Snake in the Grass Update: Quadjacks doing battle with former associate SrslySirius, takes down all of his songs

Here's what I am gathering occurred during this whole mess:

- Srsly stupidly worked for free for Quadjacks, probably because he liked the publicity they were getting him, and probably because snake Zekda convinced them that they were all going to be rich and famous one day.

- Srsly created some songs/videos, some with Quadjacks as a collaboration, some on his own.

- Srsly had some falling out wth Quadjacks for unknown reasons and left about 2 months ago, but it was a semi-amicable parting.

- One of Srsly's videos (Willy Wonka "You Get Nothing") blew up sort big on YouTube, and Quadjacks, who had originally hosted the video on their channel, exploited it for publicity.

- Srsly got pissed off because he created that video on his own, and felt that Quadjacks shouldn't be using his work to plug themselves after he was no longer with the company (and was never paid in the first place), even if it was originally uploaded to their YouTube channel.

- Srsly flipped out and filed DMCA takedown notices with YouTube regarding 8 different videos, including some that weren't entirely his property (that is, they also belonged to Quadjacks).

- YouTube cautiously removed all of the videos.

- Quadjacks got pissed that this happened out of the blue with no warning, especially because some of the videos were jointly property of Srsly and Quadjacks, so they had a right to be publishing them. (This apparently does NOT apply to the Wonka video, though, which seems to be Srsly's property.)

- Srsly viewbotted his "Nightmare on My Street" video last month in order to raise its image and popularity on YouTube.

- Legal threats were issued by Srsly regarding putting his videos back up.

- Quadjacks found out about the viewbotting from reading 2+2, and decide to use it as an excuse to take down Srsly's videos, claiming he was embarrassing them with the viewbotting episode rather than telling the truth that they were scared of the lawsuit threats.

- Quadjacks issued a video statement about the whole matter primarily to embarrass Srsly for his viewbotting.


-------------------------------------

My thoughts:

1) Srsly definitely viewbotted the Nightmare video. He hasn't denied this once. He has had many chances to deny it (his blog, the 2+2 thread, his posts on other forums, etc) but he treats that accusation as if it doesn't exist. If he were innocent of viewbotting, he would have said so a long time ago.

2) The viewbotting has nothing to do with Quadjacks' current actions. They aren't taking down his videos because he viewbotted his most recent work. They are taking them down because they're afraid of a lawsuit, and this viewbotting episode makes the perfect excuse.

3) Srsly was stupid to work for free while Quadjacks was selling advertising, as well as his own songs. Unless he got some compensation I'm not aware of (free room and board in Vegas?), he was incredibly naive.

4) Srsly should not have filed DMCA requests for videos that he did collaboratively with Quadjacks. Both parties have the right to post those videos as they see fit, and Srsly's actions here were vindictive and wrong.

5) In general, it looks like Quadjacks shamelessly used Srsly. It was especially unethical to use his work (that was NOT a collaborative effort) to promote their site after he had already left them. Remember, the guy was apparently never paid a dime in the first place.

6) Quadjacks' video explaining everything is clearly an attempt to damage Srsly's reputation for the viewbotting. While Srsly was almost surely guilty of viewbotting, Quadjacks shouldn't have made this self-righteous video calling him out for it, as it's honestly none of their business. As I already mentioned, this video was also dishonest about the reason they were taking down his videos, wrongly blaming the viewbotting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Good summary, Brandon.

That's pretty much exactly what happened.

Oddly enough, Zekda was sending me very friendly tweets today about the situation:



Todd Witteles
LOL, what a complete mess Quadjacks has become:

Zekda Art ‏ @Zekday0
@ToddWitteles not sure about mess, think the place looks pretty dam clean. imo. Have heard good things about DanDruff.com

Todd Witteles
@zekday0 @quadjacksdotcom Highly probable that Srsly viewbotted, but let's be honest, you guys didn't drop his videos for that reason.

Todd Witteles
@zekday0 @quadjacksdotcom Pretty clear that you dropped his videos because of the lawsuit threat, but this claim makes you sound more noble.

Zekda Art ‏ @Zekday0
@ToddWitteles "QuadJacks has no time to engage in a dispute for control of videos which we are by now embarrassed to be hosting anyway"

Zekda Art ‏ @Zekday0
@ToddWitteles just a friendly "FYI" you tweeted that last tweet 3 times.


------------------------


LOL @ hearing good things about DanDruff.com

---

Actually I think the DanDruff.com comment was meant to put you down, they know exactly the details of this place.

---

Yup, similar to another bitter site owner who called you "Johnny Sack" despite knowing your name, and calling Filthy Limper "a cute little failsite" while airing your paid advertisement.

Without going into any detail, I'll say that Druff's assessment is highly accurate and that I agree with most of his thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Without going into any detail, I'll say that Druff's assessment is highly accurate and that I agree with most of his thoughts.

---

Can you atleast admit or deny view botting, whatever that shit is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I think it's Zekda's influence.

Marco has always seemed like a nice guy, but if you spend enough time around a snake, you start to want to slither and hiss yourself.

---

I hope its not the same about spending too much time around bed-shitters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Without going into any detail, I'll say that Druff's assessment is highly accurate and that I agree with most of his thoughts.

---

Can you atleast admit or deny view botting, whatever that shit is

---

It depends what the definition of "is" is.

http://cache.dealbreaker.com/uploads...linton_dnc.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jasep

Can you atleast admit or deny view botting, whatever that shit is

---

It depends what the definition of "is" is.

http://cache.dealbreaker.com/uploads...linton_dnc.jpg

---

:hofnig

Nothing new here. This is a simple matter of young people without much life experience doing things that they will likely realize was wrong, later in life.

Lust
Anger
Pride
Sloth
Envy
Gluttony
Greed

My assessment is that SS is very talented - perhaps exceptionally. SS can do amazing technical work on videos and audio and is also very creative. DIH is my personal favourite. I also very much enjoyed all the QJ coverage post BF. QJ existed before that time, but the 24 hour broadcasts, blew them up.

SS rode that QJ wave post BF and became known as a result. SS should be thankful for his good fortune and the fact that his connection with QJ gave him his break.

Breaking up is hard to do especially when you are trying to keep what you have as part of the partnership. SS should look forward and not backward. Whether or not he was paid at QJ is irrelevant, he was being paid with exposure. QJ should look forward and not backward. Everybody should just move on.

My mother taught me if you don't have anything nice to say about someone, keep your mouth shut. Commercial radio stations are well known to fire people or people quit and they just disappear and it is as if they never existed, not a word is said. All you Internet radio folks need to learn the same lessons about how to deal with your inner workings.

I have a question on viewbots: what is the problem with them? Honestly, if people can be tricked/manipulated into watching something because of the # of views how is it the marketer's fault? It seems to me (from my quick research and utter lack of info on viewbotting I found) that people come down on both sides of Bots, where the QuadJacks guys are making it seem like the entire world feels viewbotting is 100% wrong.

i think jewdonk invented the manual version of viewbotting..lol.....druff can concur this...

at the present time,..i'm go to

a- download the "site = joke xtrnormal video"

b- add domain watermark/name or something to it and make it sort of unique.

c-reUp to youtube under new account.

d-hook up a bot to inflate views.

e-inform poker community

f-retire from the profits on the dan druff name.

I have never met marco or zekday but I usually enjoy Marco's work. His interview style kind of reminds me of how the guys from Workaholics interviewed people on the red carpet of the Charlie Sheen Roast. Sometimes it can get a little dry and condescending but usually pretty funny.

I have met SrslySirius and he was a very quiet and chill dude. I almost felt bad for him because he walked into a very drunken group of people at the Palms and I am sure it was annoying to be around people who had been drinking for the past 7 hours. He was very nice and funny and I even forgave him for stealing my party at the DOJ idea, that's a joke by the way....kind of.

Anyway, I don't know why so many people in the poker world go to petty means to solve problems. I am not sure if it is the same ratio with poker players as it is with the rest of the population but it sure does seem people burn a lot of bridges and throw away friendships for reasons unknown.

I hope all situations like these can be resolved soon and everyone can move forward either as friends or at least without anymore negativity.

/donepreaching

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Stamos

and I even forgave him for stealing my party at the DOJ idea, that's a joke by the way....kind of.

---

dude, I gave him that song idea in the DD chatroom. I named the title and the song to take it from. Not a single line of the song was yours or mine. It's his work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Stamos

and I even forgave him for stealing my party at the DOJ idea, that's a joke by the way....kind of.

---

dude, I gave him that song idea in the DD chatroom. I named the title and the song to take it from. Not a single line of the song was yours or mine. It's his work.

---

not according to him you didn't because he knew what I was talking about and who I was when I met him. It was a joke. I realize he made the whole thing up and it was very good as per usual for his videos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Stamos

and I even forgave him for stealing my party at the DOJ idea, that's a joke by the way....kind of.

---

dude, I gave him that song idea in the DD chatroom. I named the title and the song to take it from. Not a single line of the song was yours or mine. It's his work.

---

at any given time there's multiple copies of somebody elses video on youtube. and somebody trying to profit or generate traffic to their own site.

just looking for the wonka video lead me to another remix video of it giving credit/links to both srlsys and quadj's..not to mention his own venture.

i'm not saying it's right..but this kind of shit goes on all the time. and unless the original author has a problem with it. :dealwithit


think about it. if anybody had a beef w/ druff and wrote a letter to proctor and gamble (or whomever) concering his use of the dan druff shampoo brand with gambling and poker. they could demand him to stop using it.....

druff......if that happened...what would you do. ur whole idenity is based of flaky scalp shampoo. truth is, when it come down to it's you're associating/profiting off of somethging that's not yours and didn't have the permisson to do so

I remember a WTF in the back of my mind when I saw 1 milli views. That video sucked and it was one of his worst, imo.
Wonder how much a million views cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FPS_Russia

I remember a WTF in the back of my mind when I saw 1 milli views. That video sucked and it was one of his worst, imo.
Wonder how much a million views cost.

---

not much

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass. They have exploited Srslysirius, he did the videos before without them, then they are co-writers and producers of his products. Sounds like a puff daddy mentality as I posted on Twitter last nite.
It's sad that they have to stoop to say the are embarrased. He should be embarrased for getting HoodWinked with Snake Oil.

Team Spa supports Mr. srslysirius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsianSpa

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass. They have exploited Srslysirius, he did the videos before without them, then they are co-writers and producers of his products. Sounds like a puff daddy mentality as I posted on Twitter last nite.
It's sad that they have to stoop to say the are embarrased. He should be embarrased for getting HoodWinked with Snake Oil.

Team Spa supports Mr. srslysirius

---

Welcome to PFA AsianSpa. Good to see you here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUDm7si0_Vw

We need srysly for druffs radio opener.

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards...;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seca Tekcop

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards...;) )

---

That's a great point.

You're right. Nobody could claim legal ownership of this -- at least not for commercial purposes.

The owner of Willie Wonka & the Chocolate Factory could actually file a DMCA notice and get it taken down from BOTH Quadjacks and Srsly's pages. They could also get an injunction to stop its distribution and/or usage for commercial purposes.

But since we're not talking about a court of law and more of what is ethically correct here, Srsly still has a point. He created that video on his own, posted it to Quadjacks' channel, and doesn't want them using it to promote their site after he stopped volunteering his services to them. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, especially since Srsly never got paid for any of his efforts there in the first place.

I'll just throw this out there into the mix...
PARODY is statutorily-protected "fair use" under the U.S. Copyright Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seca Tekcop

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards...;) )

---

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seca Tekcop

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards...;) )

---

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

---

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

I'm surprised how often this argument comes up. It doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Full ownership of all content is not required to make a copyright claim. If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim. Of course they're not claiming to own rights to Major League Baseball. But part of that video does infringe on their IP. It would be pretty silly if the uploader could just say "HA, but you don't own ALL of it"

Whether the claimant is infringing on any copyrights is not relevant. If a movie studio has a problem with the use of Wonka footage, they can take that up with me in a separate claim. It isn't QJ's or anyone elses business to use that as a defense.

If such a claim was made against me, I would argue that it's Fair Use, btw.

---

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

---

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seca Tekcop

Hello everyone in the Poker Fraud Alert forum community.

I am a newly registered member here and this is my first post.

After reading and reviewing the material in this thread that deals with the alleged viewbotting and subsequent actions taken by Quadjacks and SrslySirius over copyright issues, I am left wondering something. What about the original material that was used in the making of the videos? The "You get nothing!" video, for example, makes extensive use of a scene from the movie "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Was permission to use that scene obtained from the owners of the movie rights? If not, how can others have a dispute over copyrights when using material they didn't have the right to use in the first place? Just asking.

At the end of every football game I've ever watched there is always that blurb about.."no use of this broadcast can be made without the express written permission of the NFL and its associates...blah blah blah" Doesn't that same thing apply to the use of material in any You Tube creations?

Seca Tekcop (No I'm not a girl..lol. My name is pocket aces spelled backwards...;) )

---

Nope Seca isnt a girl. I believe he's a longtime 2+2er which we should try not to hold against him .. YET :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve-O

But whoever it is that owns the rights to Willy Wonka could in theory ask for you to take said video down, especially if you used it without attribution and permision, correct? Not that I think you've done anything wrong here mind you, it just seems liked if someone wanted to be a dick about it they could.

---

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

---

At this point Im not sure anybody gives 2 cents about the 40yr old version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder. Not sure what the Copyright rules would view it but heres the principal regarding fair use. As such I doubt its anything Thomas would have to worry about because he isnt harming the value of the orginal work.. Below is the rule regarding Fair Use Doctrine

"Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsianSpa

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass.

---

True to form, spa speaks truth right from the get-go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandwich

I'll just throw this out there into the mix...
PARODY is statutorily-protected "fair use" under the U.S. Copyright Act.

---

While very much true, that doesn't mean you could withstand the legal barrages of the big media companies' lawyers if they decided they wanted that stuff down. Being right is one thing, but having the resources to prove yourself right is something else entirely, and it's not a fight many people are willing to make. If you don't get help from the EFF or someone like that, it's just you against the eternally funded lawyers of the movie studios. That's a shitty place to be.

And even then, you aren't guaranteed to win anything.

This guy estimates Jenna Marbles makes at least $700,000 a year for her videos of Jenna sitting in a chair blabbing away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeuhFnuFmlM

http://i.imgur.com/RQa04.jpg

poor kid... my offer still stand sirius for bad boy remix with isai scheinberg... can even add calvin ayres name in there now too...

Everyone keeps saying how cool Marco is and how Zack is such a bad guy...

Did any of you watch the video?

It wasn't Zack on there reading a statement in such a way that is designed to completely destroy Thomas' character, that was Marco. I don't for one second think that a 30ish year old guy who lives in Vegas and seems "cool" is a victim of clever brainwashing here. Marco is just as guilty as Zack on this one. He could have simply refused to do the video if he didn't think it was warranted, or at the very least could have not given that razzi caliber performance in the video.

No one even knows who Zack is, Marco is the face of QuadJacks so everything that goes on there is immediately attached to him and he seems smart enough to be aware of that so enough with the Marco is a cool guy / victim of Zacks snakiness routine. Guy is just as much a doucher as the rest of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ftpjesus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Yes, they could. Whether they'd win or not is hard to say. Certainly not as cut and dry as my claim against QJ. In the past I have successfully defended copyright claims against me by citing fair use.

---

At this point Im not sure anybody gives 2 cents about the 40yr old version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory with Gene Wilder. Not sure what the Copyright rules would view it but heres the principal regarding fair use. As such I doubt its anything Thomas would have to worry about because he isnt harming the value of the orginal work..

---

some candy maker owns the wonka brand. they're still selling and pumping out all kinds of wonka chocolate. they will likely only care once you start making money, and it becomes a big deal. lodging a crusade against this stuff is lol... it's everywhere.

the copy, paste and reuse internet is so badass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq6VNBz66ZA

New banger from the twitter feed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pikachar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq6VNBz66ZA

New banger from the twitter feed

---

that lasted long

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suicide King

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pikachar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq6VNBz66ZA

New banger from the twitter feed

---

that lasted long

---

Yeah heard he was going to act like an "adult"

This has gone to a new low... about to lose interest about this, oh wait just did.

/end message

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pikachar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suicide King

that lasted long

---

Yeah heard he was going to act like an "adult"

This has gone to a new low... about to lose interest about this, oh wait just did.

/end message

---

Here is what is in Marco's head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJJ-ZLdrTwY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bukowski72

This guy estimates Jenna Marbles makes at least $700,000 a year for her videos of Jenna sitting in a chair blabbing away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeuhFnuFmlM

http://i.imgur.com/RQa04.jpg

---

If Jenna makes so much, why does she keep that lame go-go dancing job?

I also find her videos to be highly annoying.

A hot chick putting on makeup telling everyone she's actually ugly and putting on makeup to fool people into thinking she's pretty? HILARIOUS!

Maybe you need a vagina to get her humor.

---

No... My vagina doesn't find her funny either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bootsy Collins

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AsianSpa

I have to agree with DanDruff, Marco seems cool but Zak is the Quadjacks Snake In The Grass. They have exploited Srslysirius,

---

Welcome to PFA AsianSpa. Good to see you here.

---

I'm bringing the Truth and as for Zak the snake in the grass, I have the anti-venom for Zaks snake oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim.

---

Why would they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shortbuspoker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

If someone makes a shitty video of Albert Pujols hitting a homerun while Down with the Sickness plays in the background, Drowning Pool has every right to make claim.

---

Why would they?

---

Well for one Drowning Pool did not do Down With the Sickness, that honor goes to Disturbed. Carry on with the argument