TLC, I think we won, but I'm not sure. Let's check Raging Bull: ragingbull.com (yes, this is really a real post—for the reals, man—like really dude, believe it or not, showing the argument of what we have found thus far, amongst the discussion boards, to be a typical BW supporter.)
“The preponderence of your collective posts will weigh heavily against you. All those snide remarks, snickers, woo hoo's, name calling, moron thread posts, ha ha's, derogatory remarks, etc etc etc. will do you in.”
____________________________________________________
<Plaintiff> Your Honour, I submit that under California State Civil Code Number (blah-blah-blah-blah-blah), defendants' utterances of, 'Ha Ha' are a legal violation. Furthermore, we feel that Assault With A Deadly Woo Hoo unfairly infringes upon the rights of our client.
<Judge> Hmmm…I see your point. What else do you have to offer?
<Plaintiff> Your Honour, our opponents actually snickered in a public area. As you know, this goes against Federal Regulation Number (blah-blah-blah-blah-blah).
<Judge> Interesting. And the Defendants plead…?
<Defendants> Your Honour, both Federal and State rules suggest that whilst a number of 'Woo Hoo's and 'Ha Ha's were comitted, they were well under the maximum tolerance allowed by law, and that snickers are provided for *if* the defendant has a fistful of peanuts in every bite, which clearly is the case here. Furthermore, snide remarks can be accounted for in the case of Lennon vs. McCartney as I cite forth from no less of an authority than The Antichrist: antichrist.com , “See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snide.…” Now—had defendants said woo woo a joob, woo woo a joob—there may have been a potential infraction as the precedent has been set forth for 'goo goo ga joob'. However, my client did not indulge in such a predicated travesty of justice.
<Judge> Well—a couple 'Woo Hoo's and 'Ha Ha's never hurt anyone. Case dismissed. Defendants are free to go. Raging Bull poster, "Ray-Jay-Johnson" is sentenced to 20 years hard labour for seriously abusing the legal privilege of being stupid. Whilst all citizens are certainly allowed the right to be stupid, serious abuse of this legal privilege cannot be tolerated by this Court. Adjourned! |
