Slashdot Mirror
Bobby Fischer Online?
talilee writes "This story from AP (but I found it at SFGate.com) suggests that Bobby Fischer is playing online chess anonymously against champion level players. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his genius without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)" The BBC has a slightly more informative story.
I dont know if its naive but i find it a bit depressing that someone with bobby's intellect has to exist anonyomously to avoid the public limelight and scrutiny just to survive - witness the media attacks that form against any succesful person in the public eye these days - depressing that freely available information means a loss of any right to privacy.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
I'll bet he's controlling Deep Fritz via ICQ.
This story from /. suggests that Anonymous Coward is posting online against +1 bonus level posters. I'm glad to see that he has an opportunity to express his "genius" without having to deal with the overwhelming attention (and without exposing his, um, "eccentricities".)
~~~~~~
under-paid karma whore
of course there probably isn't any way to prove that this was actually Fischer, but I for one belive Short, the man who claims to have played him, for one reason: whatever happpened during these game, he seems absolutely moved, as though the moves themselves had a power and grandeur that transcenced the game. I guess it could be fake, but he sounds like these games wanted to make him cry.
I wonder though if he wouldn't post the move lists the for games. that would tell us something.
sean
I play chess online a good bit, and Bobby Fischer or not - there are some badass chess players out there. Sometime I can hold my own and other times those guys pull all kinds of weird stuff on me. My mother once found Omar Sharif playing bridge online.
...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
Maybe it's an American Fischer fan who learned all the "Fisher-related facts." The only evidence against that is just the quality of play.
Still--can we rule out it was a very powerful experimental chess computer or a very talented and reclusive chess star? Maybe Kramnik or Kasparov has an odd sense of humor and was making all the moves while his American buddy was doing all the typing.
Unless it's one of the current greats incognito, this story is interesting even if the opponent really isn't Fischer. It sounds like there's someone out there with an incredible chess talent!
I find this interesting since British Grandmaster Nigel Short has this theory just based on the style he played with that "person". Short said his adversary's style of play was very intriguing and something he had not seen before..
"My unseen opponent began with some highly irregular, if not totally absurd, opening moves - shifting all his pawns forward by one square. These were moves that no Grandmaster(?) would ever play." Short said he immediately suspected a hoax, but became aware there was method in the apparent madness.
If you ask me this evidence is very shaky and In my opinoin the thought of Bobby fisher playing is only a rumor
Diplomacy is the art of letting people have your way
Any chess experts want to comment on this unconventional play?
Did they ever find that guy, last i heard they were still looking for him.
Hilarious, Google Search: bobby fischer
This should give you some background info on Fischer and his "eccentricities."
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
I find it hard to understand how someone who has been interested in chess for the length of time you claim to have been, can be ignorant of Bobby Fischer, one of the greatest players of all time.
Bobby was the youngest International Grandmaster ever. He won 8 US Chess Championships, and won basically every game he played between 1962 and 1972.
Unfortunately, he has become a reclusive paranoid schizophrenic who rants about how the Jews and Russians are out to get him (it should be noted that Bobby is half-Jewish).
By the way, in the future, perhaps you should try Google for queries like this.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
Why does Short think this guy is Fischer? Because he whipped Short's ass and because he's familiar with obscure players from the sixties? Look, I'm really into computers from the 80s and late 70s. I could rattle off a large amount of obscure stats about Colecos, a bunch of z80 machines, early apples, including file systems, bus speeds - does this mean I'm Steve Wozniak or Bill Gates? I don't think so. Neither are all the other hundreds of people on /. with the same interest.
As for this guy being a good chess player - good for him, it doesn't mean he's fischer. I'm sure there are people of world-class quality at chess who choose not to go pro for a variety of reasons - again, it doesn't make them bobby fischer.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Those of you who, like me, don't know why he's a fugitive, here' s the story in brief. (Warning: bad midi background music). To make short story really really short, he played a Yugoslavian dude for money during the cold war and the US government put out an arrest warrant.
Just b/c his typing, his use of language, knowledge, etc reminds you of someone that does NOT mean it is.
From bbc :
Despite his misgivings, Short eventually arranged to play the unknown opponent, and in October last year lost the first of their four confrontations 8-0.
Now, my question is, how many people in the world can beat Short 8-0, and who can they be?
Somebody please explain to me how to lose four games and end up with the score being 8-0.
Hot damn, that's why I keep losing all my chess matches online : Bobby, will you please STOP PLAYING AGAINST ME ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Short's full story was posted on usenet. A bit more information than in either of the press stories.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - R Feynman
They played 4 sessions. The 1st session consisted of 8 games. Syntax.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
I don't know if you guys know this...but Bobby Fisher didn't really dissappear...being a chess guy, he lacked on some social skills and was a little shy.....he has been hiding under my couch for the last several years trying to avoid social confrontation...but now that I know he has been tapping into my internet connection for personal gain, I am forced to reveal him on slashdot. Bobby fisher is in my house in trout run PA. Tell CNN. They need to give me money before they come to look at him.
The anti-salmon
http://www.chlodwig.com/Fischer/Fi_Games_ICC.ht
This is no computer, NO computer would ever play a game like this.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
If the opponent WON all 4 games, the score would have been 8-0.
Championship chess normally has lots of draws.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
You say that if I answered enough of your questions correctly about Wozniak, californial, etc, that I could pass for Woz. Man, that wold be challenging - very challenging - but certainly doable. Likewise, why couldn't a person simply have studied Fischer's playing style, and aped that? Such an impersonation would be research-intensive, but doable.
Of course, once we start speculating about intentional imposters as opposed to honest mistake on Short's part, we need to haul out Occam's razor and ask ourselves which is most simple, and therefor most likely:
1.) Fischer is actually playing anonymously over the internet, but it dropping pseudo-subtle hints that he is Fischer to a man he knows would catch on. This is happening after nearly a decade of complete seclusion, and after almost thirty years of "retirement" broken only by a single game.
2. Someone is impersonating Fischer - perhaps a person, perhaps a computer.
3. Someone, quite innocently, has acquired a vast knowledge of chess history and a playing style similar to Fischer's - perhaps by studying his old games simply in an effort to learn from him.
4. Short is just misinterpreting the chess moves and conversation of the anonymous player.
I don't know which of these is the most simple, but I suspect that #1 is not it.
I'm the stranger...posting to
Funny -- he's [Al Gore] the one that failed out of two college programs and one was divinity school (how do you fail "Jesus loves me this I know"?). ... If you knock Bush's grades (which weren't stellar), you can't praise Gore's (which were Fs).
Perhaps I was just brainwashed by the common media impression and the fact he tries to pursue hard topics. His selection as VP and relative mastery of English when debating Bush do add a suggestion of intelligence.
However, your facts to do appear to be correct as confirmed by this Washington Times Article (reprinted).
Of course, grades aren't everything as Bush will attest.
Bobby Fischer is an interesting case study in differences among these. I suspect he was a smart guy, but could he really find the String Theory equations in physics, write the next Hamlet, or solve P == NP? The inverse is an interesting question, too: could Richard Feynman have beaten Bobby Fischer if he had dedicated his life to chess in the same way Fischer did? Doubtful IMHO, due to the thing Fischer had that Feynman ostensibly did not have: a remarkable aptitude for chess.
There's also an interesting analogy in sports. The strongest, fastest player does not necessarily lead to the best player. To be the best, you have to have some natural talent, i.e. aptitude.
Effectiveness, i.e. being really good at something, requires both intelligence and aptitude. Intelligence, of which I'm sure Fischer had his share, helps get you to a certain level, just as being fast and strong helps in sports, but to be truly great requires aptitude, which is altogether different.
By the same token, being really good at something like chess does not necessarily mean you're particularly intelligent. Maybe, but not necessarily.
I wanted to test my antagonist further so I thought of a number of tricky questions as we gossiped. For example, I asked him: "Do you know Armando Acevedo?" Senor Acevedo is an obscure Mexican player, not remotely of Grandmaster strength.
My opponent's reply came instantly, if cryptically: "Siegen 1970". Now if you look in the tournament book of the Siegen Chess Olympiad of 1970 you will find that Bobby Fischer played a certain Armando Acevedo in a preliminary round. He was obviously trying to tell me something.
Typing "Fischer Armando Acevedo" into Google turns up a reference to the 1970 Siegen match on the 3rd link. (The 2nd link is a consequence of Short's article.) It's in Spanish, but the exact phase "Siegen, 1970 appears explicity next to the first occurrance of "Fischer". See for yourself. The point is that one need not have access to a thirty year old tournament book, as Short suggests, to quickly generate the reply that he received. Thus this particular piece of evidence is a lot weaker than it appears.
What if we knew for a fact there were only a few ducks left in the world, but that many people had dogs that looked and sounded very much like ducks? Wouldn't occam's razor then state that the "duck" is really probably a dog? There's only one, highly reclusive and wacko Bobby Fischer, but many people could have learned to imitate his playing style and talk about things he would have known about.
I'm the stranger...posting to
You're kidding right? This player beat Short a lot worse than Short has been beaten anyone in the world including Garry Kasparov. The likelihood that there is someone out there able to defeat the best players in the world who happens to be so good he plays up to 8 bad moves at the beginning of the game and still defeats them who has never revealed himself is so unlikely as to be absurd.Maybe you'd feel better if you saw exactly what Short had to say about the incident.
I couldn't disagree more about Gore. Gore is at most a mediocre intellect. His is most certainly greater than most of the American public, but he's positively mediocre when compared with other well educated individuals. His speaking abilities are pretty marginal. His use of diction is absolutely uninspiring, in fact, he repeats himself too much. His analytical abilities show no spark of insight. He is not that well read and, for what it's worth, he wasn't even a good student.
Frankly, I don't see why certain people choose to ascribe the word intellect to Gore. The man is essentially a geek and not much more. By this I mean, he puts a lot of energy into what he does. He memorizes lots of facts and figures and he's capable of blinding people with bullshit when absolutely necessary. Perhaps this trait impresses some, but not me, I do not call that intellect.
The bottom line is that I see little reason to think of Gore as being any more intelligent or intellectual than what is seen in Washington, company executives, and the like. If there's any good reason to believe otherwise, please point it out to me.
Whoever wrote this program, please step forward. You're a genius. The program has passed the Turing test with flying colors.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Anyone know if someone has done any analyses of how Fischer's ability compares to other Grandmasters? If this online Fischer can trounce Short in speed chess whereas Short can hold his own with Kasparov then does this necessarily mean that Fischer can trounce Kasparov?
Also why didn't Fischer play Kasparov back in 1992 and what is Fischer Random play?
"sweet dreams are made of this..."
Why couldn't this be Bobby Fischer? This seems like the best way for him to interact with people.
He seems to hate being in the limelight, and there's no reason to believe he's no longer active in chess on any level. So why not?
Sounds like an ideal forum for him to play, to me.
If any of you want to learn more about Bobby and his antics, read a book called 'Bobby Fischer vs. The Rest Of The World'. It's genius.
I used to have a local chess club (formed in 1991) called "The Bobby Fischer Memorial Chess Club", but then one year later he re-appeared. But we didn't rename the club since we knew he'd disappear again. The club's motto? "Not dead but what has he done for us lately?"
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
This is from Thomas Pynchon, when CNN tracked him down and filmed him--and maybe, sort of, in a way, "threatened" to show the film.
And this from a reporter who previously stalked him:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/05/pynchon/
Just because someone's not in the news, doesn't mean he or she is a shut-in. Of course, this may be different for Bobby Fischer, but it's a perspective we need to keep.
This bit of text in the usenet article was interesting:
---
Boris considered it highly probable that I had come up against the elusive genius. When I said that, contrary to popular perception, he didn't sound mad, at all, Boris replied "Of course he isn't."
---
Boris isn't exactly a mental health expert. This is the same Boris Spassky who during the matches in 1972 broke down and accused Fischer of having mind-altering electronics installed in his arm chair.
All I can say is keep this Mr. Short guy away from the judges panel at any future Turing-like tests. He's too easily impressed by textual responses in terse conversations that include facts easily found thru Deja or Google. (ie, the 1970 mexican reference)
I'll let you make your own judgements, cause mine aren't worth too much, but read some other stories on that site before you take that version as gospel. Personally, I've have found ishipress.com to be somewhat entertaining in a slightly twisted way.
Bleh!
My wife's adviser for her PhD in geology was called to testify on global warming to some government committee a few years ago. In this, he was questioned by a number of respected individuals in the science field, many of whom were geologists (although not of the same specialty as my wife's adviser). At the end, Gore came in for a short 5-minute Q&A period. My wife's adviser said that the questions Gore put forth were the most intelligent and thought provoking of the bunch. Obviously he had been well briefed by his aides, but my wife's adviser says that it was clearly his own thinking (follow-up questions to his answers and such). He would most surely disagree with your opinions about Gore.
Oh, yes. My wife's adviser is a conservative southerner from Alabama. Most definitely not a Gore supporter.
You can be quite intelligent and now be an excellent orator. In fact you can be quite intelligent and not be very good at English. Don't put down Gore's intelligence. In fact, all the democrat presidents (and Gore) from the last half century stack up as wonderfully intelligent. However, most of them performed as president very poorly. Intelligence is not strongly correlated with the quality of one's presidency.
--Be human.
After looking at some of the games, I, for one, think it's him.
As Bernoulli said on seeing Newton's solution to the falling body problem (in which he also invented the calculus of variations): "On reconnaît le lion à son coup de patte", "One knows the lion by the stroke of his paw." This lion definitely has struck some great players.
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
My favorite game was the one where he pushed his two bishop pawns and then proceeded to walk his king around, move his queen out of the way, replace it with the king, and effectively swap his king and queen in 10 moves. LOL! What unique and effective gameplay. Amazing stuff.
Justin Dubs
> Fringe murmurs hit the major media this weekend when Nigel Short declared that he believes he has been playing Bobby Fischer online. (Another report of the report here from AP.) Rumors of Fischer playing internet chess have been going around for months now and have caused a furor amongst the usual fans and foes. Most of these stories go as follows: 1) Mr. X insists that both players log on as guests and all communication is handled by way of an intermediary. 2) Mr. X plays crazy openings, often moving his king back and forth to intentionally waste time. 3) Despite this, Mr. X destroys top GMs in these blitz games, making virtually no errors. 4) The games are never published, Mr. X never says he is Fischer or makes comments suggesting he is. 5) Mr. X occasionally answers trivia questions about Fischer's life.
You don't need to be Johnny Cochran to know the difference between concrete and circumstantial evidence, and what we have above is a wheelbarrow full of the latter. Nigel Short, speaking in the Sunday Telegraph Review article that is also devoid of substantiation, says that he is "99 per cent sure" he has "been playing against the chess legend." This is based on four sets of games, none of which are given or commented on, other than to say that Short lost the first set 8-0. (The article also says Short went 6-6 in a blitz match with Kasparov in 1995. From the context of Short's actual words these were apparently casual games.) The Telegraph doesn't call the evidence circumstantial, it calls it "overwhelming." Johnny Cochran would be proud.
Short was also impressed by Mr. X replying "Siegen 1970" when the Englishman asked him if he knew Armando Acevedo. Well, I not only know of him, but I met the simpatico Mexican master in the flesh 10 years ago. But that's another story. Acevedo lost to Fischer in the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. That many a Fischer fan and anyone with a database would also know this seems to have been overlooked in this latest continuation of the rampant desire to believe Fischer is not only alive and well, but just biding his time before coming back to take his rightful crown at the age of 58. (It is not as if the person playing these games, Fischer or not, would be unaware of the intense speculation that has been ongoing in the chess community. Fischer was the only Grandmaster the Mexican faced, at least as far as his published games are concerned.) Who is qualified to ask Fischer a question that only Fischer would know? Not many people, and probably not Nigel Short. (Here's one for Bobby: Buenos Aires, 1996. What did you say Mickey Kantor was too busy doing to protect your rights? The rude comment the interpreter wouldn't translate, but you caught her and repeated it several times? But most people at that press conference would know this one...)
Personally I have no problem at all believing Fischer plays online anonymously. Despite the obvious decline in his mental health, he was still very animated by chess when I met him in 1996. I do not doubt that if he played into shape he would be a tough opponent for the top 10 today and more than a match for Armando Acevedo. But acting as though he would be an invincible demigod after 30 years of almost complete removal from competitive chess is silly. He played a few dozen games against Spassky in 1992 and the rare flashes of brilliance only glimmered brighter due to the thick layers of rust on his game. His knowledge and insight helped Peter Leko several years ago when the two would meet in Hungary, this we know. We cannot imagine a Fischer who has left chess behind.
As I said above, if you have good arguments you don't need junk. A master playing with strong computer assistance would have little trouble demolishing a top GM in blitz, we know this from experience. Even in rapid games humans make too many mistakes to compete successfully against CPU power on a consistent basis. I'm quite willing to believe that Bobby Fischer is "out there" and playing blitz online, but it will take published games, and more than just a few, to make this into anything more than a rumor.
OK, I have been competing in chess for most of my life, so I am a pretty decent player (not a GM or anything). Most of the comments here have clearly been by patzers. Here comes my take on the whole thing.
I played through the alleged Fisher-games against the IMs (unfortunately Short's games are nowhere to be found), I also read the full Google Groups article that someone posted.
The opening moves that "Fischer" used are not a "secret weapon" that he has been working on all these years. They are simply designed to give the opponent an advantage. They are also absurd enough to give quite the psychological advantage if your oponent does not exploit them. Psychology is important in chess. More than most players realize. If you get your ass kicked from some unknown guy who plays such an opening, you are going to be unsure of yourself and play much, much weaker than when you are on a streak. (see for example Kasparov vs Deep Blue)
A computers are notoriously good at shorter timelimits (programmers reading this ought to understand why throwing more time at an exponential problem leads to marginal increase in playing strength). This could very well be some bored IM or something, that is playing some weird moves in the opening and then uses the computer to defend super-humanly, confusing the opponent and finally winning simply because there are so much messy tactics on the board (which a computer will always like).
Fortunately there are good statistical tests, used for checking for people cheating with computers. These are based on the fact that most programs make the same moves in the same position. If Short were to show his games, they could be analyzed by the standard ICC-algorithm.
The knowledge that "Fischer" showed in the chat between the games could have been generated with fast google-searches, as has been previously stated.
However... The games against the IMs are pretty damn impressive. And 8-0 against Short?! A guy manually operating a computer would most likely be too slow to manage that. The improbable thing about this story is not that Fischer plays chess on the internet (why would he not?). The improbable thing is that he would still be that good. I know that he is an american legend, but is it humanly possible? Short gives it a 99% probability because his ego is involved, because he really wants it to be true and because he probably is not aware of how easy it is to use the internet to get information fast (such as the 1970-thing). I just don't know what to think. I think that my final verdict is that Short probably did play Fischer, but that the excitement and psychology of the strange openings made him play less well than he normally would. I cannot believe that Fischer would still be the best chess-player in the world.
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
Umm, no.
That's 1 point for a win, 1/2 for a tie, 0 for a loss.
This is an EX-PARROT!
The pieces are identical, but the layout is somewhat different. If you're white, the queen is on the left side of the king. If you're black, the queen is on the right side of your king. So the queens are opposite each other, the kings are opposite each other... the layout isn't symmetrical. Given that white moves first as well, white is generally the preferred side of the board to be on.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
I think the original poster was using game in a more widely used sense of the word than you are. He meant "match", but I think only chess and tennis call them that and apply "game" to a different unit of play.
Note how he gives an excuse as to why he will not be able to acquire additional evidence in his original article because Fischer will probably not play him anymore.
Several times in the article Short teases us with amazing evidence which he wishes he could share with us, but alas
I think Short is having a bit of fun with us, chess GMs can have a sense of humour you know.
Common, time yourself and find a meaningful answer to the question using whatever tools you have. How long didi it take you? 10 sec? 15 sec? (I tried several times, gave up after 30 sec).
We are talking about 3 minutes matches.
Perhaps having a complete database with all the biographic details (all of them including games against unknown players) of Fisher would help, but still, how long does it take you to type "Acevedo Mexico" and copy a meaningful answer to the chat program while at the same time thinking how to defeat a GM that can stand his ground against Kasparov in blitz games???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Schizophrenia is a genetic trait... You don't just 'become' schizo... You are born that way.
;-) Seriously though, make the most of your condition, whatever it is...
Yes, but since it frequently doesn't show up until someone is 25 or 30, it's reasonable to think they're "becoming" schizo. You're right though -- more people need to know that this condition is genetic and/or occurs during fetal or early brain development. (We think.)
I openly admit I am schizophrenic... I believe it is benifital far more than detrimental.
Well, duh. You're schizo! Of course you're going to have wacky beliefs like that!
I don't know how chess rankings are determined, but I know that in other ranking systems (for online games, for example) the rank is based on playing players of the same caliber or better. In a rudimentary example, if you are ranked 2nd and you beat the player who's ranked 1st, you become 1st.
However, one of the problems of this design is that once someone becomes 1st, they no longer really have to play. Since no one can challenge their ranking, no one else can reach the top spot anymore. I've noticed people doing this in, of all things, Unreal Tournament. The top players win a few key matches against higher players, then sit tight for the rest of their stay at the top. The only thing that prevents them from staying on the top forever is that the records are purged quarterly.
Again, I don't know how chess rankings work, but if they're similar one has to ask whether or not Bobby simply didn't want to play at the risk of losing.
> I never confronted my opponent with the
> question, "Am I playing Bobby
> Fischer?" I did ask him, however, who was the
> strongest blitz chess-player
> he had ever played. His response was, "If I am
> who you think I am, I would
> answer Mikhail Tal."
New definition of intelligence: can you convince Nigel Short you are Bobby Fischer.
Ken
The same thing that's wrong with letting it happen again. I'm afraid, however, it's too late for that.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
I think we ought to put Fritz through a Turing test.
me: so, Fritz, how are you doing today?
DF: rook 3 to queen's knight 2.
:>
Free Webmail
I haven't played much chess in a while, but a quick viewing of some of the games posted show that Fischer (let's assume that it's him) exploits two commonly held notions of modern chess: early castling and protecting the king at all costs. It seems (to me) that he assumes that his opponent will castle and builds a pre-determined offense based on which corner his opponent will put the king, perhaps using his "useless" pawn moves watch his opponents strategy build. Common themes include disrupting the side pawns (even sacrificing a knight to do it) and putting bishops on b2 and g2 to control the long diagonals.
He also uses his king as an offensive weapon! Amazing! Instead of locking him in the left or right corner dungeon he freely moves him around the board, protecting him to some degree but using him more as a weapon than a protected piece.
One immediate side affect of the strategy is that all pieces get pushed up. In effect, Fischer builds a fortified position in his opponenet's territory, sometimes leaving a blank row or two on his own end. This not only cramps his opponent, but forces him to attack in unorthodox ways, something he is probably not used to.
Personally, I think it's either insane or brilliant, maybe both. Perhaps when his opponents get used to him moving his king in a circle to taunt them during the first five moves they'll figure out a way to beat him. Or perhaps he's opened a new era of chess strategy. Either way, I'm going to start playing again.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
So I was looking around and found some
interesting interviews. I guess he's a chess outlaw.
...get an account, Mister Anonymous Coward, and mod me down when your time as moderator comes. Attaching a name to your work can be very satisfying - you should try it sometime.
By the way, I'm glad to have to people replying to my comments, both good and bad - and I don't give a rat's ass about karma.
I'm the stranger...posting to
You know, the day I wrote my reply I expected some brian-rot in respone from you, and I had a big essay composed in my head. Now I've just got this: You're charting the path on a short trip to hell. I've read your other posts on this forum and I have taken the measure of your character. You are clearly a bigot filled with irrational hatred. Go ahead and take your trip. Just keep your shit the fuck away from me. Whatever capacity I had to politely tolerate filth such as yourself went up in flames on tuesday.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on