WE WOULD NOT STOOP SO LOW
...as to blog this item.
(Sorry, to Allen at Division, Matt Filar, DavCat, and Chuck Cody)
« Previous | Main | Next »
November 01, 2009
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Download your 'Fins iPhone application
*Bends over backward to avoid comment*
Posted by: Meanie the Blue | November 01, 2009 at 08:54 PM
And?
Posted by: snif | November 01, 2009 at 09:15 PM
What's wrong with his name? Crunch.
--The Naperville Squirrel Squad
Posted by: Bernard Scooper | November 01, 2009 at 09:44 PM
snif, there are many websites that can answer your question.
Posted by: Meanie the Blue | November 01, 2009 at 09:57 PM
Reminds me of the all time classic rallying cry: " Impeach the Cox Sacker ".
Posted by: Clankazoid | November 01, 2009 at 10:06 PM
Meanie, I don't think you can bend over backwards far enough to face this issue. If you can, congratulations. I think.
Posted by: padraig | November 01, 2009 at 10:06 PM
It's good to have goals, pad.
Posted by: Meanie the Blue | November 01, 2009 at 10:20 PM
That's gotta hurt. Just sayin'
Posted by: Siouxie | November 01, 2009 at 10:22 PM
The Cosseted World Of Academia WBAGNFARB. To avoid. Assiduously. Especially if they engage nuts on the sackbut.
Nutt could stand a butt of sack about now, eh wot?
Posted by: danceswithvowels | November 01, 2009 at 10:39 PM
It would take some balls to sack Nutt, but then they'll have to worry about who will head the staff.
Posted by: SW | November 01, 2009 at 11:04 PM
said nutt "if you can't beat 'em, scrot'em!"
Posted by: insomniac | November 01, 2009 at 11:17 PM
I make it a point never to stray into the realm of policy...
.... yes I actually read that nugget.
Posted by: Tash | November 01, 2009 at 11:31 PM
Cannabis may have been involved in the writing of that headline.
Posted by: KJP | November 02, 2009 at 12:35 AM
So did Nutt get the shaft?
Posted by: SW | November 02, 2009 at 04:12 AM
Are there really any other options?
Posted by: NotSherly | November 02, 2009 at 07:08 AM
It's difficult to tell the answer to SW's question. The article just sort of leaves it dangling there.
Posted by: Meanie the Blue | November 02, 2009 at 07:18 AM
I hear that Ed. Secs. Balls could be in the sack, too.
Posted by: Horace LaBadie | November 02, 2009 at 07:33 AM
Nutt busters are a b!+ch.
Posted by: Loudmouth | November 02, 2009 at 07:41 AM
That sucks, Nutt.
Posted by: Punkin | November 02, 2009 at 07:50 AM
Yeah,
Couldn't say I didn't see it coming.
Posted by: Eric | November 02, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Johnson has balls to sack Nutt.
Posted by: The Dread Pirate Chris | November 02, 2009 at 10:45 AM
A Nutt-less agency would be hard to conceive.
Posted by: bonmot | November 02, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Isn't that illegal in most places?
Posted by: Braniff | November 02, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Braniff, those PLACES are illegal in most places.
Posted by: padraig | November 02, 2009 at 12:02 PM
He pleaded no con-testes.
Posted by: bonmot | November 02, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Seems harsh, what did he do, steal his teabag?
Posted by: MartiniShark | November 02, 2009 at 01:58 PM