He’s a killer! With nasty, sharp, pointy teeth!
Humor 02/01/2004 |You’d think they could have found a better picture for this story…
<
p align=”center”>
(via Prairie)
iTunes: “Thermal Noise” by Statemachine from the album Cyberl@b (1998, 6:14).
- [clop clop clop]
- [whinny whinny]
- GALAHAD:
- They’re nervous, sire.
- ARTHUR:
- Then we’d best leave them here and carry on on foot. Dis-mount!
- TIM:
- Behold the cave of Caerbannog!
- ARTHUR:
- Right! Keep me covered.
- GALAHAD:
- What with?
- ARTHUR:
- W— just keep me covered.
- TIM:
- Too late!
- [dramatic chord]
- ARTHUR:
- What?
- TIM:
- There he is!
- ARTHUR:
- Where?
- TIM:
- There!
- ARTHUR:
- What, behind the rabbit?
- TIM:
- It is the rabbit.
- ARTHUR:
- You silly sod!
- TIM:
- What?
- ARTHUR:
- You got us all worked up!
- TIM:
- Well, that’s no ordinary rabbit!
- ARTHUR:
- Ohh.
- TIM:
- That’s the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!
- ROBIN:
- You tit! I soiled my armour I was so scared!
- TIM:
- Look, that rabbit’s got a vicious streak a mile wide! It’s a killer!
- GALAHAD:
- Get stuffed!
- TIM:
- He’ll do you up a treat, mate.
- GALAHAD:
- Oh, yeah?
- ROBIN:
- You mangy Scots git!
- TIM:
- I’m warning you!
- ROBIN:
- What’s he do, nibble your bum?
- TIM:
- He’s got huge, sharp— eh— he can leap about— look at the bones!
- ARTHUR:
- Go on, Bors. Chop his head off!
- BORS:
- Right! Silly little bleeder. One rabbit stew comin’ right up!
- TIM:
- Look!
- [squeak]
- BORS:
- Aaaugh!
- [dramatic chord]
- [clunk]
- ARTHUR:
- Jesus Christ!
- TIM:
- I warned you!
- ROBIN:
- I done it again!
- TIM:
- I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn’t you? Oh, it’s just a harmless little bunny, isn’t it? Well, it’s always the same. I always tell them—
- ARTHUR:
- Oh, shut up!
- TIM:
- Do they listen to me?
- ARTHUR:
- Right!
- TIM:
- Oh, no…
- KNIGHTS:
- Charge!
- [squeak squeak squeak]
- KNIGHTS:
- Aaaaugh!, Aaaugh!, etc.
- ARTHUR:
- Run away! Run away!
- KNIGHTS:
- Run away! Run away!…
- TIM:
- Ha ha ha ha! Ha haw haw! Ha! Ha ha!
- ARTHUR:
- Right. How many did we lose?
- LAUNCELOT:
- Gawain.
- GALAHAD:
- Ector.
- ARTHUR:
- And Bors. That’s five.
- GALAHAD:
- Three, sir.
- ARTHUR:
- Three. Three. And we’d better not risk another frontal assault. That rabbit’s dynamite.
- ROBIN:
- Would it help to confuse it if we run away more?
- ARTHUR:
- Oh, shut up and go and change your armour.
- GALAHAD:
- Let us taunt it! It may become so cross that it will make a mistake.
- ARTHUR:
- Like what?
- GALAHAD:
- Well… ooh.
- LAUNCELOT:
- Have we got bows?
- ARTHUR:
- No.
- LAUNCELOT:
- We have the Holy Hand Grenade.
- ARTHUR:
- Yes, of course! The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch! ‘Tis one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries with him. Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade!
- MONKS: [chanting]
- Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem.
- ARTHUR:
- How does it, um— how does it work?
- LAUNCELOT:
- I know not, my liege.
- ARTHUR:
- Consult the Book of Armaments!
- BROTHER MAYNARD:
- Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one.
- SECOND BROTHER:
- And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, ‘O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.’ And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals and fruit bats and large chu—
- MAYNARD:
- Skip a bit, Brother.
- SECOND BROTHER:
- And the Lord spake, saying, ‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.’
- MAYNARD:
- Amen.
- KNIGHTS:
- Amen.
- ARTHUR:
- Right!
- One!… Two!… Five!
- GALAHAD:
- Three, sir!
- ARTHUR:
- Three!
- [angels sing]
- [boom]
[See also: The Ten Commandments of Clubbing | You won’t succeed on Broadway if you don’t have any Jews! | Spamalot | Downtown Excitement | Parenthetically… ]
« Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize | Welcome, Katya! »
11 Responses to “He’s a killer! With nasty, sharp, pointy teeth!”
Leave a Reply
medhat abbas
Ryan Waddell
Sponge Bob
rawad
February 1st, 2004 at 5:14 pm
One more law about bad dogs and my dog Sylvia is going to go there and bite them in the ass, and I’ll be cheering her on. Its not the dog, never was. Its the owner!Its the owner!Its the owner!Its the owner!Its the owner!Its the owner! How many times do we need to say it? So if its windy blowing cold and I tuck Sylvia under my coat will I be charged with hiding a weapon?
“Some of these dogs are killing machines”
Silly man, they are TAUGHT to be killing machines. Its the owner! Some people never get it.
By the way, great picture of a killing machine in action!
February 1st, 2004 at 8:40 pm
They call me…Tim.
Other random news: Watched Survivor Allstars (forced to) and noticed Rich was wearing a Utilikilt.
February 2nd, 2004 at 8:15 am
And Now For Something Completely Different
Let us bow our heads and take this moment to reflect upon the brilliance of Monty Python. Amen. He’s a killer! With nasty, sharp, pointy teeth!” href=”http://www.michaelhanscom.com/eclecticism/2004/02/hes_a_killer_wi.html”>eclecticism > He’s a killer! …
February 2nd, 2004 at 8:24 am
By suggesting that it’s always the owner’s fault you speak of a dog as if it is a gun. A gun is an inanimate thing that requires a user to fire it. A dog, though not as intelligent as a human, can makes choices by itself.
Plenty of cases show that dogs that have been treated well but are of a certain breed known for particular temperments have still attacked for reasons unknown.
If there’s one thing I know about my dog is that she speaks volumes through body language and unless you’re an expert on canines not everyone can know what certain movements, tones of voice or eye contact can set a dog off. The fact of the matter is that certain breeds of dogs are more dangerous than others, which is why we don’t have wolves, hyenas, coyotes or dingos as pets and those that do typically don’t live in urban centers.
/steps off his soapbox
February 2nd, 2004 at 11:04 am
TheDon: I totally agree with you. Except sometimes it’s just the owner
February 2nd, 2004 at 11:13 am
Even if the dog evidences his free will and acts out in some way, doesn’t the owner have any responsibility to know what kind of dog he has and what it’s capable of?
Sorry, it’s the owner everytime. if you can’t control the dog, you take the rap. We expect no less from you when you drive your car. It’s your dog. Leave it it home or give it away if you can’t take the responsibility.
February 2nd, 2004 at 2:24 pm
Yep. It’s the owner. It is the owner’s responsibility 100%. It is not the dog’s fault if the owner doesn’t have time to train it properly or even minimally. It is the owner’s responsibility to make certain their dog is properly collared and leashed within the laws of the city or county and under control at all times.
If an owner can’t live up to these responsibilities, then they should be finding the dog another home.
February 2nd, 2004 at 4:08 pm
I shall attempt to respond despite my impediment. You see after reading the last two responses my eyes rolled so far back I can’t see. Guess that’s what I get for rolling my eyes at things I don’t agree with.
Anyway, I’m not saying dog owners should absolve themselves of responsibility but comparing dogs to guns or cars isn’t the best argument. Usually, objects require human assistance.
In the case of a dog, it is true that bad training, lack of supervision or other forms of negligence can lead to unfortunate incidents but if you own an animal there’s a scary bit of news I have for you; you can’t watch living creatures 24/7. There will be a moment or two during their lifetime when they’ll have the chance to do something without you. In many cases perfectly well trained animals have attacked people for reasons that people don’t always comprehend. Consider all the reports of family pets attacking intruders despite never having been trained to attack. For crissakes, potbelly pigs have made unsuspecting attack pets! So long as living creatures have brains they have a will and only 100% vigilance can prevent them from doing something you don’t want.
In fact, I think you should find a breeder/trainer and ask them if training can remove 100% of the risk out of your dog. Follow that up by asking if following proper training methods if you can avoid 100% of the risks. Another wonderful learning experience would be to ask a breeder which dog is ideal for a family with children. If 9 out of 10 breeders can easily recite breeds then you’ll understand how the opposite can also be true, i.e. breeds predisposed to agression.
There is a reason we breed dogs the way we do. Now-a-days we breed them for our family and less for work but with the exception of certain breeds, we’ve attempted to breed the “wild” out of dogs and despite that it is proven that all dogs are only a few (seven) generations away from reverting to pure wild dogs, if left alone (dingo).
I highly recommend the books “The Hidden Life Of Dogs” and “When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals” to get an stronger understanding of why all the human responsibility in the world can’t force an animal to always do what you want it to.
The bottom line is this: I can warn you about crocodiles being aggressive just as I can warn you about pit bulls. If you want to take time to train a croc into being submissive, knock yourself out. I prefer to simply accept the nature of the beast.
February 2nd, 2004 at 6:33 pm
You’re missing the point. No one has suggested animals can be made risk-free (and don’t tell me about constant vigilance: I have a 5 year old and a 6 year old, and I submit they pose a greater challenge than a dog). If the owner can’t take the responsibility keeping an animal under his control, he needs to find another pet: fish sound about right.
The bottomline is, it ain’t the animals fault.
February 2nd, 2004 at 6:55 pm
Where to start? Perhaps I should have been clearer. Don…I am in agreement with you 100%. I am a dog owner and have one sitting next to me right now. And she is a living being and she can and will choose her course of action, on her own, without me. Of that there is no doubt. I have never ever trained her to attack, but anyone that strikes me in her presence is sure to get bit, all you have to do is grab my shirt and she’ll show teeth. What can I say? She loves me.
There are good dogs and there are bad dogs. And just as you cannot have a wolf for a pet there are breeds of dogs that we humans should not have as pets. And if we need to outlaw those breeds I have no problem with that.
I was talking about the post.
Classifying dogs as dangerous weapons is silly and a waste of taxpayer money. No breed can be all-bad any more than a breed can be all-good. The bill should address people. (Owners that are mean, and or dumb enough to have a vicious pet.) The next time a pit bull rips apart a three year old put the owner in jail for 20 years. After 3 or 4 dumb ass’s get life in prison for murder ( and it is murder ) maybe people think twice about owning such a stupid choice for a pet.
People… breed them for meanness. People… train them to fight. People… want a big bad muther And its People that should take responsibility.
Any dog, (any breed) involved in an unprovoked attack should be killed. I will (and have) kill any animal that attacks me or my dog. But Classifying dogs as dangerous weapons? I think not….
Stand back everybody I have a…. Terrier!
February 6th, 2004 at 9:50 am
I agree with you on this.
I also have a dog. She’s part colley, part shepherd. I have to work with her constantly around people because she was mistreated early in life, so she’s a nervouse dog. If she bites someone, I know I’m in trouble. And yes, it is stupid to classify an animal as a thing and use the law to ban it as such. It would be more appropriate to simply ban a pitbull for being a dangerous animal.
So now that we’re on the same page… cool beans!