Modern Vespa

My two cents worth.... Enjoy the rabbits but STAY AWAY FROM THOSE PILLS.

I wish i could stay away from the rabbit pills... I had to change Oscar's litter and "box".

This is Oscar when we got him:

TECH nice lionhead. He's adorable. My fav rabbit was boomer the french lop who weighed in at 14lbs and thought he was a dog. Here's a pic of him drinking my grapefruit juice. The other guy is nemo my rescued holland with some fuzzy lop mixed in (6lbs). He's laying on his "tin"

No i don't mean that u have to have high T to take risks genie. And my exs' 'taches tickled...come to think of it, so did their six packs...

The last from me on this subject:

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=11002

A long article, but worth it.

valour very much before discretion

Valor is doing something when you are scared to death but go ahead anyway. What he is doing is just stupid. You can't challenge the laws of physics, they work every time. If you must admire something it would be his optimism.

Every computer user knows the saying,"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome."

It was meant to be a simple play on words, nothing more...never mind

I do admire his tenacity, if nothing else

While i have been there and done that with being reckless over the years i did it for myself and not for others. Guys when they get together tend tot try and "one up " one another. Women not so much. I should say rarely Definitely a testosterone thing. I've never seen a "darwin" award given to a woman. That said i'm sure there's a few but the men have conquered that one

My friend Renee is the author of those Darwin Awards. And usually the awards are given to males who ingest liquor of some kind and then say 'watch this' or the equivalent. Men tend to show lack of judgment with respect to activities when drunk.
Women, on the other hand, when drunk, tend to show lack of judgment as to sexual partners, which carries a different sort of risk.

[Note - all of the above should be taken with the word 'sarcasm' in mind. Except for the bit about my friend Renee, that part is true]

Criteria for a Darwin Award:

Inability to reproduce

* Nominee must be dead or rendered sterile.

Sometimes this can be a matter of dispute. Potential awardees may be out of the gene pool due to age; others have already reproduced before their deaths. To avoid debates about the possibility of in-vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, or cloning, the original Darwin Awards book applied the following "deserted island" test to potential winners: If the person would be unable to reproduce when stranded on a deserted island with a fertile member of the opposite sex, he or she would be considered sterile. Winners of the award, in general, are either dead or become unable to use their sexual organs.

Excellence

* Astoundingly stupid judgment.

The candidate's foolishness must be unique and sensational, perhaps because the award is intended to be funny. A number of foolish but common activities, such as smoking in bed, are excluded from consideration. In contrast, self-immolation caused by smoking after being administered a flammable ointment in a hospital and specifically told not to smoke is grounds for nomination. One 'Honorable Mention' (a man who attempted suicide by swallowing nitroglycerine pills, and then tried to detonate them by running into a wall) is noted to be in this category, despite being intentional and self-inflicted, which would normally disqualify the inductee.

Self-selection

* Cause of one's own demise.

Killing a friend with a hand grenade would not be eligible, but killing oneself while manufacturing a homemade chimney-cleaning device from a grenade would be eligible.[8] To earn a Darwin Award, the candidate must have killed him- or herself, rather than a third party.

Maturity

* Capable of sound judgment.

The nominee must be at least past the legal driving age and free of mental defect (Northcutt considers injury or death caused by mental defect to be tragic, rather than amusing, and routinely disqualifies such entries). After much discussion, there also exists a small category regarding deaths below this age limit. Entry into this category requires that the peers of the candidate be of the opinion that the actions of the person in question were above and beyond the limits of reason in their opinions.

Veracity

* The event must be verified.

The story must be documented by reliable sources, i.e., reputable newspaper articles, confirmed television reports, or responsible eyewitnesses. If a story is found to be untrue, it is disqualified, but particularly amusing ones are placed in the urban legend section of the archives. Despite this requirement, many of the stories are fictional, often appearing as "original submissions" and presenting no further sources than unverified (and unreliable) "eyewitnesses". Most such stories on Northcutt's Darwin Awards site are filed in the Personal Accounts section.

In addition, later revisions to the qualification criteria add several requirements that are have not been made into formalized 'rules': innocent bystanders cannot be in danger, and the qualifying event must be caused without deliberate intent (to prevent glory-seekers from purposely injuring themselves solely to win a Darwin).

I like the term "Calculated Risk" for riding aggressively. Weighing the risk, stakes, and benefit, I'm okay with it.

At least when there are no bloody unnecessary double solid lines in the middle!