...all those hopes and dreams shattered in one blazing moment.

In the same way, when I hear about people like this young man (or the guy that overdosed in the chat room recently) it is thinking of their loved ones that evokes the most sympathy.
posted by konolia at 1:01 PM on February 5, 2003

I am not mourning the astronauts, actually, as now they are beyond my (or anyone else's) sympathy.
What makes me grieve is the pain of the survivors-I think of the fact they were expecting their loved ones to be home in literally minutes, and instead to be confronted by the fact they weren't coming home at all...I think of the children (no cliche intended) and I think of the wives(or husbands) and of the mothers and the fathers...all those hopes and dreams shattered in one blazing moment.

In the same way, when I hear about people like this young man (or the guy that overdosed in the chat room recently) it is thinking of their loved ones that evokes the most sympathy.
posted by konolia at 1:02 PM on February 5, 2003

SpecialK: It's not a fun way to die

Since nobody is in a position to try different ways and report back, such attempts to relate are fantasy. A case could equally be argued that dying quickly, in perfect health and full possession of your faculties, doing a job you love, with only a minute or two to worry about it, is vastly preferable to, say, months of pain and decrepitude from disease. The downside is lack of time for 'closure', both for victims and families - and perhaps that is really what shocks people.
posted by raygirvan at 1:40 PM on February 5, 2003

From the Fark thread:

...while you're right that this would probably be fodder for Farkers if it were "the other guy", things are always a bit different when it's the family.

Hmmm...
posted by mediareport at 2:50 PM on February 5, 2003

[politically incorrect jerk]
Imagine if Princess Di had crashed the shuttle into the WTC while wirelessly blogging on her Terrorist Network webpage. oh, and she'd probably be smoking, eating meat, and the shuttle would have an SUV in the cargo bay. And her lesbian lover would be with her. And some small children would be dangling out the windows, and... and...
[/polically incorrect jerk]
posted by blue_beetle at 2:54 PM on February 5, 2003

Any Emergency Services workers here in MeFi? I was kind of wondering about the changes that take place in the personal grief process after you've been exposed to a steady stream of the 'ol death and destruction at the office. As an EMT Ocean Rescue/Lifeguard, I've seen a few rather nasty drowning/lightning strikes/car accidents, but I haven't had a death in the family since I got EMT certification five years ago. The training and experience has definitely altered the way I look at tragedy in general, but what I want to know is, does is change grievance of a more personal nature (relative, friend, pet, etc.)? Just thought I'd ask...
posted by saladin at 3:46 PM on February 5, 2003

Please don't tell me that was some partisan cheap-shot.

Of course not. hama7 and I differ on almost everything except for the fact that our political differences mean nothing to the observation that we could, were we inclined, sit down over beers, argue vociferously, then get up and part without rancour, because we're bigger than our political beliefs.

It's the kind of attitude implicit in your question, one that so many seem to be displaying these days around here, is contributing to the unpleasant atmosphere at Metafilter in these uncertain times. It is regrettable.

Or, as others said, grow a sense of humour, lame-o. Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:00 PM on February 5, 2003

our political differences mean nothing to the observation that we could, were we inclined, sit down over beers, argue vociferously, then get up and part without rancour, because we're bigger than our political beliefs.

Well said, Baronwonderchicken. Our friend dhoyt was just being thoughtfully vigilant about your use of the word "kill" followed by the name of yours truly. Startling at first sight, I must say, for me too. Easily misinterpreted and all that.

Anyway, as taz pointed out, hama6, hama8 and I are busy at the moment, creating a pop-musical supergroup to rival Abba. Or an army of clones, whichever.
posted by hama7 at 6:24 PM on February 5, 2003

User Not Found
posted by scarabic at 7:11 PM on February 5, 2003

Hm. So far I've been told to "shut up", called a "lame-o" and been asked to grow a sense of humor. All this for wondering about the intentions of a comment.

was just being thoughtfully vigilant about your use of the word "kill" followed by the name of yours truly.

Exactly. I find it pretty amazing that my wondering aloud about Stavros' comment (yes, people I realize it was a joke) is "contributing to an unpleasant atmosphere", and yet an offhand joke about killing one's political opposite is overlooked. It's no secret that the only conservatives on this board are often the ones so frequently, vitriolically attacked and disrespected. And here I'd thought dissent was a good thing.

Since when is it ok to reference someone like that in a thread when the person is not even involved in the thread (yet)? Seems kind of....lame?
posted by dhoyt at 8:50 PM on February 5, 2003

Crikey, humourless and persistent, to boot.

Even hama7 realizes it was a joke and was gracious about it, carrying on from other interactions he and I have had here recently, that you either didn't notice or were too ploddingly literal to grasp, dhoyt. It is telling that you would miss the point I was trying to make about being 'bigger than our political beliefs.'

I haven't called anyone 'lame-o' and actually meant it since I was 12 years old, by the way. Sheesh. Lame-o.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:19 PM on February 5, 2003

hama6, hama8 and I are busy at the moment

hama7, stop trying to downplay the fact that your username is a homophone for "HAMAS heaven".
Pink-o.
posted by eddydamascene at 9:42 PM on February 5, 2003

I've got a sudden hankering for some cheerios.

What does 'hamas heaven' mean?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:56 PM on February 5, 2003

I'm not entirely sure, but it sounds leftist. And I'm tired of hama7's incessant left-wing trolling.
posted by eddydamascene at 10:30 PM on February 5, 2003

dhoyt's point is well taken, and much appreciated, on consideration.

Even in jest or playfulness, I would never, ever mention stavrosthewonderchicken (or any fellow MetaFilter member) and "kill" in the same sentence (aside from this sentence).

There are some people who really might not understand the playfulness, and it may not set such a good example.

With 17k+ members, one can never be too careful.
posted by hama7 at 2:18 AM on February 6, 2003

I'm so gonna kill you at recess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:23 AM on February 6, 2003

I'm so gonna kill you at recess.

Not before I kill you in homeroom, eraser-thrower!
posted by hama7 at 2:28 AM on February 6, 2003

In any case, dhoyt is a man of few words, but when when he speaks, I listen.

Thanks.
posted by hama7 at 2:50 AM on February 6, 2003