Tuesday, April 06, 2010

Steven Jones "Would Be Very Sad" to See Holocaust Denier Leave Troof Movement

Adam Syed, whose Holocaust Denial I discussed here, posted an April Fools' Day Prank on 9-11 Blogger this week, in which he "announced" that he was now an ex-Troofer. Professor Jones commented:

I figured it must be an April Fools joke as I read your name, Adam.

You know about explosive nanothermite -- something the debunkers shy away from.

I would have been very sad to see you go and leave the fray...

Labels: , ,

60 Comments:

At 06 April, 2010 11:24, Blogger Sam said...

"..shy away from." HAH! Steven! Surely you jest! What use is peer-review if you don't read the reviews of your peers?

 
At 06 April, 2010 11:47, Anonymous Spud1k said...

How can one shy away from something that doesn't exist?

 
At 06 April, 2010 11:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Steven E. Jones wrote, "...You know about explosive nanothermite -- something the debunkers shy away from."

Really?

No kidding?

[1] Why did you test only the red and gray chips and not the entire sample?

[2] The chips have a laminar component, which suggests an adhesive coating. Tell us, why would any competent "scientist" "rule out" the "possibility the samples may be paint" by comparing the effects of Methyl Ethyl Ketone on normal paint versus the effect observed on the red chips? Why not use a more aggressive solvent, for example, hot acrylimide acetonitrile, which would allow separation, and thus, a real analysis of the samples? Clearly, you're either incompetent or a fraud. So which is it, Steven?

[3] You note the organic nature of your sample; nevertheless, you refuse to examine that portion of the sample. Why?

[4] You employ differential scanning calorimetry to measure the exothermic reaction in open air, which means you can't differentiate between the normal combustion components and the alleged thermitic reaction. This is a fraudulent analysis at best. Who do you think you're kidding, Steven?

[5] You employ scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive spectroscopy that reveals silicon, oxygen and aluminum present in the samples. Why do you refuse to address this anomaly? More fraud, Steven?

Sorry Steven, but your conclusions are not supported by the available data.

 
At 06 April, 2010 12:16, Blogger James B. said...

We hardly have shied away from it. I e-mailed Jones regarding his paper when it came out. He refused to answer a simple question.

I don't think you understood my question. I understand that you isolated these 4 samples and point out characteristics that you think distinguish them from paint. What I am asking is if you pointed out any material in the debris and positively identified those as paint. The only references I could find in the paper were to unspecified paint chips of unmentioned type or origin, I just wanted to make sure I was not missing anything.
- Hide quoted text -



On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Steven Jones wrote:

James, you wrote: "You argue that your red and grey chip samples
are "super-nano-themite" -- not quite right, and I invite you to read
the paper more carefully.

Regarding your other questions:
A number of critical tests are described in the paper, including
characterizations using SEM examination, XEDS analysis and ignition in
a Differential Scanning Calorimeter. These tests sufficed to
distinguish the highly-energetic thermitic red chips from other chips
observed in the dust.

To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic sub-
stance such as ordinary paint could match the characteristics we have
described would have to be accompanied by empirical dem-
onstration using a sample of the proposed material, including
SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses.
Steven Jones


On 4/6/09, James Bennett wrote:
> I have a quick question regarding your recent paper. You argue that your
> red and grey chip samples are "super-nano-themite" and not paint. Given
> that we know for a fact that there were large quantities of paint in the
> towers in general, and on the structural steel in specific, and that it
> would be a virtual impossibility for some of it not to flake off during the
> collapse, especially under the additional effect of explosives, what method
> did you use to separate your "thermite" samples from actual paint flakes in
> the dust? Also what characteristics did you identify of the actual paint
> flakes in the dust, and how did those characteristics distinguish these
> samples from those of thermite?
>
> thanks,
>
> James

Of course I never got a response.

 
At 06 April, 2010 13:16, Blogger Billman said...

James, maybe you and Pat could try to openly call him out for a debate on the plausibility of his magic paint, since he has declared that we "shy away" from the topic. Challenge him on that. See if he runs away or actually takes you up on it. I'm sure you guys have many ways of openly challenging him, since you've managed to debate Jon Gold, Jason Bermas and Dylan Avery in the past.

If he wants to state the standard troofer bald face lie of "debunkers won't touch this" challenge him on that. Then we'll all see who really shys away when he ignores your challenge.

 
At 06 April, 2010 13:21, Blogger Billman said...

Makes sure to address their repeated claims that "chain of custody is meaningless" while at the same time, foolishly letting all of the independent people who have been able to study their samples claim "the government deactivated my sample!"

 
At 06 April, 2010 13:24, Blogger Billman said...

Is Brian Good still around? Brian, if you're reading this, you once linked to me some online documents which showed a proposal about a substance that could lead to nano-structered super thermite, but also proved it still didn't exist yet. Think you could post that for me?

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology. ... The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. ... As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician’s paradise.” - Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1960.

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:32, Blogger Billman said...

The only non-troofer material I can find about nanostructured and yes SUPER thermites, ALWAYS says the applications for such a material would only be useful as a primer for ammunition, a primer for fireworks, and as a primer for flares.

A primer. NOT an explosive. What's even more intriguing is that it's recommended for INDOOR firework displays... implying it's safer than regular fireworks, and definately not an explosive used to bring buildings down.

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:35, Blogger Billman said...

The only reason the military seems interested in developing it, is because it would be cheaper to mass produce than what they are using now for primers. So, its an "evil" cost-cutting substance. Scray.

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if its not on the internet it doesnt exist? Billy you cant be that stoopid.

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:49, Blogger Billman said...

Even Steven jones himself has stated (after he published his paper that is) he has changed his mind that nanostructed super thermite was instead used as a fuse (I.e. primer) for some other explosive (material of which still has yet to be found or even postulated as to what it could be.)

Look, all explosives and destruction-causing materials leave behind some kind of clear evidence of their use. I have never heard of one that hasn't.

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:56, Blogger Billman said...

Hey, Anonymous.. where did I say I was specifically using the internet? I work in the security industry and sometimes I do contract work for the government (my organization recovered the so called "gold" from ground zero that you troofers claim was the reason they were blown up).

I am currently visiting my sister who works as a P.I. for the FBI in Washington D.C. I was bored today, so I went to visit a friend at the Pentagon who used to be a demolitions expert in the Marines. Were going over defense documents RIGHT NOW. Granted, I only have an inactive secret clearance...

 
At 06 April, 2010 14:56, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Look, all explosives and destruction-causing materials leave behind some kind of clear evidence of their use. I have never heard of one that hasn't."

I'm guessing it was a Hush-A-Bomb.

 
At 06 April, 2010 15:35, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous didn't "shy away" from me, did he? I wanted to hear more of his assumptions...

 
At 06 April, 2010 15:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heres a hush a bomb, with sparlers/thermite as explosive.
I guess it could be a twoofer fuckn with the volume, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXfMOvPD7Hs

 
At 06 April, 2010 16:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I guess it could be a twoofer fuckn with the volume, huh?"

That idiotic video proves NOTHING.

Stop wasting SLC's bandwidth with this brand of stupidity.

 
At 06 April, 2010 16:38, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

What's a sparlers/thermite explosive?

 
At 06 April, 2010 18:15, Blogger Sam said...

The explosion in sparkler bombs doesn't come from the thermite in sparklers. It comes from a battery placed inside that explodes when the sparkler fuel burns through its casing.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/801979/make_a_sparkler_bomb/

 
At 06 April, 2010 18:52, Blogger Pat said...

I looked at several of the refrigerator versus sparkler bomb videos, and there are several obvious obserations:

1. Most generate a loud noise, although the one selected by anonymous is much quieter.

2. Perhaps it is time to compare the amount of steel used in a refrigerator to the amount of steel in one of those core columns that the troofers usually speak so reverently about?

 
At 06 April, 2010 19:06, Blogger Sam said...

...and the glaring fact that the sparklers aren't what cause the explosion, its the battery inside.

 
At 06 April, 2010 19:16, Blogger James B. said...

While I know enough about the subject to point out logical inconsistencies, I am hardly well enough versed in science to debate the subject. There are plenty of guys over at the JREF forum who would tear Jones apart, but of course he would never do that. He insists that in order to listen to them they have to pay $800 to a Pakistani run vanity journal like he did.

 
At 06 April, 2010 19:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Actually, I've emailed my question's to Jones at least a dozen times, and I've never--not once--received a response him.

He's a fraud.

 
At 06 April, 2010 20:25, Blogger Billman said...

Fuck it. Let's all get about $800 then, and publish a response. I'd pony up $100 to do that.

 
At 06 April, 2010 21:20, Blogger Pat said...

Good point, Sam. IIRC Jones' latest claim is that the nanothermite is the fuse, not the explosive itself. Of course that still leaves us wondering what was the "battery".

 
At 07 April, 2010 00:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...Fuck it. Let's all get about $800 then, and publish a response. I'd pony up $100 to do that."

I'm in. And I'll gladly donate $1000 to the cause.

 
At 07 April, 2010 06:26, Blogger Billman said...

It seems you can do everything you need to publish with Betham Journals online. Why not? Jones used them...

GB, what do you need to get this accomplished?

 
At 07 April, 2010 08:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"what do you need to get this accomplished?"

Hmm. Let's see. A WTC dust sample. Scientific credentials. A DSC, SEM and a lab. And a sliver of intellectual integrity. I'd love to see you guys publish. I dare you to publish in Bentham!

As for GB's criticisms:
[1] What additional testing would you have wanted to see? How would this testing fit into a paper whose main focus is a detailed study of thermitic materials discovered in WTC dust?

[2] Could you go into detail why "acrylimide [sic] acetonitrile" is a better solvent than MEK? Do you have any scientific sources to back up this claim?

[3] "Refuse to examine" is a mischaracterization. Besides mentioning the carbon component and the carbon matrix many times in the report, the report states, in characteristic 10 under "Conclusions":

"The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction."

[4] Because that is exactly what Tillotson did with his sample, and Jones contacted him to ask. Had you read Tillotson's paper, you would have realized this.

(Thermitic material is defined by a thermitic reaction. The formation of molten iron-rich microspheres, previously not in sample, is conclusive evidence that this reaction occurred. Further TEM studies confirm no elemental iron present before, but present after ignition. This is what conclusively establishes a thermitic reaction)

[5] Why is the presence of silicon, oxygen and aluminum considered by you to be an "anomaly"? Can you explain?

 
At 07 April, 2010 10:39, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

JamesB the Boob 'fesses up:"..I'm hardly well enough versed in science to debate the subject".That leaves Paddy as the smart one.Hmmm.What's wrong with this picture?

 
At 07 April, 2010 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous,

You'll forgive me, but I'm due to board a flight to Atlanta in about 5 minutes (business emergency), so if I have the time while waiting for my connecting flight in Dallas, I'll answer your questions. If I don't have the time, I'll try to get to your questions this evening.

 
At 07 April, 2010 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Moron Holocaust denial in da Twoof

 
At 07 April, 2010 18:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah! I know the guys who do the plane refueling at DFW. They're all truthers.

Have a nice flight!

 
At 07 April, 2010 18:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous, do you actually read the posts you link to? Or do you just gloss over them with a flick of the mouse wheel and draw your conclusions from extreme prejudice?

That's an ANTI-Holocaust denial thread, you smattering bungler.

 
At 08 April, 2010 06:20, Blogger Bill said...

" And a sliver of intellectual integrity."

obviously you get that by claiming jesus was in north america.

 
At 08 April, 2010 07:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The tales of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both not supported by science. Yet many scientists are religious. Jones' (short) article does not state anywhere that Jesus visited America. It just researches parallels between Mayan and Christian spirituality, using depiction of stigmata as the link. You could see shit like that on Discovery Channel every day. All this was published on a page of the website of a deeply devout mormon university, BYU. That was it. All there was to it.

And.. you don't have publications in Nature about muon-catalyzed fusion, but Jones does. That must make him a crackpot, and you the smart guy, correct?

And... do you have similar excuse for Niels Harrit, Mark Basile, Kevin Ryan, Justin Keogh and Jeffrey Farrer? No you don't, but all you have is ad hominem, and published scientific rebuttals. Of course, Bentham is a "pay-for-play" journal, so it should be exceedingly easy to publish a rebuttal there to make Jones look like an ass. Well, we've been waiting for two years now. Nothing. Just lots of name-calling and specious straw grasping.

This thread was moving towards a fundraiser for publication in Bentham. Of course, a derail into ad hominem was only a matter of time, and the only recourse. Your publication idea will never materialize this way, and that's shame, because I would like Jones to be definitively proved wrong, for obvious reasons.

 
At 08 April, 2010 09:27, Blogger Bill said...

"The tales of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both not supported by science. Yet many scientists are religious. Jones' (short) article does not state anywhere that Jesus visited America. It just researches parallels between Mayan and Christian spirituality, using depiction of stigmata as the link. "

well obviously he feels very differently.

"Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas."

sounds like someone is trying to place religious dogma into scientific parameters.

"And.. you don't have publications in Nature about muon-catalyzed fusion, but Jones does. That must make him a crackpot, and you the smart guy, correct?"

when did i say i was or did? oh right...i am talking to a truther.

"And... do you have similar excuse for Niels Harrit, Mark Basile, Kevin Ryan, Justin Keogh and Jeffrey Farrer? No you don't, but all you have is ad hominem, and published scientific rebuttals. Of course, Bentham is a "pay-for-play" journal, so it should be exceedingly easy to publish a rebuttal there to make Jones look like an ass. Well, we've been waiting for two years now. Nothing. Just lots of name-calling and specious straw grasping."

ad hom? when did i do that? oh right, you're a truther. neils harritet et al? nope other than the fact that maybe jones should have selected people other than those who already agreed with his conclusions. but yes i have actual researched articles which passed real academics standards.

why should anyone put a rebuttle to an article which hans't actually passed academic rigor. i love how you guys want academia to suspend its standards then everyone should follow the ones you guys think are legitimate. sorry doesn't work that way. numerosu people have put forth arguments about his methodology and conclusions, some even on here, yet we have to go to the pseudo method jones decided to take to avoid real academia? boy you people should invest in some bulldozers if you are going to shift the burden so much.

"This thread was moving towards a fundraiser for publication in Bentham. Of course, a derail into ad hominem was only a matter of time, and the only recourse. Your publication idea will never materialize this way, and that's shame, because I would like Jones to be definitively proved wrong, for obvious reasons."

still waiting to see where i committed ad hom. you claimed he had this wonderful record, yet as we can see he isn't and provided an instance of that and further supported it here with his own words. oh well.

 
At 08 April, 2010 09:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ad hom? when did i do that? oh right, you're a truther"

ROFLMAO. Nuff said.

 
At 08 April, 2010 09:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't wait for that "rebuttle" ha ha ha ha

 
At 08 April, 2010 12:15, Blogger Bill said...

"ROFLMAO. Nuff said."

exactly..."LA LA LA LA!!!"

 
At 08 April, 2010 14:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous wrote, "...[1] What additional testing would you have wanted to see? How would this testing fit into a paper whose main focus is a detailed study of thermitic materials discovered in WTC dust?"

You haven't discovered "thermitic materials" in the dust. And to premise your "study" on a predetermined conclusion is intellectually dishonest; thus, you test the entire sample. It's simple, really, which explains why the idea escapes you.

"...[2] Could you go into detail why "acrylimide [sic] acetonitrile" is a better solvent than MEK? Do you have any scientific sources to back up this claim?"

Consult any second year text on Organic Chemistry for answers.

SLC, moreover, really doesn't give us the space for me to give you a full course in Organic Chemistry, Glenn.

Clue: Separations.

"...[3] 'Refuse to examine' is a mischaracterization. Besides mentioning the carbon component and the carbon matrix many times in the report, the report states, in characteristic 10 under 'Conclusions':"

The conclusions section of a "study" is hardly the place to perform a detailed analysis of the organic component of your "samples". And one paragraph doesn't cut it, Glenn.

Try again.

"...Had you read Tillotson's paper, you would have realized this...(Thermitic material is defined by a thermitic reaction. The formation of molten iron-rich microspheres, previously not in sample, is conclusive evidence that this reaction occurred. Further TEM studies confirm no elemental iron present before, but present after ignition. This is what conclusively establishes a thermitic reaction)"

I read Tillotson's paper, and it's irrelevant to the conversation.

A basic thermitic reaction:

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) ==> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

You have not proven the presence of "thermitic residue". The iron microspheres are the best evidence of some kind of huge thermal process that melted iron--nothing more; nothing less. Any reasonable scientist would expect that the plasma ARC torches used to weld and cut steel would produce spheres of molten iron; nevertheless, I would expect the iron to oxidize spheres to rust between the time of construction and the building's collapse.

Sources of iron-rich microspheres with a silicon component include weed whackers, cranes and excavators, automobile clutches, and sand papers that employ silicon blinding.

Finally, an unexplained phenomenon is the basis for formulating a hypothesis--period. It's not sufficient to jump to the conclusion that "nanothermite" was the only possible cause of the iron-rich microspheres, and then jump to the conclusion that there was a "conspiracy".

Got scientific logic?

"...[5] Why is the presence of silicon, oxygen and aluminum considered by you to be an 'anomaly'? Can you explain?"

See answer #4.

 
At 08 April, 2010 17:16, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

More blowhard schtick from the wired up,father of three crackhead in Cally.Hey asshole,now's the time to pony up that thousand and put together that paper you just know will crush Jones,et al.Put up or shut up you phony whackjob.

 
At 08 April, 2010 17:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie the cyber pud huffer wrote, "...More blowhard schtick from the wired up,father of three crackhead in Cally.Hey asshole,now's the time to pony up that thousand and put together that paper you just know will crush Jones,et al.Put up or shut up you phony whackjob."

I'll tell you what, scat muncher, you get Jones, et al, to submit there trash "peer reviewed" paper to the scientific community for evaluation (which they've NEVER done, by the way) and I'll write my paper and demolish him.

Deal?

Put up or shut up--you acephalic moron.

 
At 08 April, 2010 18:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction...

"...I'll tell you what, scat muncher, you get Jones, et al, to submit their trash 'peer reviewed' paper to the scientific community for evaluation..."

Sorry.

 
At 08 April, 2010 18:52, Anonymous Troof Ninja said...

*puff of smoke*

Arhoorie-san Okama Desu say: "Derp. Rogical Farracy. Derp. Ad-hominen attack. Derp."

This best you got, troof movement?

*puff of smoke*

 
At 08 April, 2010 19:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...GB, what do you need to get this accomplished?"

First, Jones et al, must publish their "peer reviewed" paper and submit the paper to the scientific community--which, by the way, they have never done.

All that's necessary after that is access to their "samples", a decent lab, the appropriate instrumentation to test the "samples" and a little time.

It's child's play.

 
At 09 April, 2010 12:39, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

GuitarShrill,you're abusing your magic mushroom supply and the neighborhood is becoming alarmed.DogBoy,you truly are sorry.

 
At 09 April, 2010 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie the Cyber cretin scribbles, "...GuitarShrill,you're abusing your magic mushroom supply and the neighborhood is becoming alarmed.DogBoy,you truly are sorry."

Really, Arsehoolie?

So when will you address the substance of my argument, instead of resorting to your customary litany of straw man arguments?

In fact, I'm still waiting for you to address Norm Mineta's fatally flawed time line.

What's the matter, Arsehoolie, cat got your tongue?

Or are you merely another "9/11 truther", who's so full-of-shit that you could stunt double as a dairy barn?

Got truth, prevaricator?

Bite me!

 
At 09 April, 2010 15:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie the cyber retard scribbles, "...GuitarShrill,you're abusing your magic mushroom supply and the neighborhood is becoming alarmed.DogBoy,you truly are sorry."

Perhaps you'll be kind enough to explain how the scientific community can verify Jones et als conclusions if Jones won't release his "samples" to the scientific community?

Face it, rimjob, your hero, Jones, is a fraud.

 
At 09 April, 2010 17:23, Anonymous Troof Ninja said...

*puff of smoke*

More derp from Arhoorie-san baka okama wa ichiban desu. Big surprise! You again fail to answer any question except to say "derp! Ad-hominem! derp!" We get t-shirt made of Arhoorie-san with this phrase. Big sell!

*puff of smoke*

 
At 10 April, 2010 10:28, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

More whining from the circle jerk! Alert:The Debunker Cult is being picked on,insulted and called names! All this in honor of a wild eyed and bushy tailed,self promoting,hack wedding performer guitar fan from Yuppie Central casting,who cannot even answer a simple question.It's been deemed "irrelevant" by......well,himself! Sorry,Chief,you're already hoist on your own petard,swinging in the breeze.You're the one who brought it up.Link us again to your ludicrous claim that Cheney and the aide were talking about #93,as it was 10 miles out at one point.You blew it,Son,and now you're the one skedaddling backwards.Oh yeah,I forgot,you're a Graduate Student in an Advanced Program at the School of Coincidence Schematics.We'll grade you on a curve.

 
At 10 April, 2010 12:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You just don't get it do you asshole?

Mineta's time line is off by a minimum of 30 minutes to one hour.

Now I know that you're still working on how to read a clock, shit-for-brains, so get back to us when you finally "matriculate" from elementary school.

 
At 12 April, 2010 14:07, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

You can't fool anyone Iron Butt.You've got plenty of time on your hands,what with your wife and daughters giving you a wide berth lately.Get on that paper YuppieBoy.You're loaded hey Tiger,pony up my man.No one else in the Debunker Cult has taken a stab at it.

 
At 12 April, 2010 15:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'll gladly take a stab at it, asshole.

But first your man, Steven E. Jones, must turn over his "dust samples" to the scientific community, which he steadfastly refuses to do.

Any more bullshit for us, con artist?

 
At 12 April, 2010 15:30, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

That's about all you'll do,take a stab at it.You're already talking like the defeated schnook you are."I'll take a stab at it"!!! Har-Har-hardee har har!! Your macho act is a no-go,jackoff.

 
At 12 April, 2010 19:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Arsehoolie the cyber troll, just keep changing the subject and spewing your customary litany of straw man arguments.

So tell us, shit-for-brains, when will Jones turn his alleged "dust samples" over to the scientific community?

(GuitarBill's conservative estimate: When Hell freezes over.)

 
At 13 April, 2010 17:10, Anonymous Arhoolie the Goober Crusher said...

The guy who avoids maps is accusing people of changing the subject? Oof!!!! What's it like being piled high onto a scrap heap with PornBoy and the Sackdoily?

 
At 13 April, 2010 22:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Talk is cheap, Arsehoolie the pud huffer, and so are you.

 
At 14 April, 2010 11:59, Anonymous GuitarShrill's Whimper (Faintly) said...

Yes,but just affordable enough to clean your clock and get you to whining like nobody's business.

 
At 14 April, 2010 14:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie, let's play horse. Okay?

I'll be the front end and you be yourself.

 
At 15 April, 2010 15:38, Anonymous Arhoolie the Cyber-Hero said...

Kla-boom!!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home