Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Rebuttal to the rebuttal - rebut this Potland!!!

A great man some where stated "Them there's fighting words". Not sure it applies here, but I always wanted to say it, so there it is.

Toilet plugging aside, my last comments in return for this is that frankly, I believe that if the 10 year old kid had done it, he'd be proud to admit he'd gummed up the plumbing works. Lastly, I strongly believe that Potland WAS in fact proud he'd gummed up the plumbing as evidenced by the happy whistling during the corrective actions necessary.

Now, I may be known for stretching a tall tale here or there, but in this case I am fairly accurate in the details, and the important ones above I am astoundingly accurate - the 10 year old and wife had absolutely no issues with the toilet, while the old man was happily correcting his large downloading capabilities. You be the judge...

3 comments:

susabellpr said...

LMAO!!! Yep, I the jury feel the toilet offender is guilty as charged. Potlin, you can't refute the evidense posted in this blog. Busted again toilet clogger!

Scottland said...

Jury? evidence? What a load of crap. Circumstancial evidence at best. All artists are proud of their work, but this is another over inflated story from the master. The 'download' in question was certainly not signifncant enough to clog anything, let alone your 17th century plumbing. And the tem 'download', disgusting. Who talks like that anyway? I much prefer 'dropping the kids off at the pool' or even'growing a tail'. Let us not forget 'logoff' and the classic "pinching a loaf.' If proper downloading is not possible at your facility, then an upgrade is in order, sir. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

darprice said...

Again - can't be 17th century plumbing - the house is only 3 years old - heck, the neighborhood is only 5 years old. While I realize that water restriction toilets can cause you problems (seem to recall you wanting a trip to Canada for the 5 gallon flushers to assure yourself it'd work when necessary), even you have to admit that the toilet was in working order when you started; why else use it and further gum up the plumbing? With this being the case - the suspect list narrows, no matter how you look to defend...

Next - you were proud of your work - why else refer to the culprit as an "artist" as you do above.

Lastly - the final nail - I got the term "download" from you. I believe even your refusal to admit this aspect of your poop loving ways shows your continueing errors and the not 1, not 2, but FOUR different euphemisms you used for this activity. Say what you will, argue your point all you want, but you will not change my mind, nor likely that of many readers TC (Toilet Clogger).