U.S. uploads anti-drug videos to YouTube
September 18, 2006 8:51 PM   Subscribe

Let The Fun Begin! U.S. uploads anti-drug videos to YouTube, hilarity sure to ensue. [look who they popped]
posted by taosbat (81 comments total) 2 users marked this as a favorite

 
I think it's very paranoid of them to insist on approving comments before they're posted. Don't they trust us?
posted by mullingitover at 8:58 PM on September 18, 2006


Poor Willie, they confiscated almost a pound and a half, and he walks!
posted by hortense at 8:58 PM on September 18, 2006


But wasn't the war on drugs won by Nancy Reagan, when she put out the video, Stop the Madness?
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:02 PM on September 18, 2006


Neil and Nelson
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:02 PM on September 18, 2006


Pff, they're moderating comments. Fucking weak.
posted by delmoi at 9:03 PM on September 18, 2006


I like how the descriptions are directly from the script.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 9:03 PM on September 18, 2006


Personally I prefer Ron and Nancy's frank discussion about drugs.
posted by mullingitover at 9:05 PM on September 18, 2006


Wow, willie is into shrooms?
A search of [Willie nelsons'] bus produced 1 1/2 pounds of marijuana and slightly more than three ounces of narcotic mushrooms.
Holy fuck!
posted by delmoi at 9:06 PM on September 18, 2006


damn, and I went all the way to bugmenot just to comment on these worthless videos. lame!
posted by Mach5 at 9:07 PM on September 18, 2006


What would happen if we all happened to flag them as inappropriate?
posted by clevershark at 9:09 PM on September 18, 2006


I tried to comment on the "tick tick" video:

"hahah. If your friends jumped off a bridge would you? Maybe I would if I'd been fed government lies for years".

It's waiting for approval. I've got my fingers crossed!
posted by delmoi at 9:12 PM on September 18, 2006


slightly more than three ounces of narcotic mushrooms

Well, that's easily defensible. He obviously wanted to buy some portobellos, but the youngster at the store couldn't tell them apart from his own stash.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:13 PM on September 18, 2006


"It's Whatever". Strange - that's how I felt about the government's take on drugs.
posted by wandering steve at 9:15 PM on September 18, 2006



UbuRoivas writes "Well, that's easily defensible. He obviously wanted to buy some portobellos, but the youngster at the store couldn't tell them apart from his own stash."

bwahahaha...
posted by mullingitover at 9:16 PM on September 18, 2006


I want to live in that fancy house from stop the madness with the drug dealer in the closet and the blue and pink toast and the paintings that talk to me...
posted by jrb223 at 9:16 PM on September 18, 2006


Is it just me, or is the way Willie and company handled it all class?

"There were enough drugs to merit a felony charge of distribution if they had been found in one person's possession, state police spokesman Willie Williams said. But all five claimed the drugs as their own and the drugs were not packaged for resale, so each was charged with misdemeanors, he said. All were released after the citations were issued."

Further, lookit maw! The War on Drugs nailed a buncha old codgers and their grass supply! I sure feel great about my tax dollars going to harrass a bunch of countrified geriatrics...


"Also cited were Tony Sizemore, 59, of St. Cloud, Fla.; Bobbie Nelson, 75, of Briarcliff, Texas; Gates Moore, 54, of Austin, Texas; and David Anderson, 50, of Dallas."
posted by stenseng at 9:17 PM on September 18, 2006


"Narcotic mushrooms"?
posted by borkingchikapa at 9:22 PM on September 18, 2006 [1 favorite]


Flagging them as inappropriate seems like a good idea. Too bad there's no "poor taste" flag.
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:25 PM on September 18, 2006


U.S. Marijuana Arrests at All-Time High
posted by homunculus at 9:39 PM on September 18, 2006


I thought Whatever was just common sense. In fact all of the videos I watched were.

Maybe I am showing my age in that I hate to see kids wasting their time smoking dope when they could be working to succeed at something of real value to them.

If these stupid videos reach can help kids focus on what matters than I can't really see what the problem is.
posted by cmacleod at 9:40 PM on September 18, 2006


Flagged. I'm not sure what flag reason would be best. Flag as pornographic would probably get them removed from general circulation most quickly, but I doubt there would be any lasting effect. Maybe over 18 is the best?
posted by Mr. Gunn at 9:41 PM on September 18, 2006


But...what if smoking dope is something that "really matters" to them?
posted by stenseng at 9:42 PM on September 18, 2006


Flagged as "obscenity".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:44 PM on September 18, 2006


In theory I believe sending a C&D would be the quickest way to remove them from circulation. If I'm not mistaken, YouTube practices a "take down first, ask questions later" policy. Disclaimer: I'm not advocating this humorous (but probably illegal) prank.
posted by mullingitover at 9:48 PM on September 18, 2006


Well, most of the ads involve illegal drugs, so I'm sure a flag of illegal acts is accurate.
posted by scodger at 9:49 PM on September 18, 2006


Flagged.
posted by loquacious at 9:55 PM on September 18, 2006


cmacleod: Maybe I am showing my age in that I hate to see kids wasting their time smoking dope when they could be working to succeed at something of real value to them.

Since when are these mutually exclusive? You're wasting your time on Metafilter right now, is this stopping you from doing productive things at other times? How is dope more of a time waster than other hobbies like drawing, stamp collecting, video games, etc?
posted by spaltavian at 9:55 PM on September 18, 2006 [1 favorite]


What does this one mean? Did he feed the girl to the lumberyard dog?
posted by stammer at 9:58 PM on September 18, 2006


I see no problem with these. This is a far cry from the "your brain on drugs" stuff they used to peddle. They're telling the truth now: intoxicants are, at best, a colossal waste of time.
posted by Crotalus at 10:35 PM on September 18, 2006


""Narcotic mushrooms"?

I, for one, will be offering my body to science in hopes of determining the awesome value of these "narcotic mushrooms".
posted by Leather McWhip at 10:47 PM on September 18, 2006


I see no problem with these. This is a far cry from the "your brain on drugs" stuff they used to peddle. They're telling the truth now: intoxicants are, at best, a colossal waste of time.

Then where the hell are the ads saying the same think about alcohol? Since they've decided to stop lying outright (pot kills, pot will get you raped, pot supports terrorism, etc.) they've readopted the oldest anti-drug tactic in the book, one dating back to the temperance movement of the 19th century: smug moral superiority. And that's what bugs me about these ads. It's more of a "I'm not smoking pot because I'm better than that" than a "I'm not smoking pot because it's somehow harmful to me." Which, as far as drugs go, it isn't. It's not physically addictive, it has few health risks, hell, it doesn't even cause lung cancer.
posted by Ndwright at 10:50 PM on September 18, 2006 [1 favorite]


I've objected to specific ads in the past, but I really don't have a problem with these.

I mean, I always thought the "your brain on drugs" one was conceptually one of the most brilliant ads ever, and look -- 20 years later we still remember it. I also liked the newer riff on it they did a few years ago where the girl destroys her apartment in the process. I liked most of the "Parents: the Anti-Drug" series, because even if they were sometimes too unctuous, they promoted something that was very positive, and really quite true -- the better your relationship with your kids, the less likely they are to fall off the wagon.

In fact, these are a good step beyond, in that they promote the idea that it's a choice, something they might not have risked in past campaigns.

I mean, really, what would you rather your government spend a million bucks on -- a few innocuous "don't do drugs" ads, or grants to district attorneys to prosecute small-time offenders?

Seeing the effect of drug houses on the community where I grew up, I'm not really very forgiving. The war on drugs has been very badly fought in many ways, but I think that in general public policy is getting a better handle on it nowadays.
posted by dhartung at 10:58 PM on September 18, 2006


They're telling the truth now: intoxicants are, at best, a colossal waste of time.

Fun is a waste of time?
posted by spaltavian at 10:59 PM on September 18, 2006 [2 favorites]


Ndwright nailed it. They are pretty tame compared with previous ads I've seen. I remember one a while back about a kid who lives in his mom's basement and is a loser because he smokes weed all day (or is it "a kid who smokes weed all day a lives in his mom's basement because he's a loser"?) That whole causation/correlation thing the anti-drug folks never seem to get right.

Replace weed with alcohol in all of these ads and they work the same. I think they'd work even more accurately in most cases. As long as there's no acknowledgment of this double standard, these ads are preachy at best, but IMHO more like hipocracy.
posted by zardoz at 11:01 PM on September 18, 2006


I have never been prouder to have played Willie at my wedding.
posted by freebird at 11:07 PM on September 18, 2006


You know Willie gets real good shit. One of my few heroes.
posted by chillmost at 11:12 PM on September 18, 2006


I mean, really, what would you rather your government spend a million bucks on -- a few innocuous "don't do drugs" ads, or grants to district attorneys to prosecute small-time offenders?

I'd rather they did neither one.
posted by MythMaker at 11:22 PM on September 18, 2006


"these ads are preachy at best, but IMHO more like hipocracy."

whoa, dude. hippocracy - rule by hippos. fuck. pass that bong over here.
posted by muppetboy at 11:24 PM on September 18, 2006 [2 favorites]


The "Whatever" guy seems like a masochist to me.
posted by thanatogenous at 11:30 PM on September 18, 2006


According to the counters on those videos, more people have flagged than have actually watched... Not sure how that's possible since you have to view the videos (get counted) in order to flag.

Anyway, flagged.
posted by pkingdesign at 12:08 AM on September 19, 2006


Metafilter: at best, a colossal waste of time.

So when do we get our own Public Service Announcements telling kids to stay away from MeFi?
posted by Bugbread at 12:29 AM on September 19, 2006


Fun is a waste of time?

In a country that thinks two weeks a year is an appropriate amount of annual leave? Damn right it is.

Now tote that barge and lift that bale -- smoke a little weed, you're gonna land in jail.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:32 AM on September 19, 2006


"There were enough drugs to merit a felony charge of distribution if they had been found in one person's possession, state police spokesman Willie Williams said. But all five claimed the drugs as their own and the drugs were not packaged for resale, so each was charged with misdemeanors, he said. All were released after the citations were issued."

That frickin wins the internets.

I am now starting a band called "Willie Nelson beats the Prisoner's Dilemma".

Looking for a good keyboardist.
posted by dreamsign at 2:02 AM on September 19, 2006 [2 favorites]


Oh, Bill Hicks, how badly we need ye ...
posted by kaemaril at 2:54 AM on September 19, 2006


Why's everyone flagging these videos? I'm pretty anti-anti-drug, but it seems to me if the government wants to put some clearly labelled crap up on the internets tubes I don't give a shit. Say they're not good or true, there's plenty of other stuff on YouTube that's shit and lies.

Also, Willie Nelson sure has a lot of weed.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 3:06 AM on September 19, 2006


At what point in American history did it become the government's responsibility to teach children the concept "this is bad because we say it is", rather than the parent's responsibility to teach "moderation in all things"?
posted by Enron Hubbard at 3:54 AM on September 19, 2006


With all this flagging Metafilter has never sounded so righteously erect (excluding mornings of course). I salute you all and your priapismo! With the combined efforts of this circlular social network of knee-jerk reactionaries we should be able to toss off one or two of those videos. To the task at hand brothers!
posted by srboisvert at 4:17 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Maybe this will come in handy when the MPAA tries to take YouTube to court on the same grounds as the RIAA did with Napster, namely that the platforms are mainly used for illegal activities. If they do, YouTube's lawyers could argue that even the government used YouTube for the War on Drugs.

Spun cleverly, they might even use the "But think about the children" defense on this one, which lamentably hardly ever fails.

Also: I'd rather have anti-drug ads on YouTube than anti-YouTube ads on drugs.
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 4:55 AM on September 19, 2006


So when do we get our own Public Service Announcements telling kids to stay away from MeFi?

FATHER bursts into SON's room. He is angry and holding a fish.

FATHER: Where did you get this, son? Tell me!

The son turns from his wall, crying. There is a pancake on his head.

SON: From you, dad! I learned it by watching you use MetaFilter!

FATHER: I have a kid?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:07 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


Also: I'd rather have anti-drug ads on YouTube than anti-YouTube ads on drugs.

I'll take whatever you don't want of the latter.
posted by loquacious at 5:07 AM on September 19, 2006


I'm sorry but the "I've seen what drug houses do to a community" is just another annoying example of the facile blurring of the line in this debate. "Drug houses"? Do you mean houses wherein people smoke marijuana? Yes, I've seen those destroy a community too. $750,000 homes with immaculately-manicured lawns and two late-model cars outside. Poor bastards, I just feel sorry for the... Oh, you mean crack houses! Yeah, those are pretty bad too. Shame that's not really what's being discussed. But, hey, crack, weed, heroin, murder; six of one...

Oh, and could the ads be just a bit more insufferably smug, please? "I don't smoke weed because I'm not, you know, a LOSER. A shame you don't have a life, you potsmoking LOSER. Let me indicate here just how pathetic and pointless these LOSERS' lives are." There is, of course, no gray. You either have a) a vibrant, fulfilling life free of drugs or b) a reefer-born hell of eleven-hour sessions stoned on the couch. Cannot mix the lifestyles. Just can't. Scientifically proven, don't'cha know.

But, by Jeebus, if these ads only keep one child from sucking on the devil's joystick, they'll certainly be worth the millions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours they cost, funded, it nearly goes without saying, by your taxes.
posted by the sobsister at 5:34 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


FATHER bursts into SON's room. He is angry and holding a fish.

FetaMilter?
posted by public at 5:49 AM on September 19, 2006


whoa, dude. hippocracy - rule by hippos.

Wouldn't that be rule by horses?
posted by spazzm at 6:26 AM on September 19, 2006


cnn had a picture up of willie's stash. it looked like good hydro to me.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 6:33 AM on September 19, 2006


Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton are the Zeus and Hera of my own personal mythology, and I am outraged that the government stole his drugs. I appreciate trying to keep children away from drugs to a certain extent. Drugs kill brain cells, and they can lead to poor decision making. That is why we half-heartedly try to keep alcohol away from children, but once you hit seventy years old, why the fuck would you not be allowed to put whatever chemical you damn well please into your wrinkly old body? Drug laws should be amended to say that once you are sixty years old, you can walk up to the President and blow smoke in his stupid monkey face, and he just has to sit there groovin'. I am writing my Congressperson right now to demand that Willie's drugs be returned to him immediately, with a written apology. Also, Willie's version of "Help Me Make It Through the Night" is incredible.
posted by ND¢ at 6:35 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


MATHOWIE is driving in a sedan down a dark road. PASSENGERS are alternating between violent arguments, patting each other on the back and outright fellating each other.

MATHOWIE: Some of my users freak out about the same topics over and over, but I don't.

PASSENGER 1 (to PASSENGER 3): How could you think that about fat people? You are dumb and I am smart! I am so smart!

MATHOWIE: I tell them to calm down so they won't go into shock about stupid stuff on the Internet that they shouldn't care so much about.

PASSENGER 3: SUVs! Jesus! The US political system! (pants)

MATHOWIE: When we get to the party, I have actual conversations with the ladies, while they rant at each other and repeat in-jokes like Monty Python nerds.

PASSENGER 2: This pancake, it vibrates to "Metafilter: Tired Taglines" with a bunny?

PASSENGER 1: That objectifies women, and I am loudly against that so that women on the Internet will read it and have sex with me!

MATHOWIE: Basically they don't have to worry about living life, because I give them a space where the trivial can seem important. Until I sell the site. But until then, it's "whatever."
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:39 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


The funny thing is, you Americans are paying for this crap to get produced. Of course, being movies, you can bet that a lot of the camera crew's and actors' paychecks are going to be, er, "reinvested in the community" (so to speak), which makes it doubly funny -- at least from the standpoint of someone whose money is safe from the antidruglords.
posted by clevershark at 6:39 AM on September 19, 2006


ND¢ writes "Drugs kill brain cells, and they can lead to poor decision making."

Damn right. The state of the world today is a sad testament to what cocaine can do to one's judgement.
posted by clevershark at 6:40 AM on September 19, 2006


Of course, being movies, you can bet that a lot of the camera crew's and actors' paychecks are going to be, er, "reinvested in the community" (so to speak), which makes it doubly funny

Seriously. Those script writers and cameramen are rolling on the inside, half-baked, reaching for the most schlocky garbage they can pull out of their posterior.

Shrooms are great, I'm not surprised Willie knows whats up. If he was found with a boatload of LSD I would be a lot more surprised.
posted by prostyle at 6:43 AM on September 19, 2006


stenseng, I had the same thought. That was pretty cool; I wonder if they came up with that on the spot, or later, on lawyer's advice.
posted by MrMoonPie at 7:00 AM on September 19, 2006


Russian girl on LSD
posted by four panels at 7:12 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


I have to admit that "Conversation" was actually very well done. No preachy voiceover, no bogus arguments, just a plausible scenario which you're left to judge for yourself. Not nearly as memorable as "this is your brain on drugs" -- which was brilliant bit of work -- but I could actually see this one changing somebody's mind.

"Whatever" was borderline. The main thing it's got going for it is that the guy doesn't talk using the preachy, condescending vocal style so common in this sort of ad. And "Pete's Couch" at least acknowledges a bit of reality (and contradicts much other past and present ONDCP propaganda) by admitting that pot doesn't lead directly to hard drugs and death. Though I'd love to meet Pete's dealer, if he's got pot that'll leave you too stoned to move for 11 hours.

The rest were pure crap. Blah blah peer pressure, blah blah drugs are bad, blah blah we've heard it all before and none of it rings the least little bit true. I have to love the irony of an anti-drug ad that uses the message make your own choices. And the whole "if your friends jumped off a cliff would you do it too?" cliche is a teeny tiny eensy weensy bit played out.
posted by ook at 7:28 AM on September 19, 2006


And the fact that every single one of these videos has a unanimous rating of "1" -- except for the ones for which ratings have been disabled -- is pretty good evidence of how ineffective this sort of ad is. (Or, possibly, that YouTube is used exclusively by stoners.)
posted by ook at 7:40 AM on September 19, 2006


I have to admit that "Conversation" was actually very well done. No preachy voiceover, no bogus arguments, just a plausible scenario which you're left to judge for yourself. Not nearly as memorable as "this is your brain on drugs" -- which was brilliant bit of work -- but I could actually see this one changing somebody's mind.

"Conversation" is actually the most aggravating of the ads for me, because it's so absurdly hypocritical to suggest that kids get fucked up at parties and do stupid shit because of... pot? Bullshit. It's like that ad from a few years back where they slowly pan to the pregnant girl and go "pot makes you make stupid decisions." Utter bullshit. That's what happens when you get drunk. You know, over-consume the legally-acquirable product that likely has tons of lobbyists trying to dissuade any interest in that problem?

I really, really, really want there to be legitimate conversations and ads for kids about drugs... and alcohol, and cigarettes, and so forth (though the Truth campaign is doing a decent job with the latter). "Conversation" is a fucking lie. That kids was talking about how he got drunk last night, not high.

There's enough pros and cons of drugs to argue already withgout blaming illegal drugs for legal intoxicants' problems. It's no better than blaming video games for violence or "lack of morals" for poverty or any other such nonsense.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:07 AM on September 19, 2006


I mean, really, what would you rather your government spend a million bucks on -- a few innocuous "don't do drugs" ads, or grants to district attorneys to prosecute small-time offenders?

How bout teachers' salaries. (That way teachers could afford more expensive drugs.)
posted by jrb223 at 8:09 AM on September 19, 2006


All those kids sitting out there, doing nothing except getting high and playing the guitar... tragic. I mean, what can anyone accomplish when they're high all the time?
posted by Bageena at 8:11 AM on September 19, 2006



I'll Never Smoke Weed With Willie Again
Toby Keith


I always heard that his herb was top shelf
I just could not wait to find out for myself
Don't knock it til' you tried it, Well I tried it my friend
And I'll never smoke weed with Willie again

I learned a hard lesson in a small Texas town
He fired up a fat boy and passed him around
The last words that I spoke before they tucked me in
Was I'll never smoke weed with Willie again

I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
My parties all over before it begins
You can pour me some old whiskey river my friend
But I'll never smoke weed with Willie again

I hopped on his old bus, the Honey Suckle Rose
The party was Vegas it was after the show.
Alone in the front lounge with just me and him,
With one parting puff grim creeper set in.

I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
My parties all over before it begins
You can pour me some old whiskey river my friend
But I'll never smoke weed with Willie again

Now we're passing the guitar and telling good jokes
I know ones a-comin' cause I'm smelling smoke
No I do not partake, I just let it pass by
With a smile on my face and a great contact high

I'll never smoke weed with Willie again
My parties all over before it begins
You can pour me some old whiskey river my friend
But I'll never smoke weed with Willie again

In the fetal position with drool on my chin
I messed up and smoked weed with Willie again

posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:37 AM on September 19, 2006


"They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you're high, you can do everything you normally do just as well ... you just realize that it's not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference."

-Bill Hicks

posted by prostyle at 8:39 AM on September 19, 2006


"if the government wants to put some clearly labelled crap up on the internets tubes I don't give a shit"

The internets are not a dope truck.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:55 AM on September 19, 2006


Mitchell Lawrence a 17 year old student from Massachusetts, received a two year sentence for selling one joint.
posted by hortense at 9:11 AM on September 19, 2006


My sympathies to Mitchell Lawrence...he should have been Smoke[ing] Weed With Willie in Louisiana not selling a doob in Massachusetts.
posted by taosbat at 9:36 AM on September 19, 2006


XQUZYPHYR, you're right, I absolutely agree that that ad applies a whole lot more readily to alcohol than to pot -- which is hypocritical, and undercuts their message quite a bit.

But in its defense -- and it feels kind of strange to be speaking in defense of an anti-drug ad, I'm a legalize-everything kind of guy, but -- it's not specifically calling out pot: "high" could mean a lot of different things. (Though, ok, given that most of the other ads do talk specifically about pot, maybe I'm giving them too much credit there.) And the kid's transgression was plausibly low-grade: he didn't get anybody pregnant or try to outrun a guard dog or rob a bank or whatever; he just forgot to drive somebody home after a party. Which isn't, like, totally outside the realm of possibility for a number of drugs.

Maybe it's just in comparison to the ineptness of the other ads, but this one looks relatively reasonable to me. The basic message -- "if you get too fucked up you might do something stupid" -- is one even I can get behind. I'd prefer it if that message were followed up by "...so, whatever your drug of choice, use it responsibly," but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
posted by ook at 9:37 AM on September 19, 2006


Selling the War on Terror on YouTube. "FP looks at five recent ads that hope to sway your vote in November, either by inspiring raw fear, stoking your anger, or appealing to your sense of patriotism."
posted by homunculus at 11:17 AM on September 19, 2006


Thanks, homunculus, I really liked this one. My son flew into Kurdish Iraq from Romania and was among the first American soldiers in Mosul. If nothing else comes of that mess, he & I both hope that the Kurds will be able to hang onto a decent deal. I emailed him your link and the one to that video.
posted by taosbat at 11:52 AM on September 19, 2006


God is perfect; man is not.
Man made beer; God made pot.
posted by hypersloth at 5:04 PM on September 19, 2006


Regarding Mitchell Lawrence, why is it that none of these ads portray a guy selling one joint and ending up in prison? That's pretty scary, a lot worse than a lumberyard dog.
posted by owhydididoit at 6:06 PM on September 19, 2006


Man made beer; God made pot.

Overlytechnicalfilter: Actually birds get drunk on fermented berries, and sub-human primates have been observed to party with (naturally) fermented fruit. So, alcohol is pretty natural too.

Distillation, on the other hand...
posted by telstar at 8:28 PM on September 19, 2006


I'll drink to that, telstar!
posted by hypersloth at 11:24 PM on September 19, 2006


Colbert Report behind Willie Nelson's marijuana bust?
posted by hortense at 11:40 PM on September 19, 2006


Right. As if they needed Steve Colbert to tell them that there'd be weed on Willie Nelson's bus...
posted by stenseng at 3:14 PM on September 20, 2006


I am now starting a band called "Willie Nelson beats the Prisoner's Dilemma".

Looking for a good keyboardist.


I just want to say that with the 32 character limit on skype, having a user name of "Willie Nelson beats the prisoner" is not nearly as cool.
posted by dreamsign at 4:44 AM on September 21, 2006


« Older This old post aboutknitted brains got me thinking,...  |  Are fantasy chess leagues too ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments