It was a Simpson’s reference after Chief Pedant’s Lord of the Flies comment.
Oh, ok. I see. You’re just nuts. Carry on then.
Looters should be shot on sight.
That said, I will add a caveat. If I see someone grabbing diapers and baby formula and maybe some bread, I’ll probably help them carry their “loot.” But if they’re trying to load a plasma screen TV into their canoe, I will be a bit less helpful. :dubious:
If you had been there, you’d have pissed your pants and cried for your momma. Fuck off.
deleted
Funny, I don’t remember King or Gandhi advocating putting noxious substances into food orders of customers just because you don’t like them.
Seriously, dude, you need therapy, big time. Either that or to be locked up.
me, three.
Loud nonviolence and love, no doubt.
I wonder if we’ll see “The Simpsons Defense”. After all, Beavis and Butthead was blamed for some kid setting a place on fire.
-Joe
Why not both?
Am I the only one who thought this thread was about uninformed looters?
No. See post #5. And if you’re wearing a uniform, that’d make you a uniformed uninformed poster.
I read it at first as “Uninformed lobsters”. :smack:
Thank goodness I wasn’t the only one. Although I read it as “uniformed lobsters”, which made for a few minutes of amusing imagery.
It’s even thinner than that.
We had a guy in our tent killed in a plane crash. The NEXT DAY someone came wandering by and asked (I don’t want to be a ghoul, but …) if he could go through the guy’s foot locker for anything that might be of use to him.
I’m not a bit surprised at the incident in Kansas.
That could have meant that British redcoats were looting the place since “Thomas’ lobsters” or just “lobsters” was a common nickname for them.