Tue 8 Jul 2008
An Appropriate Form of Revenge?
Posted by Greg Molyneux under Entertainment, Humor
We all know that Jesus Christ, son of Source, taught us to turn the other cheek. But sometimes our unsightly humanness gets the better of us. Alas, sweet revenge is needed. We have all been wronged before to some degree or another, and we will all be wronged again; it is how we respond to such strife that defines us.
There are those among us, Greg Rineberg not excluded, who are classic over reactors and there are those who habitually look the other way, like the until now unseen Jeff Ruemeli. For the rest of us we wallow somewhere in the middle. It is this very middle ground that serves as great theater to the epic mastery of revenge, the best of which is always served ice cold.
The form of retribution that I am about to present before you is to be contemplated carefully so as to determine whether it classifies as an appropriate form of revenge. This plan of action is by no means a creation of my own, that distinction is reserved for Eric Zane of the Free Beer and Hot Wings radio show. What we are about to discuss is known simply in talk radio circles as - The Upper Decker.
Instead of describing what it is right off the bat, I’ll just outline the steps to revenge:
- Enter the bathroom of the suspect in dire need of payback
- Remove the lid to the upper tank of the toilet
- Perch your feet on the toilet seat pigeon style and hover your backside over the tank
- Proceed to drop deuce into said tank
And that’s it, you have just really ruined someones day. Ideally it will be some time before the marinating source of fecal filth is determined, at which point all of the inner workings of what makes indoor plumbing so special will have been overtaken by last week’s McDonald’s.
But now for the core of the matter. Is this a just punishment fitting of its crime? Are there certain acts of misfortune that warrant the carpet bombing of another citizens bathroom? I’m not so sure and here’s why:
How can you be certain the bastard who wronged you is the one that will have to clean it up? What if happens to be a lesser employee of a piss poor business that won’t give you your money back? Or the maid of some rich jerk?
I am of the opinion that grounds for an Upper Decker can only be warranted if there is near 100% certainty that its target will be the one to play cleanup. Otherwise this grotesque and juvenile act must be held in abeyance in favor of a different and more appropriate form of revenge.
Image Used in this Post
Fish Tank Toilet image courtesy of Flickr user Fire Monkey Fish published under the CC license.
7 Responses to “ An Appropriate Form of Revenge? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from Justifying My Existence | Babeled
October 19th, 2008 at 8:53 pm[...] a month ago I babeled on about an immature method of revenge called the Upper Decker. We contemplated its merit and questioned its appropriateness. All-in-all, it probably made you [...]









July 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
That’s rank.
I would really have to be pissed at some one to consider that.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Alas, I’m afraid civilian casualties is a problem in restroom hostilities as well as the modern battlefield.
Perhaps precision laser-guided rectal munitions could smoke em outa there holes.
Now watch this drive
July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 am
This method of attack could be the key to Middle East peace.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
If you choose not to leave any DNA around the at the scene of the crime try substituting potatoes instead of the deuce method. This will get the job done plus add much confusion and make the victim wonder how the F did a potato end up in my toilet. Just ask Man Overboard and he will surely agree since he has been burned by this in the past. Hey what do you expect I’m Irish, I have several uses for potatoes!
July 14th, 2008 at 12:15 am
The Hideousness of that potato shall haunt my dreams for all eternity.
Clearly - a line crossed without prior provocation.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I assume this was an adventure in abuse at one of Jack’s Rowan abodes?