Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

What is this called? Can I call it inadmissiable evidence?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Orba, Jan 19, 2013. | Replies: 19 | Views: 1233

  1. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Hi. Background: I am a certified mental patient in Canada. I want to move to Toronto, but my psychiatrist won't let me. So I am applying for a review panel hearing, which is like a tribunal. A small court. Anyway, I fear my psychiatrist might bring up WHY I want to go to Toronto as to make my case weaker. I consider this possible act to be irrelevant, seeing as how bringing up the reasons why I want to go to Toronto has nothing to do with whether I am in fact allowed by the law to do so. I also consider it to be an invasion of my privacy. It is because of these reasons, that i am considering objecting to it, if my psychiatrist should really decide to go for it.

    I know I am supposed to say, "I object to my psychiatrist's bringing up why I want to go to Toronto" but I don't know how to finish that sentence. Can I say, "it is because I consider his bringing up why I want to go to Toronto to be inadmissible evidence"? I want to sound like I am arguing a law case. I want the review panel to take me and my objection seriously. Thanks.
  2. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,604
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    479
    I need more facts to be able to tell U
  3. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    I am a patient living in Vancouver, BC, Canada, who is certified under the BC mental health act. I need to see a psychiatrist regularly and take meds, or they recall me to the hospital. However, I want to move to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. My psychiatrist refuses to transfer my file there as I requested. So now, I have to go through a tribunal, aka the review panel, to have them review my case and see if they will override my psychiatrist's refusal to transfer my file to Toronto.

    I am preparing a letter outlining my argument. I am anticipating what my psychiatrist, the opposition, will say to try to keep me in Vancouver. One of the things I am anticipating is that he will bring up WHY I want to move to Toronto. I have my reasons, but I fear they will not convince the review panel. So I am trying to do my best to stop my psychiatrist from bringing up the reason why I want to move there, or to stop him once he has started. So I try to come up with arguments. So far the two arguments I have thought up are these: 1. I maintain that bringing up the reasons why I want to move to Toronto is irrelevant to my hearing, because whether I get to move to Toronto should only be contingent on where the law allows me to do so, not on anything else. and 2. I object to my psychiatrist's bringing up my private reasons for wanting to move to Toronto because I see this as a form of invasion into my privacy. I shouldn't have to put up with people openly dissecting my private desires.

    So here's the story. Now help me think of an impressive-sounding thing to say to stop my psychiatrist from bringing up why I want to move to Toronto. Can I say that it is inadmissible evidence?
  4. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    469
    We're not lawyers, and don't even play them on TV. Plus, we're more or less an international forum - I'm a Yank, but there's many other nationalities here (I'm fairly sure there's at least a couple of Canuks but I don't recall who they are). So for the most part we know feck-all about legal and medical issues involved. The only stuff I know comes from the farce that was Mark Steyn's trial at the hands of the B.C. Human Rights Commission.

    I'd advise you not to even play at being a lawyer either, as trying to sound legalistic might work against you - you could come off looking either paranoid, unbalanced, or whiny, all of which work against your cause. Instead, I would be completely clear and at the same time a little threatening regarding your shrink's motivations (without a hint of paranoia, mind you). WHY is he interested in keeping you under his care and refusing to transfer your file? For example, I'm assuming some kind of profit motive, even if the money is not open - maybe he gets more reimbursement for a higher patient count, maybe the number of patients gets him a discount, whatever. That could be one of your main arguments - i.e. in reality you're nothing but another steak dinner for your shrink, or he'd allow you to be transferred to a competent psychiatrist in Toronto.

    Secondly, be prepared for him to bring up the reason even if he's not allowed to, and go from there. Given my presumption of some kind of fiscal motive, it's not like he's going to draw the line at betraying your patient confidentiality - the review tribunal is probably already on his side even though they're theoretically supposed to consider your interests, and they're probably shrinks as well. Also, you can't "stop" him from doing so (you'll look crazy in doing so) nor can you probably claim irrelevance of your motivations - you've either voluntarily or involuntarily been given into his care, so he doubtless feels that he gets to feck with your life as he sees fit.

    Thirdly, be very careful writing letters. You're reducing the number of avenues of communication you can use from three (spoken word, intonation, and body language) to just one (written word), and putting that into a legally admissible document. I've had to berate my older sister numerous times for her desire to write declamatory statements, because they can and will be used against her in a court. Unless you're an absolutely crap-tastic speaker, or you are intimidated by or unable to address the tribunal, I'd go with a witness statement delivered verbally instead.

    Without knowing or caring about your reasons, let me presume (for the sake of argument and example) that there's someone you fancy who is in Toronto. Let me also presume that the psychiatrist believes you're a danger to yourself or her. What you need to do is make sure that you are neither moving to Toronto specifically because of the very same dangerous aspect of what the shrink is claiming, nor are moving solely because of that individual's presence. Otherwise, the shrink has a slam-dunk argument: "Orba's moving to Toronto because he wants to follow around and creep out this sweet young thing he fixated on". So, if your shrink is claiming that you're moving to Toronto because you want to stalk a girl you barely know and that he's protecting you from your own behaviour, you show that you have a job offer in Toronto that your shrink is preventing you from legally taking, and that you don't even know the girl he's referring to.

    All this being said, and given your reluctance to discuss your actual motivations, if your shrink IS trying to prevent you from moving because of the main reason you want to move, you ought to consider your decision and motivation VERY carefully, and better yet get a second opinion or other form of counsel/guidance. Given the fecked-up socialism that Canada labours under, I'm guessing you're not allowed to just choose a different shrink, transfer care, or get a second opinion? Maybe you could go talk to a priest instead (regardless of your actual religious inclinations). Just as with military officers and guidance counsellors, they're as good as any lay psychologist for general mental health issues (I heard a radio advert just this morning for school psychologists where they don't even need to earn their Doctorate to qualify). However, since you're under the care of a psychiatrist, and that's seen as the harder-sciencey mental health profession, you're going to have to be convincing.

    As you're probably aware, we don't have anywhere near as disgusting a level of Statist manipulative dominance in America. In return, we get places like Sandy Hook... tread carefully and contemplate deeply, regardless your issue.
  5. Stevinator

    Stevinator IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2003
    Messages:
    5,003
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Great answer Merv. Basically what I would have said, but with better grammar. :)

    Orba~
    That last paragraph is the big one. Think about why the doctor doesn't want you to move. Is it something shady like money or do they really have your (or someone else's) best interest at heart? We on the forum obviously don't heve enough info to know, but it sure get a sneaking suspicion that the doctor has some good reason or they wouldn't bother.


    the word inadmissable has a specific legal meaning, usually you can't admit that evidence because of how it was uncovered (illegal search is generally when the term comes up). That's a distinctly American thing i think though, because we have an amendment protecting from illegal search. I don't know if Canada has something similar, or if it has as much weight. Here it is in the constitution, so the rule is particularly weighty.


    Perhaps you just want to say it's immaterial. Assuming it IS immaterial. If you say it is, and then the doctor says it is not--then gives their explanation, it's just going to make you look bad. Jmerv is right, being open, honest and not appearing paranoid seems like your best bet, from the info you've given anyway.
  6. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Thank you all who have replied. You have made very compelling arguments. In fact your posts are so well thought out, and I figure it will help my case tremendously, if I put up my letter here for you guys to critique. So here it is.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dear review panel,

    My name is Orba, and I am a mental patient certified under the BC mental health act. My outpatient psychiatrist is Dr. K***. My case manager is D****. I desire to move to Toronto.

    On January 14[SUP]th[/SUP], 2013, I made a request to Dr. K**** to have my file transferred over to Ontario so I could live there and continue to be certified there. On January 15[SUP]th[/SUP], 2013, D*** called me and gave me two options: either I do the daily witnessing program (where I go to a designated pharmacy to have someone watch me take meds), or I get recalled to the hospital. So this fact led me to believe that Dr. K**** is, in effect, telling me that he refuses to transfer my file to Toronto. Since my own psychiatrist refuses to transfer my file to Toronto, I have only one thing left to do, and that is to appeal to the review panel.


    I would like to formally put forth a request to the review panel to have my file as well as my status (as a certified mental patient) transferred over to Toronto. It is true that I am a certified mental patient. However, I need only satisfy the discharge conditions, and once I do, I should enjoy my rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the supreme laws of this nation. And these conditions are 1. I take medications; and. I go to appointments. I maintain that I have satisfied and continue to satisfy both conditions ever since my second latest hospitalization. And I believe that no where in the BC mental health act does it say a certified mental patient has to live in British Columbia. Nor does it say certified patients cannot have their status (as mental patients) transferred to another province. As such, I believe I have the right to either straight up move to Toronto or at the very least request to have my status transferred to Toronto. So I ask the panel to please transfer my file to Toronto, so that I can continue to be certified in Ontario and continue to see a physician there. And during the process of transfer, I ask to be allowed to live in Toronto. I will continue to satisfy the discharge conditions by flying back to Vancouver periodically to see my psychiatrist. This is to prevent the possibility of the physician intentionally taking a long time to transfer file as to make me stay in Vancouver longer.

    I wish to advise the panel to guard against this possible school of thought: “Orba is a certified mental patient in BC. Therefore, she has to live in BC”. I maintain that this is a knee jerk reaction that has no basis in law and further, threatens to violate my right as a Canadian citizen. Whether I am allowed to leave BC is not contingent upon whether one considers it expedient to keep me in BC. It should be contingent upon whether the law allows me to do so. And I maintain that no where in the BC mental health act does it stipulate that patients thus certified must live in BC. Therefore, I draw the conclusion that this means I am allowed to live anywhere, for as long as I satisfy the discharge conditions. I also hope the panel won’t let the logistics of file (and status) transfer get in the way. I don’t know how exactly such transfer is to be done, nor do I know whether it is possible to do at all. However, just because the logistics of file transfer might be daunting is no reason to keep me in BC.

    I also want to warn against the opposition’s possible tactic of bringing up why I want to move to Toronto. I believe that I am not obligated to account my motives to anybody. I am also under no obligation to convince anybody that my reasons for wanting to move to Toronto are rational, or otherwise “good”. Besides, what my motivations are for moving to Toronto, or whether the panel considers my reasons good enough have no bearing on whether the law allows me to move to Toronto. And whether the law allows me to move to Toronto is the real crux of the whole matter. As such, I will not entertain any questions that attempt to probe into my reasons for wanting to move to Toronto on the grounds of their being irrelevant to the issue at hand. And if the opposition should still decide to delve into this topic, I will object, on the grounds of it being an intrusion on my privacy. I am entitled to the right to privacy and I don’t have to tolerate people’s openly dissecting and discussing my own private desires and wishes.


    I will also deal with another possible argument by the opposition, which is the physician’s unilaterally decreeing Toronto is not a suitable place for me to live in. I object to this, because I know for a fact the power of the physician is limited to only areas that pertain directly to my mental health. He can ask me whether I hear voices or whether I hallucinate, and he has the power to increase or decrease my meds as he sees fit. However, once I satisfy the criteria for being stable, and I maintain I do, seeing as how I am not recalled to the hospital and am living in the community, the physician has no say in how my life ought to be lived. My psychiatrist has no power to be making judgment calls on any aspect of my private life. Not even if I am a certified mental patient. Areas such as what kind of jobs I want to get, what hairstyle I want to wear, whether I want to move out, which province I want to live in, all lie in my domain. These are the decisions of my life--I and solely I get to exercise judgment in every instance. The physician might claim how my condition translates into compromised judgment, and how this should preclude me from deciding which province I want to live in. This is what I counter: as long as I am considered stable enough, which is evidenced by the fact I am allowed to exercise judgment and to make decisions for myself in other areas of my life, the physician is in effect conceding that he sees me as stable enough as to be able to exercise sound judgment across the boards. One can’t consider me to be stable enough to make decisions on what kind of jobs to get, what kind of hair to wear, but turn around and decree I am not stable enough to decide for myself which province I want to live in. In other words, the physician cannot pick and choose which areas of my life I have sound judgment over and which ones I don’t. This would be inconsistency, as well as a form of “cherry-picking” evidences that are favourable to one’s view in order to support one’s argument.

    I want to deal with yet another possible argument by the opposition. They might say this: “Orba can eventually go to Toronto, but it is my professional judgment that it’s wiser for her to stay in BC for now until she is more stabilised”. This is what I counter: the law never specifies in which province the patient must reside in order to stabilize. As such, I maintain that my stabilizing in Ontario is no different from my stabilizing in BC, as long as I am being watched over by a competent psychiatrist. And I maintain that it is possible for me to find a competent psychiatrist in Ontario to watch over me. Besides, the fact I am allowed to live out in the community is proof that my psychiatrist already concedes I am stable enough. Otherwise I would be in the hospital. And since my psychiatrist considers me to be stable enough to live in the community, it follows that I can live in any community that I choose, seeing as how I have the right to choose where to live, and the freedom of movement. Another possible argument is this: the opposition says I am stable enough to live in the community, but not stable enough to leave home. This is what I counter: as long as the patient is considered stable enough to leave the hospital, she has the right to decide for herself whether she wants to live at home or by herself. I know this because I was given such an option when I was discharged from the hospital for the first time. Besides, the physician can only recommend that a patient live at home. He cannot force the patient to live at home. He has no such power. As such, I and only I get to decide whether I want to live on my own.

    Thank you for reading. To conclude, I respectfully request the review panel to transfer my file and status as a certified mental patient to Toronto. Failing that, I ask to be allowed to live in Toronto and to fly back to Vancouver to see the care team here. I argue that my requests ought to be granted, seeing as how there exist no laws that prohibit me from either living in another province, nor transferring my file to another province. Whatever your decision is, I respect it. But please give me your rationale behind it, if you should be saying no to my requests. Thanks.
  7. stillman

    stillman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I can sympathize with your predicament. I doubt you will win.

    As you well know already, certified means you lack freedom. They can spend millions on your care throughout your life; However, you will get those services whether you want them or not. I don't know anything about law (I've worked in hospitals for over a decade though), but the order might be for you to show up at the particular pharmacy where you currently are forced to go, and no other. Changing this involves moving a ton of paper around.

    Patients typically have huge medical records that demand everything from precise measurements of urine output in mL to behaviors, routines, family ties, etc. The level of privacy we all want may be out of the question for you, since a web of health professionals share a huge stack of paperwork on the most intimate details of your life. They will want to know why you plan to move and everything you will do there, what family exists there, and so on. All I can say is prepare to have something to give them. It might be good to talk to your social worker about all this. Even a chat with an RN would be extremely helpful.

    I think the second last paragraph of your letter needs to be scrapped. It contains hypotheticals, and the system does actually have more power over you than indicated. Just emphasize that you've done all that was asked of you, meaning there's a guarantee you can manage it again elsewhere.
  8. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,604
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    479
    I asked for more facts,
    I need 3
    1) Do you have a history of not taking your prescribed meds? (please correct your letter "(where I go to a designated pharmacy to have someone watch me take meds)", Can you Say medication - ? - I thought you could. :) )

    2) Are you a danger to others if you don't take them?

    3) If yes, How much of a danger?

    As jmyrvin pointed out, asking about inadmissible evidence looks paranoid vs pointing out your own opportunities.

    This threads admissibility probably depends on your access to the IP it's posted from BTW. .
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  9. stillman

    stillman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    467
    For 2 and 3 there, potential self harm is implicit in "certified", which is enough for the system to make a patient's decisions for him or her--forever in some cases, I might add.
  10. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    I agree that certified patients lack certain freedom, however my argument is that the freedom of movement should still be present for me. In other words, they can't just order me to stay in one province for the rest of my life, just because I am certified.
    Yet nowhere in the discharge conditions did it specify a particular pharmacy. It only says I need to take medications.
    What hypotheticals do you speak of? Also, you claim that the system has more power over me than indicated. Pray tell, what is this power you speak of and does it have a limit?
  11. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Yes I have a history of non-compliance. However this shouldn't matter, because I am not asking to be de-certified. I am asking to have my status as a certified patient transferred over to Toronto.

    According to my psychiatrist, yes I am. But note that this shouldn't matter, because I am not asking to be able to stop taking medication. I am asking for my file to be transferred to Toronto so someone over there can watch me take it.

    I don't know. YOu will have to ask my psychiatrist. Again, this question is irrelevant. How much of a danger I am when I don't take medication has no bearing on whether the law allows me to move to another province.
  12. Orba

    Orba IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    If what you say is true, then the system should get to make all kinds of decisions for me, from what kind of jobs to get to what guys I want to sleep with. But the reality is not the case. I apparently do have some say in how certain aspects of my life are to be run. This leads me to believe that the system does not get to make all decisions of my life for me.
  13. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    469
    I still think a letter is your worst option unless you either are not allowed to address the board or would look worse addressing it. It comes across as a declamatory statement, which can easily be twisted if indeed there's unsavoury motivations on the part of your shrink.
    I noticed that there's an option of having someone officially witnessing you taking your meds. I think that's definitely something to explore, particularly if you have been unwilling or disinterested in similar obedience to an ordered medication regimen. <Voluntarily> requesting that option pretty much cuts your psychiatrist's balls RIGHT off, because it inadvertently makes a tidy little statement directly to the board. You're stating like a slap in the face that you distrust him, resent him, and think he's not actually got your best interests at heart, so much so that you'd rather have the more punitive situation of being treated like a child than continue under his care.

    Personally, I think that's a fantastic option, if you really feel like your shrink is the problem. How can he possibly protest your willingness to be under an even harsher control, simply to get away from him? It states to the board in so many words that he's a gobshyte and you're pretty much desperate to get him off your arse.
  14. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,604
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    479
    I'm not so worried about self harm.

    Masochists have rights too.
  15. stillman

    stillman IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    3,659
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    467
    That's good news. I'm just saying that a move is still a big deal to those involved in your care, requiring plenty of back and forth between them, plus paperwork. They'll want to know an awful lot, which is why I think you should have answers ready.

    I don't want to attack your letter like I do on Wattpad, but you talk about what they are or aren't allowed to do based on what they've previously let you do. I wish I knew more specifics like the higher-ups, but they're allowed to enforce A LOT of control over the life of a certified patient. And they can't just take your word for it; they have to dig through your medical records and go by the information in it. This is why I think your best bet is to see a social worker because they deal with the setup of life outside the hospital. I believe you have one assigned who deals with your case. They'll have concrete answers far better than anything I could tell you. Another great resource for answers is your family, as they would have had many discussions with your health team.

    "Besides, the fact I am allowed to live out in the community is proof that my psychiatrist already concedes I am stable enough. Otherwise I would be in the hospital."

    This is an example of the hypotheticals I mentioned. They may think and conclude differently. Your presentation comes off as overly defensive and demanding, while there's more helpful stuff in there about how well you've conducted yourself.

    "Besides, the physician can only recommend that a patient live at home. He cannot force the patient to live at home."

    I'm not so sure. They can apply a lot of force over where someone must stay, at least in my province.

    From what I've seen, there is no limit. It's different for each patient depending on concerns over self harm. They let patients have as much freedom as they deem safe, but the system will always watch over them or set up conditions. Where I work, many patients aren't allowed to leave the hospital until properly discharged by the system. This can last months or lead to an indefinite stay. And we're talking harmless elderly folk.

    That's true, but it's their call. They could make all your decisions if you were in a different boat, like if you were a dementia patient. I don't know the specifics for you, but you're in a rough spot for sure.

    I believe the "options" are to show up at the pharmacy or return to the hospital (where the drugs will be forced in one way or another). I know you're a big fan of socialism, jmervyn, but the heroism can get pretty dark sometimes.
    Kidding.

    The gallant heroes are, and they call all the shots.

    ...until they land in the system.

    Orba, you make many good logical points, and I hope it all goes well. But I wouldn't tell them what they're allowed to conclude. Instead, maybe a more neutral approach would look better. I just fear they will be required to know the details you want to keep private. Much privacy is lost in the system. Sure, there's confidentiality, but you're still stuck with paid strangers who document everything about you. If you're at home with your parents, that's also a big deal to them, as the parents are, in a way, doing some of the supervision the health workers would want. "Virtual beds". There is always a big focus on family as a resource.
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  16. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,604
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    479
    This is the off topic forum and here is a better case
    Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Land?
    A case that began with reports of suspicious activity in northeast Wisconsin forest land last spring may be headed for the US Supreme Court. That's because a US district court judge ruled in the case last fall that it was okay for the DEA to enter the rural property without a warrant and install surveillance cameras that were used to help convict five members of a family on charges they were growing marijuana.
  17. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    469
    Well, that's why I referenced Sandy Hook earlier. The sort of horrible shyte that mental health professionals get up to given their potential for abusing power is fairly well enumerated in the history of New York - to the point that it is the stuff of horror movies. Showing up at the pharmacy seems like a great option to me, since Orba's not only got a history of slacking on his regimen but feels the shrink is in opposition - it gives him both the freedom and the responsibility, with "incarceration" being the penalty for fecking up.

    I'm thinking about Orba's grounds for this, and hoping he's able to clearly analyse the situation - he strikes me as feeling paranoid about his shrink's motivations, but as you know I'm a BIG supporter of feeling rightfully paranoid. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, &c. &c. but it's also hard to see straight when it's you in the foxhole.

    Of course, we only have Orba's scenario to extrapolate from, and I do know that everyone can start to view a person in authority as having a personal grudge when they prevent or disallow something. Sometimes they're truly trying to harm or exploit their subordinate/victim, sometimes they're truly trying to look out for them, and many times they're just being arbitrary or simply an outright arsehole. Hopefully we can discount the arbitrary nature of Orba's shrink, but it's not out of the question.

    Aren't these servers based in Germany or Britain? I don't know if there's actually a legal issue if they're just observing our discussion, since it's not sealed - however, if there's a legal challenge they would have to prove Orba is the real Orba, which they probably can't do.
  18. BobCox2

    BobCox2 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    11,604
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    479
    Speaking of Freking up - you just did and you were not misinformed - my nested quotes confused you though.
  19. jmervyn

    jmervyn IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    13,437
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    469
    I'm easily confused. Let's lighten this thread up:

    [​IMG]
  20. LozHinge the Unhinged

    LozHinge the Unhinged IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    7,104
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    168
    Bleakly hilarious! :thumbup:

Share This Page