T1B

Posted: **Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:34 pm**

Dude, I've been agreeing with you about Morse and the Dregs for as long as I've known you. That was always one helluva riduclously good band and yeah, it was always the pinnacle of Morse's playing too.

I've yet to hear him do anything in Purple or Kansas that approaches his playing in the Dregs.

As for YJM's volume, seriously, it was just plain stupid. It's not like I haven't been involved in plenty of over-the-top-loud situations, both as a player and a spectator.

Zeppelin at the Forum in '77 was pretty crushing.

Believe it or not there was one synth part during a Heart concert that literally vibrated rivets out of the seat in front of me. The sound pulses were pressing on my chest.

The last G3 show I attended in Reno had moments of sheer volume induced pain, again during YJM's set.

I've gone through many hours of preamp and power tube testing with a Legacy 100w 3/4 stack where I stupidly didn't wear ear plugs. I managed to shake shit from shelves in my living room. Broke one of my wife's family heirloom pieces of china that way.

That was deathly loud, but at least I controlled it. I could roll back on the guiitar and give myself a needed break every now and then.

That last YJM show though, in that little club, I've never been involved in anything like it. I've seen tons of people in small clubs. They usually make some effort to be room appropriate, volume wise. Not YJM. His show was the first time in my life where sound waves coming from his cabinets were literally moving the hair on people's heads, twenty feet away. My t-shirt was being pressed against my body, like I was facing a slight breeze.

We were quite literally being physically assaulted by the volume.

When he would hit the B or high E string above the 15th fret it would ratchet up the pain. Somehow though it became much worse when he'd then grab the tremolo bar. Dunno why but when he'd tremolo on top of a high note everybody, and I mean everybody, reacted negatively to it.

I've been to shows where my wife and some other women in the crowd would occasionally cover their ears due to the volume. That YJM show was the only show I've ever been to where the whole crowd did it, and they kept having to do it over and over.

Keep in mind, this was a rock/metal crowd too. Everyone there was well used to loud, guitar driven concerts.

Didn't matter. That one was just freakishly loud. There was no regard whatsoever for the audience. When it was over a lot of people milled around afterwards and most of the talk was about how everyone's ears were ringing and what an asshole these people were for pushing that much volume in such a small room.

We all felt like we were under water, for a good day or two.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:10 am**

How is your hearing, after being exposed to such loud volumes for so many years? Did you at least ever get into the habit of wearing ear plugs?

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:20 am**

On the bright side though, hey, you and Pickle share something.

Posted: **Tue Jan 13, 2009 3:54 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
Van wrote:On the bright side though, hey, you and Pickle share something.

Better tinnitus than a black penis in one's ass.

Fixed.

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:28 am**

Jesus, how difficult is this, NCAA?

-Take your top eight teams, according to the final regular season rankings. No conference tie ins and no automatic bids for anybody. Just the top eight teams.

-Seed them one through eight and have them play each other in the four major BCS bowl games. No conference tie ins here either and ALL FOUR GAMES would be played on January 1st, the way God and most of our work schedules intended. Make New Year's Day special again and make those big bowl games games really matter again, the way they used to really matter. No more half filled Orange Bowls, due to crappy ACC and Big Least teams receiving automatic bids to a game no one cares to watch. No more Consolation Bowls, where a USC is stuck playing a three loss Illinois team.

No more meaningless exhibition games masquerading as important games. The four BCS bowl games will again be HUGE, they way they're supposed to be.

-In this instance we would now have Utah, USC, Texas and Florida still standing.

-Two semi final games the following week, with their locations to be rotated annually, in the same way the BCS Title Game is now rotated annually among the four BCS bowl game locales. Again the pairings would be based on the remaining seeds.

-The title game would be nearly as big as the Super Bowl. I'd throw a sorely needed economic bone to Katrina ravaged New Orleans. I'd give the Louisiana Superdome the college football title game every year. The fans, players and media all love going to the French Quarter for a bowl game and since it's a domed stadium weather will never be a concern. New Orleans is the best locale in America for a January bowl game, other than maybe Miami.

That's what I'd do with the title game locale, but it's not a crucial component. We could simply rotate the title game locale every year, so as to not give the SEC an unfair advantage of always having the title game in their own backyard. We could stick it in Jerry Jones' new palace. Las Vegas could build a stadium and wouldn't the CF world love to hold their season ending orgy in the best place on earth to hold a bacchanal?

Whatever. Wherever. It's not that important, the locale of the title game. It's just a detail.

Since there's already one additional game played after the four BCS bowl games this system here would ony involve two extra games, total, to decide a real championship.

Moreover, no team in the history of college football who was ranked outside the top eight by the end of the reguar season ever had a realistic argument for being the national champion. So, sure, we'd still have an annual debate over which team got that final eighth seed. Big deal. That's one very small argument compared to what we have now and compared to what we had before the advent of the BCS system. The teams that are stuck arguing over that eighth seed should just count themselves lucky that they're even in the hunt. Under the current system or the pre BCS system they wouldn't get a sniff.

This isn't rocket science.

It involves only two extra games involving only four teams, so the argument that a playoff system would be too taxing on the "student athletes" is ridiculous.

The other argument always tossed around, the one that says any sort of playoffs would diminish the importance of the regular season (try selling the "importance of the regular season" argument to Texas and Utah right about now), that one is also moot. This system makes the regular season more important since it affords eight teams a chance at the whole enchilada, rather than just two. It's still based on the season ending rankings.

This system not only retains the all important and much cherished bowl games, it elevates the importance of those very bowl games. No longer will we see SEC teams or OU teams having the fall back rationale of "We don't give a crap about this game! We hate this match up! It's a lose-lose situation for us!" as an excuse for not being fired up for their BCS bowl game.

This system also gives non BCS conference teams like Utah a real fighting chance to win it all, which simply is not the case right now.

Finally, it removes the stigma of D1 CF being the only major team sport in America (college or pro) that doesn't actually determine its champion on the field.

Considering the alternative, there is no sound argument against this system. Whatever little detail flaws that might need to be worked out, fine, work 'em out. The end result is still worlds better than what we have, and what we used to have. There's no way it isn't, not unless you're simply a fan of Olympic figure skating judges and other overtly biased beauty pageant style methods of determining champions.

Jim Delany must die. In the most perfect of beautiful ironies I hope a recently paroled and utterly insane Maurice Clarett randomly breaks into Delany's house looking for crack money. If there's any justice at all he'll tie Delany to a radiator and he'll light the place on fire before he makes his escape in a stolen Pontiac, leaving Delany to burn to a mealy mouthed crisp. In a fitting final moment before he descends into hell Delany's final anguished cry of "No!! No plaaaaayoffs!!" will be heard by precisely...nobody.

I think it's more difficult than it may seem. I really don't see how you do more than a Plus-One. There's too many obstacles.

Things people don't take into consideration are finals. You can't play playoff games during Finals week and every school doesn''t have the same finals weeks. So basically, in order to even start the playoffs you have to wait until late December. Then you've got to realize the students are on break so you'll lose attendance if you play the games at home fields. On top of that you've got the weather factor. I'm sorry, but playing games in the midwest in December/January is nuts. I know, I know......they do it in the NFL. Yeah, and it proves nothing. We don't ever find out who the best team is when every game just comes down to who makes fewer mistakes in nasty weather. Proves nothing. You can't start an 8 team playoff on January 1 for 2 reasons.......by the time it's over there will be players on the roster that aren't even enrolled in classes since 2nd semesters will start before the playoffs are over and also January is when conference basketball season starts and there's no way the NCAA wants that to get overshadowed. If you have a playoff going in January, no one will care about college hoops until February just like the non-conference season already gets overlooked because of the college football season ending and transitioning into bowl season. So there's a major problem. The games can't be played in the middle of December due to finals and you can't have the playoffs starting in January. Neither will ever happen.

Can't have the games at neutral fields or it turns into the Super Bowl where everyone in attendance has no affiliation with the teams involved. It's not like college hoops where you only need 17,000 or so fans or the 1-AA playoffs. You need 70,000 at these games and 70,000 fans aren't traveling 3 weeks in a row all over the country. It's not gonna happen.

Everyone wants "the top 8 teams". Okay, well what do you mean by "top 8 teams"? Top 8 BCS ranked teams? Top 8 fan poll teams? Top 8 lucky lottery winning teams? Top 8 is subjective and there's no way around it. There's always going to be 3-4 teams out there that think they're Top 8 that won't make it.

This system also gives non BCS conference teams like Utah a real fighting chance to win it all, which simply is not the case right now.

I think you're wrong on both ends. Teams like Utah do have a chance. It's called play top level teams in the non-conference, go unbeaten and then you'll be in. Beating mid-level BCS teams and running the table in a mid-major doesn't make you worthy of national title contention. It's just not the same as having to go through the Big-12 or SEC or other BCS conferences week in and week out. And I don't think a playoff gives them more of a shot because they still need to finish in the Top 8 of the BCS standings and because of politics, the voters will do everything in their power to keep schools like Utah out of the Top 8. You'll see AP and Coaches Poll voters putting them as far down in their rankings as possible and the computers will never love them because they play a mediocre schedule. It might help a little, but not as much as you might think.

I think there's a way to have a pseudo-playoff system but a traditional playoff system will never happen for the reasons I stated above. It's more difficult than people seem to think.

Here's what I propose......

Conference championship week leads into the playoffs and the games will be played in late December. Every conference has a championship game.

The BCS rankings will come out before the championship games and we'll get a Top 8 It's not perfect because you have the human/computer factor but it's better than anything else.

The 4 winners will be seeded in the BCS based on their pre-conference championship game ranking. If a winner is not in the Top 8 they don't make the BCS. Their bowl destination will be determined before the conference championship game, win or lose.

There will be 3 BCS Bowl games every year (Rose, Sugar, Orange......Fiesta just becomes a regular Jan 1 game). 1 of them serves as the title game (and you can rotate this every year).

If all 4 conference champions were ranked in the Top 8 of the BCS before the conference championship games, they all will go to the BCS and the seedings will be determined by BCS ranking. A week later we have the BCS title game.

Now, let's say only 3 of the conference champions were ranked in the Top 8........then that would leave open the door for the next highest BCS ranked team to take their spot.

This gives the mid-majors a shot.......if they're ranked in the Top 8 of the BCS and win their conference championship game.

I think this could work. It's not perfect by any means, but it's a better format than what I've seen proposed.

Posted: **Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:57 pm**

Jon, I take it you didn't even read what you C&P'd before you attempted to answer it.

Finals week issues? I gave the eight playoff teams the entire month of December off, same as they have now. Their first playoff game would be no earlier than January 1, same as it is now. If finals aren't a problem now they wouldn't be under my system either.

Bad weather? In the Superdome, Rose, Fiesta and Orange Bowls? They already hold the BCS bowls there, in January, for a very good reason. If bad weather isn't a problem now it wouldn't be under my system either.

Teams like Utah already have a fair shot, they just need to schedule better? Oh really? Wanna go ahead and compare Utah's SOS with that of Taco Tech's or Bama's? Utah went out of conference to beat Michigan in the Big House abd they also beat Oregon St. Oregon St is better than anybody Taco Tech or Bama played OOC. In conference Utah beat BYU and TCU. TCU is ranked higher and is better than anybody Bama beat in the SEC.

Then Utah destroyed Bama in SEC Country, beating them much more easily than Florida beat Bama.

Despite all this Bama was ranked #1 for five weeks and they controlled their own destiny in the title game chase.

Despite all this Utah never had even a small chance at playing in the title game. They weren't Hawaii last year, or Boise St of a couple years ago. Utah played a real schedule in 2008; as real as most any BCS conference team's schedule, and still Utah never had a prayer.

We're not even talking apples to apples here either. Utah ran the table, going undefeated against a tougher schedule than those enjoyed by many BCS conference teams, including Bama. Every other team in the country had at least one loss.

Still no shot for Utah.

So, what more do they need to do? Must their OOC schedule consist of USC, Florida and USC again? 'Cause we all know how ambitiously most BCS conference teams schedule OOC, right? That's what everybody else is doing, isn't it?

Maybe Utah needs to schedule home games against D1-AA Maine, dogshit Fla Intl and dogshit Iowa St as their OOC slate? Sound familiar?

Or how about four home games against North Texas, Troy, Tulane and D1-AA App St? That is a BCS title team's schedule. Would that slake your bloodlust?

Maybe if they went with Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU and Massachusetts? (Massachusetts even plays football??) That one looks like TWO D1-AA teams!

Louisiana Monroe, Memphis, Wake and Samford? ~shivers~

La Tech, SE Lousiana and Middle Tennessee St? Nothing but Weathervane Tech schools! How 'bout that juggarnaut of a schedule?

North Texas, Louisville, Louisiana Lafayette and Montana Freaking St?

How bout this murderer's row of Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, Fla Atl and everybody in the north's favorite cream filled croissant, Montana Freaking St?

Would any of these BCS conference program 2008 schedules afford Utah a realistic shot? Yes, they would, provided the team that played them wasn't Utah.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:37 am**

Yes, Utah did play a tougher OOC than Texas Tech or some other teams. Problem is that's only 1/4 your schedule. Like I said, if a team like that wants to play for a title, they need to go OOC and play someone better than Oregon State. Michigan was 3-9. It's not their fault Michigan just happened to suck this year, but still.......their schedule was mediocre overall. They did not play 1 single team during the regular season that was even Top 15 material.

I gave the eight playoff teams the entire month of December off, same as they have now. Their first playoff game would be no earlier than January 1

Can't do that either. Remember, hoops conference season begins the beginning of January and there's no way the NCAA is going to let that get overshadowed until February or late January. Not a chance.

Besides, you can't start a playoff system a month and a half after the season. It would need to be started in late December just before Christmas.

I agree with you 100% a playoff needs to happen. Just something better than what we currently have. I just think it's more difficult to get set up than people seem to think.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:05 pm**

TheJON wrote:Yes, Utah did play a tougher OOC than Texas Tech or some other teams. Problem is that's only 1/4 your schedule. Like I said, if a team like that wants to play for a title, they need to go OOC and play someone better than Oregon State. Michigan was 3-9. It's not their fault Michigan just happened to suck this year, but still.......their schedule was mediocre overall. They did not play 1 single team during the regular season that was even Top 15 material.

Like I said, you didn't even read my post before commenting on it.

You also don't know what you're talking about. The best team Bama beat all season long (Georgia) was ranked no higher than 10th and as low as 17th, across the three major polls. (AP, Coaches' poll and Harris poll.) The best team Utah beat (TCU) was ranked 7th in all three polls.

Oregon St also ended the season ranked just about the same as Georgia across the three polls.

In addition to playing a better OOC schedule Utah beat BYU and TCU in conference and TCU is ranked significantly higher and they're better than anybody Bama beat all season long, either OOC or in the SEC. Didn't stop Bama from being ranked #1 for five straight weeks and it didn't stop Bama from controlling their own destiny.

For that matter Florida didn't beat anybody as highly ranked as TCU either, not until they beat Bama.

Pretty sure Utah played Bama too. How'd that go again?

I gave the eight playoff teams the entire month of December off, same as they have now. Their first playoff game would be no earlier than January 1
Can't do that either. Remember, hoops conference season begins the beginning of January and there's no way the NCAA is going to let that get overshadowed until February or late January. Not a chance.

Huh??

The BCS championship game is already played on January 7th or 8th. There's already a shitload of bowl games played on or after January 1.

My system would only extend the season by one week and even then it would only extend it for two teams.

January 1...Four games
January 8...2 games
January 15...title game

One extra week. Two teams. That's it. The opening of hoops conference play?? WGARA, compared to a CF Super Bowl! The two can easily co-exist.

Besides, you can't start a playoff system a month and a half after the season. It would need to be started in late December just before Christmas.

Says who? Why? They already make OSU wait even longer to play their bowl game, if their bowl game is the Fiesta, Sugar or BCS title game.

You wanna shorten that lay off? Great. Quit ending your regular season before Thanksgiving. There's no reason the Big 10 needs to be ending their regular season a minimum of two weeks earlier than everyone else.

For everyone else the layoff between their last game in early December and January 1 is quite manageable.

I agree with you 100% a playoff needs to happen. Just something better than what we currently have. I just think it's more difficult to get set up than people seem to think.

The only reason this system would be difficult to set up is because TPTB won't allow it to happen. The logistics of this system couldn't be much simpler and easier. It only involves one extra weekend of games involving only two extra games, total. Logistically, it doesn't get much simpler than that.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:54 pm**

UH-OHHHHHH!

Well, after the Triumphant Return of Vannar...

That didn't take long.

Van wrote:You also don't know what you're talking about. The best team Bama beat all season long (Georgia) was ranked no higher than 10th and as low as 17th, across the three major polls.

Remind me again, who was the AP preseason #1?

How about after Week 1?

Week 2?

How did you feel about Week 3, Van?

4?

Dude how badly does this suck... you now need to fucking EJECT from your own fucking Triumphant Return thread?

Has that ever happened before?

Not that the dude you're replying to isn't a fucking idiot as well, since OS was quite possibly ranked higher than Michigan when those games were scheduled... but two wrongs don't make a right, and two clueless dipshits don't make a particularly compelling SoS discussion.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:32 pm**

Dins, who the fuck cares about the validity of preseason rankings??

YOU sure don't.

Georgia? Clemson? Auburn? Arizona St? Wisconsin?

Where were they ranked, in the beginning of the season?

Right.

How did they turn out, is what matters. You know this as well as anyone.

In beating TCU Utah beat a better team than anybody Bama beat all season long...which you also know.

Nice try though, at the whole shit stirring contrarian thing.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:47 pm**

Van wrote:Dins, who the fuck cares about the validity of preseason rankings??

How about after 1 week?

How about 2 weeks?

3?

4?

Nice try though, at the whole shit stirring contrarian thing.

Oh, oh no you DI'UHNT!

Let's review, shall we?

Van wrote:(Georgia) was ranked no higher than 10th and as low as 17th, across the three major polls. (AP, Coaches' poll and Harris poll.)

OK now Van...

DID YOU, OR DID YOU NOT make a false statement to try and back up your point?

This is a "YES" or "NO" question, bear in mind.

So, did you make false claims, YES OR NO?

That could be perceived as a rhetorical question, btw, since we both know the answer.

And now you have the fucking nerve to call someone else "contrarian" and then do a 180 and now claim the early polls don't matter... AFTER YOU CITED THEM AS SUPPORTING YOUR POINT?

You not only cited "all season long," you did so incorrectly. And now, after being called out for... I guess the word "lying" fits here, you're now going with "well, those polls don't matter anyway"?

Really?

Dude -- it's your un-retirement thread. I can think of no worse place to plunger yourself.

C'mon dude -- you can do a better duck-and-spin move than that.

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:35 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Van wrote:Dins, who the fuck cares about the validity of preseason rankings??
How about after 1 week?

How about 2 weeks?

3?

4?

No, no, no and no. The official BCS rankings don't even come out until Week 6, primarily because most of those earlier games are LSU vs Northwest Assfucked.

You know better than this, Dins. We wait until the end of the season before we truly put any stock in rankings.

Nice try though, at the whole shit stirring contrarian thing.

Oh, oh no you DI'UHNT!

Pretty sure I di'id!

Let's review, shall we?

Yes, let's!

Van wrote:(Georgia) was ranked no higher than 10th and as low as 17th, across the three major polls. (AP, Coaches' poll and Harris poll.)

That was fucking brilliant, if I do say so myself. I actually used real rankings from real sources to counter Jon's silly comment that Utah never played a single team deserving of anything like a Top 15 ranking.

:pats myself on the back:

OK now Van...

You're sexy when you're condescending; kinda like a newly minted nun who first lays hands on her disciplinary ruler.

DID YOU, OR DID YOU NOT make a false statement to try and back up your point?

The answer there would be..."no." I used a factual statement to back up my factual point.

This is a "YES" or "NO" question, bear in mind.

Those are never as much fun but whatevah.

So, did you make false claims, YES OR NO?

Lessee here...

Utah was ranked 7th, 7th and 7th by the AP, Coaches' and Harris polls.

Georgia was Bama's highest ranked victory and they were ranked 10th, 13th and 17th.

I'm gonna again have to go with "no." In no way did I make any false claims. I made factual ones, which I supported with facts.

This is kinda boring, by the way. I like your essay type questions better. Maybe you could surreptitously show me some reluctantly hot nun gash while you're grilling me?

That could be perceived as a rhetorical question, btw, since we both know the answer.

I rather see it as a fatuous waste of time type question, since the answer is plainly evident and it supports my contention.

And now you have the fucking nerve to call someone else "contrarian" and then do a 180 and now claim the early polls don't matter... AFTER YOU CITED THEM AS SUPPORTING YOUR POINT?

Umm, no. I said the preseason polls don't matter. The season ending polls are a much more accurate measure of a team's worth so those are the polls I quoted to refute Jon's point.

You somehow missed that one. Again.

Just for your edification though, here are all three polls...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5471317/

Now, Dins, you'll have to click on the appropriate link at the top of the page in order to see the AP poll, the Coaches' poll and the Harris poll. The page that will first come up only displays the AP poll.

All three polls are listed at this link. Wouldn't want you to say I was "lying" or anything.

In fact, I'll even throw you one extra bone.

Here are the final 2008 BCS standings...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings

Hey! Looky there! Utah is ranked 6th while Georgia is ranked 15th.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Jon's contention that Utah didn't play a single Top 15 worthy team, and that their schedule wasn't good enough to play for the title?

Furthermore, didn't Bama's best win come against Georgia, who finished every single poll ranked well below TCU?

Wouldn't you agree that these facts pretty much shoot to hell Jon's contention about Utah's lack of a competitive schedule and any quality wins? Clearly Utah's resume made them more deserving of a higher ranking than Bama, and that was before Utah destroyed Bama. Hell, that was true even before Bama lost to Florida.

If not, ie, if you don't agree, then you're a fucking moron. I know you're not a fucking moron though, which is why I know you don't disagree with me at all here.

You're just Dinsing. Which is cool. Wouldn't be right if you di'uhnt.

You not only cited "all season long," you did so incorrectly.

Nope. "All season long," by definition, includes...the whole season. Can't exactly do an "all season long" determination of worth until all of the season has been played; now can ya', skippy?

Polls taken during Week 1 or Week 4 REALLY DON'T MATTER.

Tell me you knew.

And now, after being called out for... I guess the word "lying" fits here, you're now going with "well, those polls don't matter anyway"?

Negatory, captain.

My contention has been consistent and correct this entire time. Bama never once this season beat a team that was better than TCU and never once did they beat anybody out of conference that was as good as Oregon St. Utah did both things. I used three different well known polls and now one final BCS rankings to back up this claim.

Somehow though Bama had a clear ride into the title game while Utah never had a prayer.

That's a buncha bullshit.

That would be the gist of it...the long and short of it..the yin and yang and the forever and anon of it.

Really?

Really. Indubitably.

Dude -- it's your un-retirement thread. I can think of no worse place to plunger yourself.

It's my un-retirement thread. I can think of no better place for you to come in all fire and brimstone; full of nothing more than hot air and Dinsian chutzpah.

Still waiting for you to counter a single thing I've said. Maybe if I take another two years off from posting you'll use that time to come up with something good?

C'mon dude -- you can do a better duck-and-spin move than that.

I certainly could, should the need ever arise. It never has. So far and especially in this thread it's all been cold milk, nice graham crackers and straight lines down the backs of silk stockings so I haven't had to do anything more than simply lay out the obvious facts.

May I look forward to stiffer tests at some later date?

Posted: **Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:06 pm**

Dude, careful about the cholesterol. We (well, most of us) like you better here than in a hospital bed.

In any case there won't be much more entertainment value from Dins in this thread. Oh, sure, he'll likely attempt some sort of face saving semantics driven mindfuckery but in the end he has nothing with which to dispute my point to Jon.

Hopefully though, like the shark on the deck of the fishing trawler you thought was already done for, Dins will favor us with at least one final slash and flail before he expires.

He took his shot though. Kudos. Can't ask for anything more.

Hopefully he won't fuck anyone up with his final raging death rattle.

Posted: **Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:12 am**

Abbriviated version:

Gettin' good, Mace. :D

T1B

Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...

Re: Screw it...