News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #675 on: June 02, 2007, 12:45:24 PM »
You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/b]


When pro's practice putting they usually place down tees for some point of reference. Be it aiming or for speed. I've even seen them use clubs to assist them with alignment.


The functionality issue is one that must be proved by you?

Do stats show an increase in the number of putts sunk by those who align their balls markings? How about the seam?
 
Are there any facts tht back up your assertion that the funcionality is the same?

And the above quote which attempts to either insult or demeen Bryan's point, hurts your argument. At least in spirit. Or the recognition of same.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #676 on: June 02, 2007, 01:05:27 PM »
Sean:

First of all, the "One Ball" rule as you call it is not a Rule of golf. It is a "condition of competition" that a committee can adopt if they want to.

Actually and technically, if a committee wants to use the "One Ball" condition and they neglect to make that fact known to competitors on something like a "Conditions of Competition" sheet they cannot enforce that "condition" once play has begun in stroke play.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #677 on: June 02, 2007, 01:14:44 PM »
Sully, not based SOLELY on that fact.  

The position is based on:

1.  the language of the Rule itself

2.  the inconsistency between Decision 20-3a/2 and the other decisions about player alignment and artificial aids during the stroke.

3.  My understanding of the spirit of the game.  Trust me, I will be able to find PLENTY of stuff to support the position that alignment without aid during the stroke is a fundamental skill of the game.  Every pro in the world knows this.  Most assuredly, this has been written down more than a couple of times. I'll bet you beers sometime that I can find it cited by no virtually every respected teacher and/or steward of the game.  


Beers it is...just be sure to stick to the stewards of the game, leave the teachers out of it unless you want to hear what they think about their pupils using the "cheater-line"...

CHrisB

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #678 on: June 02, 2007, 01:44:32 PM »
The question now is will any action come out of this thread?

It wasn't too long ago when David Moriarty made his presentation and concluded on here that C.B. Macdonald had a much greater influence on the architecture of Merion that has ever been historically acknowledged, that the original 10th at Merion was an Alps hole, etc.

These were some fascinating and potentially important conclusions, so naturally I asked him where he would publish his findings, if he would present them to the Merion club membership, etc., and he basically said "Ahh...uhh...well...I don't have the time for all that." This despite spending who knows how many hours on here and researching things like ship manifests to see when Hugh I. Wilson traveled overseas.

So it seems that he was more interested in just making some noise on here than he was in effecting any real change in the understanding of C.B. Macdonald and Merion.

So what about this thread? Shivas and/or Patrick, you've done a good job of articulating the need for a rule change, we've given you a bunch of issues and situations that the new rule will have to deal with to be practical and enforceable, you've come up with proposed language of the new rule, and we've kicked that around a little bit. The Rules of Golf are set to be updated in 2008, so there is presumably time to make a presentation to the USGA to get this rule changed.

So what now? Are you or someone else going to make a rules presentation to the USGA and try to get the rule changed, or this going to be just another exercise in idle bitching?

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #679 on: June 02, 2007, 03:15:56 PM »
Pat -

This discussion about the rules and the spirit of the game is most interesting.

I will elect to ignore the invective and instead sincerely ask -

How does the stymie and your enthusiam for it relate to the spirit of the game?

Having played some experimental matches with it, I am not a big stymie guy, but I would be curious to hear your take on this.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #680 on: June 02, 2007, 06:36:01 PM »
"Tom P
I understand the difference, but was being lazy with my lingo - sorry.
What is second of all?"

Sean:

I guess second of all would be the question of why the R&A/USGA bothers to put some "conditions of competition" into the appendix and perhaps not others?

For instance, the OGA says it is the right of their committee to put into their tournament that a "competition" ball must be used. There is no "Condition" of Competition for the use of a "competition" ball in the R&A/USGA Rule book appendix. So how does the R&A/USGA look at the OGA's use of that "condition" of competition. Is it OK with the USGA Rules of Golf and the USGA Rules Committee that that "condition" is used by OGA so long as no Rule of Golf is waived? Or does the USGA feel there should be such a "condition" in their appendix for the optional use of a local committee?


TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #681 on: June 02, 2007, 06:46:50 PM »
"Tom, I don't think there is ANYONE who doesn't think this is an artifice or devide or assistance of some kind.  Everyone - even those against a change in the rule - thinks it is.  The argument in favor of it is simply "it's legal, so there"...
Nobody denies that it's an artifice or device intended to provide assistance."

Shivas:

Those are just preposterous statements. Of course there are many, many people who don't think a mark or a line used for indicating the line for putting is an artificial device or assistance. I'm frankly not aware of anyone who really believes it is except you and Patrick. I guess the modus of the two of you is if you say everyone thinks it is eventually more people might believe you. Certainly if the R&A/USGA Rulesmakers felt it was an artificial device and constituted assistance they would have banned it by now as violating Rule 14-3.

Futhermore, I've never been able to figure out why you keep saying Dec 20-3a/2 is inconsistent. Inconsistent with what?
 
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 06:48:13 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #682 on: June 02, 2007, 06:56:44 PM »
Shivas:

When I asked the last question in my last post I hadn't read all of your Post #929.

Now I understand your confusion.

My God, man, there are exceptions to Rules all the hell over the Rule book and the Decisions on the Rules book. That's the way the Rules of Golf are written and have been for decades and decades. Obviously you're just figuring that out.

I will say it again---You have no real understanding of the Rules of Golf and the Decisions on the Rules of Golf or how to read them and use them. Golfers and Rules officials have been dealing with those numerous exceptions all their lives. And it's just beginning to bother you????

Go back to writing legal wording David. You shouldn't concern yourself with golf's Rule book and it damn straight doesn't need to concern itself with you and your confusion. I made that naive mistake over twenty years ago and began to do what you're doing now. Thank God I learned how to read and interpret the Rules book better and use the Rules of Golf efficiently years ago. ;)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 06:59:19 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #683 on: June 02, 2007, 09:17:28 PM »
"Tom, I don't think there is ANYONE who doesn't think this is an artifice or devide or assistance of some kind.”

Tom, I'm going to cut you a little slack here on your precise reading skills here because I'm a helluva guy, even in the face of critiques of my understanding of the rules.    

If you re-read what I wrote very carefully, you'll notice that I specifically did not use the phrases "artificial devices" or "unusual equipment" when I wrote that.  There is a difference between the words I chose and the USGA's langauge.  I chose those words carefully because the USGA clearly does not (yet) think that the cheater line is an "artificial device" or "unusual equipment".  That does not mean that they do not consider the cheater line an artifice (which it clearly is) or a device, meaning plan or scheme (which it also clearly is), as opposed to a tangible object.  And as I'm sure you're aware, to violate Rule 14-3, you have to use an "artificial device" or "unusual equipment" to assist the player in his stroke or in his play in order to have a violation.

So to evidence the fact that your assertion about my rules understanding is simply wrong, I understand the rules well enough to avoid using their phrases when that's NOT what I mean and I know enough to use them when they ARE what I mean.  In direct contrast, you didn't seem to pick up on my use of phrases other than those in the Rules, but like I said, I'll cut you slack on that because I'm a helluva nice guy..."  


Yes, I see, Shivas----you think you’re a helluva guy, a very clever guy, you think you're an excellent wordsmith and you chose your words very carefully to mean what you mean and not what the USGA says or means. That makes a boatload of sense.  ;)

You’re so impressive I hesitate to ask you what your carefully chosen word “devide” means. I can’t seem to find that one in the dictionary. Did you make that one up?

So, oh yes, I can see you choose your words very carefully but you can’t seem to spell any better than a third grader. That’s very impressive of you Shivas. Let me ask the Ruleswriters if they'd consider using you to write into the Rules "artifice" and "Devide". I'm sure that will clear things up completely for millions of golfers.   ;)  ;D

As the Donald would say:

"Shivas, you're fired!"
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 09:20:38 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #684 on: June 02, 2007, 09:19:37 PM »

Sully, would Bob Jones count as a steward of the game?


Sure...


There is a time horizon on this bet, the sooner of Tuesday evening when I go to bed or 15 more posts from you on this thread is the end of the bet...

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #685 on: June 02, 2007, 09:28:52 PM »
"Tom, I hate to tell you this, but there is nothing even remotely difficult about the Rules or the Decisions in terms of comprehension.  I understand them just fine.  Frankly, they are intellectual kindergarten.    I'm sorry that over the last two decades, you've found them so compelling and difficult to master.  

Yes, there are exceptions within the Decisions.  That's clear and OBVIOUS.  When you're done explaining the obvious, perhaps you might be able to take your understanding to the next level and master your understanding of where the rules are consistent in their logic and where they are not.  Mere acceptance of inconsistencies as fact is no more complicated than rote memorization.  That's not terribly complex, or frankly, interesting.  

What's interesting is the disparities between sets of rules and Decisions that logically flow from each other, as juxtaposed against rules and Decisions that do not.  We are dealing with the latter here, clearly.  But what's REALLY interesting is listening to the lack of logic forthcoming from folks that think we're dealing with the former while trying to explain why such decisions are really the latter, and resorting to the rhetorical sleight-of-hand of chastising those who recognize the latter for their lack of understanding -- ironically, as if saying it often enough will make it true.  "


David:

That post there just might be the biggest bunch of gobbledygook/horseshit I have seen on GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com in my eight years on this site.

I've seen my share of arrogant and ultra pompous people in and around golf in my time but you definitely take the cake on this thread.

Congratulations.  ;)

What does "devide" mean anyway Shivas Wordsmith?  :)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 09:30:51 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #686 on: June 02, 2007, 09:48:57 PM »
Patrick:

Michael Moore asked you an interesting question but you seem to be curiously silent tonight. Don't you want to put one or both of your feet in your mouth tonight before you go to bed as you have been doing daily for the last week or so?

I think this thread just set a GOLFCLUBATLAS.com record for the most replies ever. All that and Mucci and Schmidt appear to have not learned a thing. Is anyone surprised?  ;)
« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 09:53:43 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #687 on: June 02, 2007, 09:58:19 PM »
You know, you may have a point.
Maybe all those PGA Tour guys are really trying to differentiate "True" North from "Magnetic" North.
You must be either kidding or desperate.[/b]


When pro's practice putting they usually place down tees for some point of reference. Be it aiming or for speed. I've even seen them use clubs to assist them with alignment.

That's totallly irrelevant and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
[/color]

The functionality issue is one that must be proved by you?

No it doesn't.
You keep avoiding the question because you know that the logical answer supports Shivas's and my contention.

Functionally, Tell us how a pipe placed next to the ball for the purpose of aiding in determing the line is different from a line drawn on the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.

It's a simple question, one that you and others can't answer because, functionally, they seek to accomplish the same thing, and Rule 8-2 makes the practice of placing a pipe next to the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line is against the rules, it's prohibited, ergo, so should the line.
[/color]

Do stats show an increase in the number of putts sunk by those who align their balls markings? How about the seam?


Both questions are irrelevant, not germain to the topic.
However, you can bet, if the best golfers in the world, the PGA Tour Pros, are doing something, it's because the results are improved.
[/color]
 
Are there any facts tht back up your assertion that the funcionality is the same?

You can't be that obtuse.
[/color]

And the above quote which attempts to either insult or demeen Bryan's point, hurts your argument. At least in spirit. Or the recognition of same.

Not at all, it was a humorous method for pointing out the absurdity of the position.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #688 on: June 02, 2007, 10:07:01 PM »
Sean Arble,

With respect to the one ball rule, there was a time when there was a great variety amongst balls, from dimple design, to compression, to construction, to the polymers and paint used on the balls.

This led to performance variations.

Some balls were better into the wind, others better with the wind.  Some stopped better, others rolled farther, some went farther off of a metal wood, etc., etc..

It got to the point where golfers kept several ball types in their bag for the purpose of selecting the ball that best suited the hole at hand.

To end the practice the USGA finally stepped in and created the one ball rule, which is used by the USGA in their competitions.  Most regional and State GA's that I'm familiar with also institute the one ball rule for  their competitions as well.  

It puts golfers on a more level playing field and it says to the golfer, pick the ball that best suits your game, and use it and only it when navigating the golf course.

I believe that the one ball rule is closely aligned with the spirit of the game.

Today, I don't think you have the performance variations that existed prior to the implementation of the one ball rule.


TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #689 on: June 02, 2007, 10:07:43 PM »
"No it doesn't.
You keep avoiding the question because you know that the logical answer supports Shivas's and my contention.
Functionally, Tell us how a pipe placed next to the ball for the purpose of aiding in determing the line is different from a line drawn on the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line.
It's a simple question, one that you and others can't answer because, functionally, they seek to accomplish the same thing, and Rule 8-2 makes the practice of placing a pipe next to the ball for the purpose of aiding in determining the line is against the rules, it's prohibited, ergo, so should the line."


Well, Patrick, if he won't answer it then I'll tell you functionally how a pipe placed next to a ball is different. I'd say a pipe placed next to a ball may sort of screw up the follow through of the putter stroke, wouldn't you? Would you like to now ask what the difference is between a functioning mind and a blockhead like you? ;)


Precision is the essence of golf Patrick. It's the "One Ball Condition". It is not the "One Ball Rule". But we will overlook it if you want to continue to refer to a stool sample as DoDo or "Big Number Two". ;)


« Last Edit: June 02, 2007, 10:15:32 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #690 on: June 02, 2007, 10:15:37 PM »
Patrick:

Michael Moore asked you an interesting question but you seem to be curiously silent tonight.

Curiously silent ?

Oh, I forgot, I have a life.
I went and hit balls and putted, then attended my son's baseball game, then took the family out to dinner.

I'm sorry that my personal and family interests transcend your need for an immediate answer.

As to the Stymie, it's not germain to this issue.
Michael Moore's attempt to divert this thread and the issue of the cheater line will not be furthered by me.
[/color]

Don't you want to put one or both of your feet in your mouth tonight before you go to bed as you have been doing daily for the last week or so?

I've been on target from the begining.
If I recall correctly, after you finally understood the issues, you agreed with me.  Shivas even commented that I had "flipped" you on the issue.
[/color

I think this thread just set a GOLFCLUBATLAS.com record for the most replies ever. All that and Mucci and Schmidt appear to have not learned a thing. Is anyone surprised?  ;)


I think prudent readers agree that 8-2 needs clarification, either in the text of the rule or in the decisions book.

In addition, I remain convinced that the cheater line should be prohibited, just as pipes, clubs and other aids that assist with determining the line are banned.

There is NO functional difference between those objects and a line placed by the player on his ball, intended to accomplish the same thing
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #691 on: June 02, 2007, 10:18:49 PM »
TEPaul,

I've never competed in a USGA event where the USGA refered to the one ball condition, they've consistently refered to the one ball rule.

But, if you and Michael Moore want to join hands in an attempt to divert the thread, feel free to do so.

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #692 on: June 02, 2007, 10:22:09 PM »
"Oh, I forgot, I have a life.
I went and hit balls and putted, then attended my son's baseball game, then took the family out to dinner.
I'm sorry that my personal and family interests transcend your need for an immediate answer."

Patrick:

Please do not feel I'm pressing you on time. I went out to dinner too. It was my wife's birthday and I took her to a fantasic restaurant, and lavished upon her an extraordinary present during desert. It was a very succulent grape I picked up at the first table I passed on the way in.

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #693 on: June 02, 2007, 10:25:59 PM »
"TEPaul,
I've never competed in a USGA event where the USGA refered to the one ball condition, they've consistently refered to the one ball rule."

Patrick:

Refer to the Rule Book and I'm quite sure you will find it referred to as the "One Ball Condition".  ;)

"Local" and "Special" Rules and "Conditions" of competition are not the same thing as the "Rules" of golf because they are committee optional. "Rules" of golf are not.  ;)

CHrisB

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #694 on: June 02, 2007, 10:46:42 PM »
Patrick,
The Rules of Golf are being updated in 2008.

Do you know of anyone (you, Shivas or anyone else) who intends to make a rule change proposal to the USGA to ban using marks on golf balls to indicate the line for putting?

You guys have argued quite forcefully for banning the use of the cheater line and other marks on golf balls to indicate the line for putting--there would seem to be ample motivation to make a presentation to the USGA to try to get the rule changed.

I'd be interested to see if any action will follow this long debate, and what (if anything) the USGA will have to say or do about it.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #695 on: June 03, 2007, 12:18:08 AM »
Since the placing of a club or pipe is illeagal, the onus of responsibilty is on you two to describe why the functionally is the same.

To me the question isn't germane, thats why I won't answer it.

I don't see it as the same and apparently no one else does.

For the record, I don't use the line but there was a time when seeing all white was important to me.

Was I cheating because it made me feel more confident because any mark was possibly distracting?

As for obtuse... thats the pot calling black.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

TEPaul

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #696 on: June 03, 2007, 08:10:20 AM »
"Ok, Tmo, so I made a tyop....

Is that the best you've got?  Poking fun of my pathetic tpyign skills?   What do you thikn secretaries are for, anyway?

Pat's right:  you guys can't (or won't) answer the question about the analogy between laying a pipe or a 2 iron next to the intended line of putt and the cheater line, yet you're willing to rest the entire premise of your argument that the hand-drawn cheater line is legal on an ANALOGY between the hand-drawn line and the manufacturer's line based on their functional equivalency.  

Is that isn't a classic case of black calling the kettle pot, I don't know what is!

An analogy based on functional equivalency is good enough to make the hand-drawn cheater line legal under Decision 20-3a/2 because the trademark is legal, but it's not good enough to make the cheater line illegal under under the RULE ITSELF based on functional equivalents that are illegal!"


Shivas:

I'd be glad to offer an answer to Pat's analogy of a pipe laid on the putting green to indicate a line for putting and a mark or line on a golf ball used to indicate a line for putting as to why the Rulesmakers have made the former a violation of Rule 8-2b and the latter not a violation of 8-2b as indicated by Dec 20-3a/2.

While I'm willing to answer that question I remind you I am not a Rulemaker but I have spoken to one who is (or was) about this specific subject and he's offered an answer (it's apparently his answer and not some official answer from the USGA's Rules Committee (of which he was a member and may still be)).

For you both to get an official answer to your question would logically be to make a written proposal to the USGA Rules Committee about what you think this Rule should include and just see how they respond. Chris Brauner has made this point to you on here and so have I.

'Here how it is with respect to marks.  Any mark that a player places on his golf ball for whatever reason is OK such as identification or assistance in positioning the ball on the putting green.  The reason for this is that the ball is marked by the manufacturer in many ways and there is no practical way to regulate this.  But that is where the "line" is drawn.  The Rule itself is abundantly clear - "a mark may not be placed anywhere . . ." and that means anywhere [but on the ball] and, for example, prohibits placing a tee on the fringe or the putting green itself to indicate the line for putting.  My assumption is that the scope of the Rule was widened in 1988 just for that reason.
 
With respect to a line on the putter, aiming lines or marks are OK and may be painted on or cut onto a part of the clubhead.  This is not governed by Rule 8-2b but rather by the club Rules in Appendix II.'


As you can see with this Rule the Rulesmakers have made an exception with the GOLF BALL and the PUTTER HEAD from ANYTHING placed 'ANYWHERE' ELSE.

The reason for making that exception has even been given. First, they apparently think trying to regulate marks on a golf ball is not practical and perhaps the Rulesmakers don't even think this thing you and Pat call 'the functional equivalency of a pipe and a mark on a golf ball' is legitimate.

You and Pat may not like that exception or that reason and rationale for it but nevertheless neither of you can legitimately say that an answer (and a bona fide answer) has not been given simply because you DON'T LIKE the answer or MAY NOT AGREE WITH IT.

To say that an answer can only be construed as a bona fide answer if you like the answer or agree with it, is, well, pretty immature or naive on your part, in my opinion.  ;)



« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 08:15:48 AM by TEPaul »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #697 on: June 03, 2007, 09:47:08 AM »
Adam, that isn't terribly hard.  They both indicate the line for putting.  That's the functional equivalency.  Since that's the only function referenced in Rule 8-2, I think that's quite sufficient to establish functional equivalence.  Do you disagree?

Well then I don't understand the question.

The ball placed on the green indicates a line for putting, no?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

JR Potts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #698 on: June 03, 2007, 01:52:54 PM »
Ok, Tmo, so I made a tyop....

Is that the best you've got?  Poking fun of my pathetic tpyign skills? ;D  What do you thikn secretaries are for, anyway? ;D

Pat's right:  you guys can't (or won't) answer the question about the analogy between laying a pipe or a 2 iron next to the intended line of putt and the cheater line, yet you're willing to rest the entire premise of your argument that the hand-drawn cheater line is legal on an ANALOGY between the hand-drawn line and the manufacturer's line based on their functional equivalency.  

Is that isn't a classic case of black calling the kettle pot, I don't know what is!

An analogy based on functional equivalency is good enough to make the hand-drawn cheater line legal under Decision 20-3a/2 because the trademark is legal, but it's not good enough to make the cheater line illegal under under the RULE ITSELF based on functional equivalents that are illegal!

Sure, I've gone over the top a little here and there, and frankly, I've probably dished out a little drivel over the last 2-3 weeks of this thread, but the biggest piece of drivel in this thread has been the attempt to pass off the non-logic of Decision 20-3a/2 as logical the way you guys have done.  Now, THAT is probably the biggest piece of BS I've ever read on this site, because it rests on a total fallacy -- that Decision 20-3a/2 is logical under Rule 8-2(b).

PS-- Tom, artifice really is a word.  And it describes the cheater line perfectly.  "Devide" is anohter thnig altohger. ;D      

I thought I answered it?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Shivas's cheater line
« Reply #699 on: June 03, 2007, 05:51:40 PM »

Precision is the essence of golf Patrick.

It's the "One Ball Condition". It is not the "One Ball Rule".


It's not the "one ball condition", it IS the "one ball RULE".

Let me explain why you're wrong.

When the committee elects to place the one ball RULE into effect, the language, as provided in Appendix I in the rules of golf, 1 c. i, is incorporated into the RULES of GOLF as DIRECTED by the USGA, as a Note to Rule 5-1, and as such, it becomes a Rule, under 5-1 in the Rules of golf.

I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

If you still cling to the notion that it's a condition of golf, then your condition is serious, much worse than the condition which causes you to milk the chickens and pluck the cows on HappyDale Farms.

Rumor has it that Animal DYFS has visited HappyDale Farms recently.

It's been said that some of the animals, held against their will on HappyDale Farms, can talk, however, it was reported that you told the official from Animal DYFS that the sheep lie.
[/color]




« Last Edit: June 03, 2007, 05:52:03 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back