having trouble here..

got leftover vino in the fridge from lunch today, i get it out, i drop the bottle.

nice. cleanup.

i open another bottle, pour a glass, sit at my desk bored..
and i chuck the glas of wine over my desk

What The Hell?

I haven't even managed to get enough booze in me to be considered legally drunk.

So now what

Do i drink more, and potentially end up breaking more stuff?
or just call it quits and go to bed?

Frankly, not much left i can break, other then the second bottle of wine, or maybe some plate glass window?

having trouble here..

got leftover vino in the fridge from lunch today, i get it out, i drop the bottle.

nice. cleanup.

i open another bottle, pour a glass, sit at my desk bored..
and i chuck the glas of wine over my desk

What The Hell?

I haven't even managed to get enough booze in me to be considered legally drunk.

So now what

Do i drink more, and potentially end up breaking more stuff?
or just call it quits and go to bed?

Frankly, not much left i can break, other then the second bottle of wine, or maybe some plate glass window?

Change to drinking canned beer :) I can send you some cans of Coors Light :eek:

light?


them's fighting words over here.
I
do
not
do
"light"



No light butter
No light cheese
No light Coke
No light Beer
No light nothing.

The only thing i want to be light, is the 911 i'm going to build.
Res Ipsa Loquitur

Did you spill some booze on your keyboard?? It's doubleposting again.... :D:D

Res ipsa loquitur:

Res ipsa loquitur is a common law theory on the use of circumstantial evidence in tort liability on a negligence theory. The term comes from Latin and means "the thing itself speaks," but is more often translated "the thing speaks for itself." The theory allows the plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence to meet the burden of proof in negligence cases for only the first two elements: duty and breach. Proving these two elements means that, in fact, the defendant was negligent. However, the plaintiff must still prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's negligence was the cause-in-fact of the harm and the proximate cause of the harm before he can recover from the defendant. The theory only applies when, as a matter of law, there is enough evidence to allow a trier of fact to come to a conclusion. It was first formulated in the English 1863 case Byrne v. Boadle.[1]

SHORT VERSION: That speaks for itself....

i'm to fast for this board

i'll say even more, "res ipsa loquitur" was a term of which Hunter S Thompson was quite fond of, and since i'm quite fond of HST, i'm using it to keep his spirit alive.

Laserbeams struggle to keep up with you, that's how fast you are... ;)

you ain't seen nothing yet

g-man, you wouldn't happen to know a good alu welder via your line of work?

i'm to poor for my wants and to bored for my budget.

I'll ask around.
We probably have some guys at work, but I need to ask first. And I'll be needing to take the case with me.
Next week I'll drop by the office and I'll let you know.

cool, i'm in no rush whatsoever, build time is at least a full year away, probably 2 years.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I reset all my clocks before I went to bed, all except my body clock.

morning rick

Lol Rick, you're early!!

Goodmorning nonetheless.
(and to the rest of y'all)

Damn time screwed up Skype...

Morning fellas,
Well if the time change messed me up just think how my poor daughter feels. Yesterday she was 6 hours behind me, then she gets here and starts to reset everything, and today has to do it all again (I neglected to tell her of the pending time change) then back to being 5 hours behind me in a couple of weeks.
Oh man I am gonna have some fun with her. hehehehe

I'm wondering what Sidney is up too..... Last I heard, it was more shots of Crown Royal and that chick came back over....