Please vote for my friend KELLY - hottest bartender

SteveBsjb • May 27, 2006 9:10 am
http://cg.channel.aol.com/hottest-bartenders/new-york-women
MaggieL • May 27, 2006 11:15 am
spam
zippyt • May 27, 2006 12:08 pm
that looks like a fun place
lookout123 • May 27, 2006 6:31 pm
if he hadn't spent a month pissing everyone off first i met call spam, but he's been through the fire and is still here, so we'll just call this a shill.
MaggieL • May 27, 2006 6:52 pm
That depands how many other places he's posted it.
lumberjim • May 27, 2006 11:05 pm
dude, she's totally not the hottest. in fact, she's the 2nd not hottest. Don't get me wrong, she looks filthy dirty, and while that's certainly hot, in the classic sense of the term, she is well eclipsed by chloe.
xoxoxoBruce • May 27, 2006 11:20 pm
And sweet Melissa...:sweat:
BigV • May 27, 2006 11:27 pm
who is so *into* the camera she's pouring the drink on the floor...
MaggieL • May 27, 2006 11:44 pm
lumberjim wrote:
dude, she's totally not the hottest
Yeah, but she's the one who promised to boink him if he got her elected. :-)
Cheyenne • May 28, 2006 2:56 am
i think melissa is the cutest ;)
lumberjim • May 28, 2006 10:53 am
oops, oh yeah. i totally meant mellissa. chloe looks like a psycho. as does kay.....but kay looks like she could kick your ass.
Cheyenne • May 28, 2006 11:09 am
i think you mean "May" lj :p she looks like a man woman on that...what was it called....warrior princess show. Xena??
lumberjim • May 28, 2006 11:40 am
man, you're right. i give up. i just cant get it right in this thread.
Clodfobble • May 28, 2006 11:55 am
Kelly's profile wrote:
Kelly's an actor who just landed her dream role -- Abigail in 'The Crucible.


Her dream role is a 12-year-old girl? That's... a little creepy.
richlevy • May 28, 2006 1:18 pm
BigV wrote:
who is so *into* the camera she's pouring the drink on the floor...
Which obviously means she was so cute that they overlooked her lack of skills. This is known as the 'Baywatch' effect.:D

MaggieL wrote:
Yeah, but she's the one who promised to boink him if he got her elected. :-)
So don't 'Man Rules' state that we must vote for her in order to help him out?
MaggieL • May 28, 2006 8:25 pm
richlevy wrote:
So don't 'Man Rules' state that we must vote for her in order to help him out?

What you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 10:33 am
BigV wrote:
who is so *into* the camera she's pouring the drink on the floor...


You're not talking about Kelly. that's some whore that can't hit the glass.

Kelly really is my friend, and i don't believe this thread is spam. Also. I don't believe I spent my first month or... even a day pissing anyone off. Or better said, I wasn't trying to piss anyone off, I just was trying to make people laugh. That's all I do. Margaret wants to see spam where there isn't. If you had a friend that was in a competition online, I'd vote for him/her because we have this message-board relationship. That's if you had a friend.
lumberjim • May 29, 2006 10:46 am
:purple nerple:
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 10:57 am
lumberjim wrote:
:purple nerple:


This post I can't argue with.
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 11:01 am
SteveBsjb wrote:
That's if you had a friend.
I have lots of friends...because I don't presume on the relationships to stuff a ballot box in what's supposed to be a friendly honest competition.

So...you're actually telling us you didn't post that link to all your other hangouts? because if you did, that's spam.
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 11:10 am
MaggieL wrote:
I have lots of friends...because I don't presume on the relationships to stuff a ballot box in what's supposed to be a friendly honest competition.

So...you're actually telling us you didn't post that link to all your other hangouts? because if you did, that's spam.


I posted it everywhere I interact because I care about my friend. I don't care what you think spam is. I'm not "actually telling you" anything other than "please vote for my friend Kelly". Why do you have to attack me EVERY TIME you see me post??? My God... if you have "lots of friends", sit back, think of them, and smile. The fact that I have lots of friends makes me NOT want to lash out at someone like you. Thank God for them, and I hope you have a good day.
Cheyenne • May 29, 2006 11:57 am
I normally try to keep out of the drama here, but i must say that your continuous attacks on Steve only make you look bad maggie.

Steve is a very nice man and I would be proud to hang with him any day.
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 12:04 pm
Thanks, Chey. You know I don't take any of this message board stuff to heart. But sometimes when I think about "why people are the way they are" I do have to say to myself... "UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE".

Hope you're having a great day too!
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 12:15 pm
Cheyenne wrote:
I normally try to keep out of the drama here, but i must say that your continuous attacks on Steve only make you look bad maggie.

Continuous?

Haven't said anything about Stevebsjb for weeks. Then I said *one* word: "spam", and he's all flamed up again...and then follows with how having a bunch of friends makes him not want to lash out. What a load of hooey.

It's spam. What he "believes" dosen't change that, even if he's a "nice man".
Cheyenne • May 29, 2006 12:23 pm
continous as in... you mostly (and i say "mostly" because i wish not to spend my life tracking all of his or your posts to see just how many you have slagged him off in). you only wish to find fault with him. who fucking cares if YOU consider a friendly gesture for his friend spam. have you no life?? jebuz....
Cheyenne • May 29, 2006 12:25 pm
and i might add.... his comment about him not wanting to lash out goes far beyond what you are thinking. believe me.... he HAS held his tongue like a true gentleman!






and you are welcome My Friend :)
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 12:33 pm
Spam asking people to stuff a ballot box isn't a "friendly gesture" to the other contestants...and all this heat is because I called him on it.

Tough.
Cheyenne • May 29, 2006 12:35 pm
ok, i will say it.

shut the fuck up maggie for god sake just shut the fuck up!


*goes outside to live what i call life* *suggests you get one*
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 1:07 pm
MaggieL wrote:
Spam asking people to stuff a ballot box isn't a "friendly gesture" to the other contestants...and all this heat is because I called him on it.

Tough.


What you "believe" doesn't matter as much as what I "believe" doesn't matter. The "heat" isn't that I posted asking for the support of a friend, the heat is: why do you have to "call people" on things? Why is your perspective on life skewed this way? You haven't said anything about me in weeks because i haven't posted much in weeks. But when I do there you are in attack mode. I don't care beyond the fact that you make me wonder, why would you want to attack people so much here? I couldn't be a friend with someone like you; if the way you act online is indicative of how you are face-to-face. For example, if you can't connect the dots... if you were my friend, and we were in a park together, sitting and talking, and I said, "Oh, hey, could you please check out this website and vote for my friend Kelly? She's awesome, love that girl, it'd be cool if she won this." would you say "Spam" with a discerning attitude?

You'd get the same reaction from me... "unfuckingbelievable" and then I'd wish you a good day.
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 2:06 pm
SteveBsjb wrote:
if you were my friend, and we were in a park together, sitting and talking...
Not at all the same thing, although it would be just as much of a presumption--on a single friendship rather than leveraging the many eyeballs of a heavily trafficked website.

Now it's time for you to trot out that tired old excuse about how "it doesn't matter" because "it's only a message board", right?

This is The Cellar. If you want something to be immune from commentary, don't post it here.
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 2:15 pm
I don't mind commentary as I've said. Again, it's the fact that you seem to enjoy attacking others here, it makes me wonder why you are like that.

And I think that you think your version of the world is the only one that matters. You make me sad, actually.
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 3:18 pm
SteveBsjb wrote:
it makes me wonder why you are like that.

Gee, sounds like an attack to me :-) Anyway, I know exactly why you are like that.
SteveBsjb wrote:

And I think that you think your version of the world is the only one that matters. You make me sad, actually.
Yes...your deeply sympathy is palpable. Sorry about your inability to handle pushback without whining...and my failure to give your "version of the world" the consideration you think it deserves is tragic too.

But don't worry: after all, "it's only a message board".
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 3:27 pm
I don't worry or whine. I wonder. It's only words on a screen, but thinking about why other people prefer to spread illwill is something I will probably continue to do.
xoxoxoBruce • May 29, 2006 8:05 pm
SteveBsjb wrote:
I don't mind commentary as I've said. Again, it's the fact that you seem to enjoy attacking others here, it makes me wonder why you are like that.

And I think that you think your version of the world is the only one that matters. You make me sad, actually.
Don't feel special, Maggie rags on everyone. :lol:
SteveBsjb • May 29, 2006 8:34 pm
hehehe... i know
Cheyenne • May 29, 2006 10:05 pm
just for maggie
MaggieL • May 29, 2006 10:23 pm
Actually I only rag on people who I think deserve it, when I think they do. It's just that some people rate it more often than others.

Sometimes I can't help but think a lot of the AG refugees would be happier on MySpace or something like that. Then they'd only have to listen to people who are sucking up to them.
SteveBsjb • May 30, 2006 6:56 am
Yeah, but you Margaret are the one that seems to "rate it more than others." Glass houses, and all that.
MaggieL • May 30, 2006 10:28 am
SteveBsjb wrote:
Yeah, but you Margaret are the one that seems to "rate it more than others." Glass houses, and all that.
Well, that's "your version of the world". It's not "the only one that matters", right? It's just the one where the original post was "just a friendly gesture" rather than "spam trying to stuff a ballot box".

That relativism stuff cuts both ways.
SteveBsjb • May 30, 2006 11:09 am
Right, but I react to your attacks; whereas you always like to get your digs in (what I call an attack). That's the difference to me. I am not an attacker. I don't want to police the board, but I will comment on your need to spread illwill when you "attack" me.

I don't criticize your posts, but you like to criticize mine. Just live and let live.
MaggieL • May 30, 2006 11:49 am
SteveBsjb wrote:
I don't criticize your posts
Of course you do. But it's OK when you do it.
SteveBsjb • May 30, 2006 12:05 pm
If I do it's only in reaction to your need to get first blood. I never go after anyone first. There's 100's of people that I've talked with here (dozens, maybe?) that I just have fun with. But you come into my threads and insult, so I will in my own way shoot it right back at you. But I don't ever go into your threads looking to attack you first.
wolf • May 30, 2006 1:38 pm
I am sorry that you do not have enough confidence in your friend to allow her to win on her own merits.

Although, based on the other ladies' pictures, your girl's merits aren't quite stacking up, no matter how good a martini she pours.
MaggieL • May 30, 2006 1:45 pm
See? It is OK when you do it, in your "version of the world".

You don't own threads...they're not "your threads" or "my threads"; they are The Cellar. When I say you're spamming and trying to stuff a ballot box, you can feel "insulted" if you want, but it's simple truth; blaming me for pointing it out doesn't change anything. And claiming a halo because you want to paint it as an "act of friendship" is disingenuous.
SteveBsjb • May 30, 2006 3:01 pm
I don't feel insulted. Stop thinking I am worried, or insulted, or that I am whining. All I am is wondering what would make someone step into a thread on a message board with intent of making that other person feel bad. WONDER - not that I feel slighted, I am just recognizing that you don't care that you may be insulting to others.
mrnoodle • May 30, 2006 4:14 pm
All of those women look like road whores.


not really. But they all have high levels of "meh", particularly for attention whores.
MaggieL • May 30, 2006 4:43 pm
SteveBsjb wrote:
But you come into my threads and insult...

SteveBsjb wrote:
I don't feel insulted. Stop thinking I am worried, or insulted...

*shrug*

If you're spamming or otherwise being lame, you can expect to hear about it.

Your feelings about it are your problem.
skysidhe • May 30, 2006 5:19 pm
mrnoodle wrote:
All of those women look like road whores.


not really. But they all have high levels of "meh", particularly for attention whores.



What is meh?





@ steve & maggie.

I read tried to read this thread. It was very boring. No swearing or calling names.*yawn* If you'all going to attack and flame please make it interesting. :p
Happy Monkey • May 30, 2006 5:22 pm
An expression of indifference.
skysidhe • May 30, 2006 5:29 pm
Happy Monkey wrote:
An expression of indifference.





thanks
MaggieL • May 30, 2006 5:39 pm
skysidhe wrote:
If you'all going to attack and flame please make it interesting.
Sorry...most lameness is inherently boring. Since the spam is already spammed, and anybody who cares about the hottest bartender contest has already voted, all that's left is Steve whining about how he's being mistreated again. :-)
skysidhe • May 30, 2006 5:58 pm
Of course this is the cellar. All's fair in ......love and war.


So like war who told the AGers they would be greeted as liberators and you all would throw flowers at their feet?


ah maggie. I understand your cronystic tendecies. ( cronyistic = is that a real word? )

@Steve, don't take it so hard. Maggie is actually mild and smart to boot. This is nothing. This is no abuse at all.
xoxoxoBruce • May 30, 2006 9:35 pm
Steve, if you post something I consider spam, a painting I think is ugly or a poem I think is stupid, do you think I should follow the "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all", rule, for fear of offending you? :confused:
Cheyenne • May 30, 2006 11:22 pm
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
Steve, if you post something I consider spam, a painting I think is ugly or a poem I think is stupid, do you think I should follow the "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all", rule, for fear of offending you? :confused:



Bruce, Steve is not on about that at all. What I believe he is trying to say is that maggie seems to be an angry troll with an internet vengeance against her real life reality. No life....angry....easy to slag off people on the net to payback all the crap we all know she must have received as a child and still yet as an adult. 'Tis easy to cast stones and argue when not face to face.

For four years I have seen Steve take 1,000 times worse trollism’s than Maggie tosses. No matter how hard you try and break him Maggie (referring to “it’s only an internet community”) you won’t achieve your goal. Far worse than you have tried.
MaggieL • May 31, 2006 9:38 am
Cheyenne wrote:
What I believe he is trying to say is that maggie seems to be an angry troll with an internet vengeance against her real life reality.

Of course he is. He wants to deflect attention from what I said by calling me names. It's called an ad hominem.

There's no point in him engaging what I said, because it's true. My "real life reality" is doing just fine...in fact I'm not spending it in hanging out in bars in Manhattan. It happens to include hanging out on the Cellar...where we've seen trolls before and know what real ones look like.
Cheyenne wrote:
Far worse than you have tried.

So then this shouldn't bother him at all.
skysidhe • May 31, 2006 10:03 am
Cheyenne wrote:
Far worse than you have tried.

:eek: * gasp * no way. Of couse I havn't seen him post in a year.




About trolls. I don't think maggie is trolling. She is just wenching.

Many (perhaps most) people, labelled "trolls", are simply being called thus by someone else in the course of a religious, political or other ordinary type of dispute; in other words, they are labelled as one for acting as a dissident or heretic.



ok I looked up the definition. This is interesting.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Vicious circles

For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."
Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset him is to falsely claim that he is a "troll." In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views, or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling. This can lead to genuinely hostile behavior, including flame wars.




According to this definition calling someone a troll especially an established member of a group is called trolling as well. :eek:


So again I say. She is not being a troll. Steve is a grown up he can deal with her annoyance.
MaggieL • May 31, 2006 10:28 am
skysidhe wrote:
Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted...
Ghod, that *never* happens here. :-)
Undertoad • May 31, 2006 11:04 am
I rate this thread a 2.

It started out a 2 because Steve asked us to vote in this lame bartender contest. Steven please, don't start some lame-ass thread to get your lame-ass bartender some lame-ass vote whoring, which is just about the lamest thing the Internet is used for,... and then get all mad because someone called it lame.

It went up to a 5 when LJ pointed out that Kelly was dirtyish but not hot and this led to an actual discussion of the tenders.

Then it went to a 2 when it disintegrated into the usual thread about everybody, instead of about any topic in particular, which led to the insanely predictable side-taking and chucking of spears.

Have you got nothing but drama to share? Shuddup all you fux, and start some threads which are really cool.
LabRat • May 31, 2006 11:28 am
:love:

I think I'm gonna like it now that UT is one of 'us', and not a mod anymore:D

fux.

Bwa ha ha ha!
cableguy • May 31, 2006 11:56 am
priceless ;) Gotta admit, I got into the threaqd when the spears started flying. Why s that always so interesting? Maybe it's just me..........
SteveDallas • May 31, 2006 1:05 pm
Undertoad wrote:
. . . lame-ass . . . lame-ass . . . lame-ass . . . lamest . . . lame.

I appreciate your effort UT, but I don't think you've quite captured the complete lameness at work here.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 1:08 pm
Undertoad wrote:
I rate this thread a 2.

Steven please, don't start some lame-ass thread to get your lame-ass bartender some lame-ass vote whoring, which is just about the lamest thing the Internet is used for,... and then get all mad because someone called it lame.


First of all, she is not my "lame-ass bartender" - she's been my friend longer than she's bartended. So, thanks for insulting my friend. People here are wonderful.

And, there you go again... people think I am "mad" or insulted, or worried, or offended. I'm not. I am WONDERING why Margaret has to attack me in 95% of my threads. This time it is a thread where I was trying to help a friend. As I've said, I don't care if some of you interpret that as spam. And I don't mean that in a mean or angry way. I really don't care. I don't care that Margaret has to get her digs in at me everytime I post; not beyond the fact that it intrigues me why she has to be that way. So I call her on it almost everytime. I like to get a response to that everytime she does it. It's always been something that I wonder about, as to why people act that way online toward strangers.

So, now we all know [COLOR="Red"]A) [/COLOR] I am not mad, offended, upset, worried, nor concerned when I get insulted on a message board. It's just words on a screen. [COLOR="red"]B)[/COLOR] If you (the reader) insult me in every thread I make, or even 90% of them, I will start to ask you why, looking for a common thread. [COLOR="red"]C) [/COLOR]What you call spam here I call help for a good friend. [COLOR="red"] D)[/COLOR] I agree if I were someone that posted a similar lame internet contest request everyday/week/or even month, it would be spamming and annoying. And I'd expect you to agree. Instead of jumping in and trying to shout me down, and enjoying the band-wagon, why don't you just chill a bit? Since it's out of character for me to do so post internet polls like this, it should be obvious I am doing it to be nice. [COLOR="red"]E)[/COLOR] I posted it in Nothingland... because obviously it's just a little internet poll.

Anyone here that is "against" me or part of "us with UT" because you think I am upset or offended, is fighting the wrong battle.
xoxoxoBruce • May 31, 2006 1:25 pm
Steve, you didn't answer my question.

My first thought was Spam, but after checking out who posted it and what it was, I decided it was a "regular", shilling for a buddy. No harm, no foul.

Maggie saw it differently, and said so in her own charming :lol: way, which is her privilege.

There is really no reason to have a pissing match over suspected ulterior motives. That's like soooo 2005.
mrnoodle • May 31, 2006 1:36 pm
MAKE IT STOP GAHHHHHHHH

this is the last place in the world I would have expected to turn into a TotalBlog drama fest. :dedhors2: :thumbsdn:
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 1:46 pm
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
Steve, if you post something I consider spam, a painting I think is ugly or a poem I think is stupid, do you think I should follow the "if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all", rule, for fear of offending you? :confused:


Sorry, Bruce, I saw your question, then got distracted by other posts.

I'll get to the heart of the answer here. If you meant the "universal you" then, yes, I'd say be slightly more delicate in your criticism. If someone posts a poem, and you say "That fucking sucks, God damn, why are you always posting those crappy ass poems??" some might get offended by that. Why be that blunt when there are other ways to say it? I'd say if you know that you yourself put effort to be thoughtful while criticizing, then you can always say you tried, and didn't mean to offend. You might say, "Hey writing poems seems tough, and there are definitely parts of yours I didn't get. Did you mean to be funny, or was it me that didn't get it?" You know? Something like that? More constructive?

Or, you could actually mean to offend. Then, if it were me that wrote the poem, I would ask why you wanted to offend me when all I did was post a poem?

BUT... if you did not mean the "univeral you" in your question; if you're asking should you be afraid of offending me (SteveBsjb) I would say don't worry about me, nothing posted on a message board has ever offended me, or upset me.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 1:49 pm
xoxoxoBruce wrote:
Steve, you didn't answer my question.

My first thought was Spam, but after checking out who posted it and what it was, I decided it was a "regular", shilling for a buddy. No harm, no foul.

Maggie saw it differently, and said so in her own charming :lol: way, which is her privilege.

There is really no reason to have a pissing match over suspected ulterior motives. That's like soooo 2005.


Thank you for this too. I agree with all of it. Some others here seem not to. But the key word is always "seem". :)
MaggieL • May 31, 2006 1:50 pm
xoxoxoBruce wrote:

My first thought was Spam, but after checking out who posted it and what it was, I decided it was a "regular", shilling for a buddy. No harm, no foul.

Maggie saw it differently, and said so in her own charming :lol: way, which is her privilege.
Indeed...it's still spam, even it you think Stevebsjb is a "regular".

So...according to Steve:
We're being insulting (but he's not insulted), and
he's not upset (which is why he's posted about it so much), and
it can't be spam because
1) he doesn't do it much, and
2) because he's only doing it to be nice to one contestant (and screw over the others).

Good thing this all rolls off his back, or he'd be posting here all day until the bar opened.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 1:59 pm
MaggieL wrote:


So...according to Steve:
We're being insulting (but he's not insulted), and
he's not upset (which is why he's posted about it so much), and
it can't be spam because
1) he doesn't do it much, and
2) because he's only doing it to be nice to one contestant (and screw over the others).



This is mostly true, although:

1) Not everyone is being insulting. I am definitely not insulted.
2) I'm not upset. I post about it so much for other reasons.
3) It's not spam (to me) because it was me helping out a friend. I can't make you vote for my friend, and I am exposing you to the hotness of all the contestents. But since it's just a cheesy internet poll, who cares if they are getting their friends to vote through similar means? Well, I don't, anyway.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 2:01 pm
Though for me, the question of why Margaret enjoys attacking me so often has never been truly answered.
wolf • May 31, 2006 2:06 pm
SteveBsjb wrote:


BUT... if you did not mean the "univeral you" in your question; if you're asking should you be afraid of offending me (SteveBsjb) I would say don't worry about me, nothing posted on a message board has ever offended me, or upset me.


You seem to be expending an awful lot of text in an attempt to prove this to yourself.

The rest of us don't care that much. Really.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 2:26 pm
wolf wrote:
The rest of us don't care that much. Really.


Really? At least I speak only for myself. You can speak for the bandwagon.
Undertoad • May 31, 2006 2:26 pm
I retract the "lame-ass" wording that refers to your bartender. Perhaps she is a very nice person. The only fact we have is that she is attempting to achieve the title of Hottest Bartender in Manhattan. The chance that she is not lame-ass is slim, but granted, non-zero, and so I take that part back.

The rest of it remains lame-ass and is getting lamer-ass every second.
SteveBsjb • May 31, 2006 2:31 pm
Undertoad wrote:
I retract the "lame-ass" wording that refers to your bartender. Perhaps she is a very nice person. The only fact we have is that she is attempting to achieve the title of Hottest Bartender in Manhattan. The chance that she is not lame-ass is slim, but granted, non-zero, and so I take that part back.

The rest of it remains lame-ass and is getting lamer-ass every second.


Even the words "lame-ass" are getting to be lame-ass. And truly she is very nice. This thread was started with that simple premise as a motivator.
Undertoad • May 31, 2006 2:44 pm
I agree, I feel lame-ass for even continuing. Peace out.
Flint • May 31, 2006 4:00 pm
I don't think "lame-ass" is strong enough language!

Starting a thread like this...well....it sickens me. JEERS to Steve.

Threads like this only prove that Steve is a fat-ass fatty.
skysidhe • May 31, 2006 5:30 pm
wierd

people arn't caring this much.


people stop overreacting
Cheyenne • Jun 1, 2006 1:16 am
ok, i just voted just so i can be one of the lame-assfux; :p


and...to help out my friends friend ;)
Spexxvet • Jun 1, 2006 11:03 am
I just voted for all the others to offset your vote. :p :lol: OK, not really, I'm not going to waste my time.
SteveBsjb • Jun 1, 2006 12:23 pm
Thanks Chey!

Thanks Spexxvet (for not wasting your time)!