13

Nov

On articling

Posted by MGK  Published in Law, Law Skool

The Law Society of Upper Canada is currently considering whether to revise/revamp the articling system or abolish it entirely, and more or less the entire legal profession in Ontario – and by extension Canada, because as goes Ontario, so will eventually the rest of the nation – has an opinion about it.

For those who are not Canadian lawyers or even lawyers elsewhere: articling is a requirement in each of Canada’s provinces (each of which has its own independent law society) in order to join the bar. The basic idea behind articling is: after you graduate law school, you work for ten months for a lawyer, and essentially learn on the job. Law school, you see, does not actually teach you a lot about the daily nuts and bolts of legal work, but rather “how to think like a lawyer.” (Which is actually a thing. We will pause the post here for all of you to get the lawyer jokes out of your system. Trust me as a member of the profession when I say we invented most of them.)

The problem with articling is that there are not enough articling positions to go around – this year, estimates are as low as there being only 80% of graduating students who will find articling positions. And of course, that 20% who don’t find them are then competing with next year’s graduating class, so you have 120% of a graduating class competing for 80% of articling positions. Except, of course, that the problem is that articling positions are decreasing in number and have been for years, so the problem just keeps getting worse. I am in my second year as a lawyer and know of at least one person from my graduating class at Osgoode who still has not found an article. That person’s investment in a law school education (sixty thousand dollars or more) has been, unfortunately, a bad one so far, and he is far from the only one.

I, on the whole, am for the abolishment of articling, as follows:

Proponents of articling argue that practical experience prior to being called to the bar makes for better lawyers, and I would say that this is inarguable. However, the question of whether articling makes for better lawyers overall isn’t a satisfactory answer to the question of whether articling is necessary – after all, no other common-law system in the world still has articling as a requirement for call to the bar. They’ve all abolished it. (I have no idea if Canada has a lower rate of legal malpractice claims than other jurisdictions offhand and Google has not turned anything up yet, but it seems like extremely relevant data.) I think people arguing for the continuance of an additional barrier to the bar that doesn’t exist anywhere else do have an affirmative duty to justify why it should remain, and that argument has not yet been made.

Moreover, I think the overall value of articling is extremely loose – there is no real guarantee that an article will provide serious legal experience worthy of the hassle that getting the article (which, even in an ideal full-employment situation, is still a grueling round of interviews more often than not) represents. (I personally was quite lucky to article with a principal who strongly believed in exposing his articling students to as many different aspects of his practice as possible.) Here, Lee Akazaki argues that the uneven quality of articles is a straw man argument because no article can properly prepare a student for all aspects of law, and the most important thing is to teach lawyers through groupwork and expose them to the demands of professionalism. Which isn’t a terrible argument, but there should exist minimums of exposure to a wide area of legal work. Effectively, this is impossible to regulate. As it stands right now it is already difficult enough for a student to bring a complaint against a principal if necessary (to say nothing of the fact that due to the inherent imbalances in the employer/employee relationship that articling has buried in its very nature).

This is to say nothing of the fact that the articling crisis is most intense outside of large urban centres where the profession is aging fastest. It’s not a surprise that cities attract more lawyers like they do every other type of skilled professional – that’s just urbanization – but articling presents a special problem because if small-town lawyers are to hire articling students, the fact that they are essentially training their competition hits harder than it would a big-city lawyer. (Which is, I think, one of the major reasons articling is in crisis at this point, although I admit this is based at least partly on supposition.) If the entire concept of articling works at cross-purposes for rural lawyers – and I think there is a reasonable argument that it does – then it’s by definition going to be a failed system.

But mostly, it comes down to the question of how many barriers to entry there should be for a new lawyer. Right now articling is simply an additional barrier on top of getting into law school, finishing it and then passing the bar exam (none of which are exactly easy) and so I would argue is effectively redundant. There are other ways to properly introduce students to the actual demands of the profession, the most obvious of which being including a large practical component in the third and final year of law school (which is of dubious value, to say the least, and Paul Campos’ experience being informed by American schools rather than Canadian does not change that much at all).

It’s time for articling to go. I understand why people want it to stick around: you want the best for the profession and it’s a safeguard. But it’s not an effective one, not any longer.

16 comments

17

Dec

This is what happens when I study

Posted by MGK  Published in Bad Comedy, Conversations, Law, Law Skool

FLAPJACKS: Whatcha reading?
ME: An essay by Catherine MacKinnon.
FLAPJACKS: Who’s she?
ME: Radical feminist legal scholar.
FLAPJACKS: How radical is “radical”?
ME: She supported Andrea Dworkin’s assertion that all heterosexual sex can be defined as rape.
FLAPJACKS: That is pretty radical.
ME: Yeah.
FLAPJACKS: Wait, was Andrea Dorkin –
ME: Dworkin.
FLAPJACKS: Oh. Was she married?
ME: I’m sure I don’t know.
FLAPJACKS: Sec. (pause) Okay, she was married.
ME: All right.
FLAPJACKS: Do you think she referred to her husband as a rapist?
ME: That would be on my long list of “things I don’t want to even speculate about.”
FLAPJACKS: Because that would make for some really awkward pillow talk.
ME: Please stop.
FLAPJACKS: I mean, he’d be all “I love you, baby,” and she’d be all “this is raping, you raper.”
ME: I am trying to read this, you know.
FLAPJACKS: Maybe they got off on it.
ME: See me flipping pages here?
FLAPJACKS: Man, academics have weird-ass sex lives.
ME: You know, when you came over, you said it was only because you wanted to borrow my wok.
FLAPJACKS: I’ve got it right here.
ME: And now?
FLAPJACKS: We’re bonding.
ME: I see.
FLAPJACKS: Why are you reading that thing, anyway?
ME: Writing a research paper on how a given Canadian court decision about how pornography should be treated under obscenity laws.
FLAPJACKS: And how should it be handled?
ME: Liberally, with minimum censorship.
FLAPJACKS: …there’s no real opportunity for me to make a dirty joke there.
ME: Imagine that.
FLAPJACKS: Say, while I’m here, can I borrow some peppers and onions and chicken?
ME: So what you’re saying is that in addition to borrowing my wok to make a stir-fry, you also want to borrow all the ingredients for a stir-fry.
FLAPJACKS: Well, I’ve already got oil.
ME: Good to see you’ve thought this out.
FLAPJACKS: Exactly. I said to myself, “what can I make with this bottle of canola oil?” And I said, “hey, a stir-fry!” Now all I need is the stir-fry stuff. And you’ve got that. So I come over here.
ME: Exquisitely planned, I must admit.
FLAPJACKS: While I’m here, can I use your stove?

29 comments

29

Sep

Bleg!

Posted by MGK  Published in David Suzuki Says You're Bad, Law Skool, Shameless Begging, The Miscellaneous Sciences And Crap Like That

Does anybody have a good site for information about potential oceanic methane sequestration technologies? Google-fu is failing me, and I’m looking at it as a potential topic for a law school research paper (specifically implementation of same on a global level and interactions with the law-of-the-sea treaties).

10 comments

11

Apr

On Meeting Jim Flaherty

Posted by MGK  Published in Law Skool, Politics

Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister for the Canadian federal government, came to visit Osgoode Hall yesterday (it turns out my law school is his alma mater, which I did not previously know). I went, because if you have the chance to ask questions of who is (not officially, but for all intents and purposes) the second-most important person in your government, it’s well worth the time, especially if you care about public policy.

Quick impressions: he is funny, quick-witted, and with a genuinely folksy air to his demeanour. It is quite easy to understand how he got elected to public office; despite my personal distaste for his politics, he’s very simply likable, and like most Canadian politicians carries with him the wholehearted belief that even if you happen to believe completely the opposite of what he does that meaningful dialogue is still possible. (Stephen Harper, who has a very jerkish public persona, is one of the few notable exceptions to this rule.) After his introductory speech, the first question he got was a rambling tirade from a crim law student who was very angry about Canada’s recent refusal to attempt to extradite criminals being held elsewhere in anticipation of the death penalty (a reversal of longtime standing policy), and although Flaherty, as the Finance Minister, has no actual duties as regards international criminal law, diplomatic sanctioning or justice matters, he still answered the question as respectfully as possible.

However, he’s still a politician. My question to him was this:

Mr. Flaherty, in the 2008 budget, you introduced new federal budget measures to get more E85 fuel stations in Canada – however, given the recent study from the University of Minnesota showing that most form of ethanol manufactured from standard commercial crops contribute more carbon emissions to the atmosphere via their harvest than they remove when used as a replacement for gasoline, would you favour government investment in advanced cellulosic ethanol research, considering that cellulosic ethanol is the only form of ethanol that actually might reduce overall C02 emissions, and cancellation of agricultural subsidies for other production of ethanol?

Flaherty answered the question by saying he was firmly in favour of greater funding for cellulosic ethanol research, but that doesn’t answer the real question embedded in it – and I know full well he knew what the question was, and it’s this:

Mr. Flaherty, we spend three-quarters of a billion dollars annually on subsidies for corn and grain ethanol production – industries that are not profitable without both government subsidy and government mandated use. Now that we know fairly conclusively that corn and grain ethanol don’t work in the way that we need them to work, as they are both energy-inefficient and actively harmful to the environment, how about we spend that money on absolutely anything else that might actually be useful in some way? I understand that just about all of that money goes to Alberta and rural Saskatchewan, which is your party’s electoral base, but come on.

But I didn’t ask that. Mostly because his visit was organized by the Conservative students’ society here at Osgoode, and a few of the members (including the current executive) are friends of mine, and despite the fact that I obviously have political disagreements with them in many areas, they’re principled individuals, and the sort of person I want on the other side of the aisle, and I didn’t want to make them look bad.

But it was tempting to follow up.

Oh, and I didn’t ask him about Bill C-10 (the tax bill throwing on potential removal of tax credits for films containing “offensive” content), because that bill is so offensive to me and many people that I know working in the industry that I would have ended up shouting.

3 comments

5

Feb

Just Before Class

Posted by MGK  Published in Bad Comedy, Conversations, Law Skool

ME: So I need some new opponents for Scrabulous. Who wants to fall before me?
SARAH (ANOTHER LAW STUDENT): Ooh, me!
MIKE (ANOTHER LAW STUDENT): You might want to qualify that.
SARAH: …at Scrabulous.
MIKE: Much better.
(A pause.)
SARAH: Hah, “dispose.” Seven-letter start!
ME: Big deal, you managed a seven-letter word with three vowels, an S and a blank tile. Next up: baby brags about successfully breastfeeding.
MIKE: I don’t know if I approve of Scrabble smack talk.
SARAH: What’s wrong with it?
MIKE: It’s a game where you’re allowed to play two-letter words. You can’t play two-letter words in Boggle, you know.
SARAH: Oh, god, are you going to go on about Boggle again?
MIKE: Boggle is to Scrabble as quantum physics is to arithmetic.
SARAH: You just like Boggle because you get to shake the container.
MIKE: You just like Scrabble because you can play it during class when you’re bored.
ME: Fair point.
MIKE: How do you even pass the courses, anyway?
ME: Natural brilliance.

5 comments

12

Dec

A Vast Disappointment

Posted by MGK  Published in Law, Law Skool, The Internets

There is a case, universally known to all law school students, called Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball, which is a case that absolutely every introductory contracts teacher uses for two reasons:

1.) It’s a good example of a case that shows how to distinguish an offer from an invitation to treat, and also sets the precedent for formation of a unilateral contract.

2.) It is called Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball. It is about a small ball that smoked, which you were supposed to stick up your nose as a medical aid against the flu. Indeed, a reasonable Web fascimile of the original advertisement (with an animated GIF and everything!) can be found here. You quickly understand why this is such a popular teaching case – it has a silly name and the invention is downright stupid. (In fact, the Carbolic Smoke Ball would have probably increased your chances of getting sick.)

So when I found out that there was an online store named after the infamous Carbolic Smoke Ball, I was enthused! Surely there would be tons of nifty lawyer-themed crap on there than I would want to own!

Sadly, this is not the case. The crap at carbolicsmokeball.com is not fun crap. It is, at best, mediocre crap. A surfeit of standard lame catchphrases (of the “I can only please one person per day and today is not your day” variety), a few vanity items for the lawyer’s office, and… yeah, that’s more or less it.

There is no “Lawyers Do It In The Standard Befitting A Reasonable Person” T-shirt. There is no “I Drank A Ginger Beer With A Snail In It And All I Got Was A Legal Precedent For Punishing Negligent Behaviour” beer cozy. There is no “What You Know About Tax” musical keychain.

There is not even a replica Carbolic Smoke Ball, for crissake! The site is named Carbolic Smoke Ball and there is no Carbolic Smoke Ball!

Honestly, there has to be a way to get the name away from these people and make a decent law-themed-crap-for-sale site. It would make dozens of dollars. Maybe even ten dozens.

5 comments

16

Nov

You May Find This Hilarious (If You Consider Lord Denning To Be Hilarious)

Posted by MGK  Published in Bad Comedy, Law Skool

In the first year of law school – at least, at Osgoode Hall, where I go – you get exactly one course option in first year to go along with the usual slate of tort law, contract law, criminal law, property law, public and constitutional law, ethics, and legal process and writing. Because these are small-group seminar classes, you’re expected to rank your top five preferences in case of overflow.

Mine were:

1.) Legal Challenges In Intellectual Property
2.) Tax Law As A Reflection Of Social Policy
3.) Globalization And The Law
4.) Legal Realities Of Urbanization
5.) “something that will help me in case I need to determine the legal status of a superintelligent gorilla.”

I have my reasons.

3 comments

5

Sep

All I Need To Know About The Law, I Learned From Matter-Eater Lad

Posted by MGK  Published in Comics, Law Skool

So now that I’ve officially started law school, I’m expected to start thinking about what sort of legal philosophy I’m going to support.

This is really remarkably easy.

This one.

When in doubt, I believe the only legal tidbits you desperately need to know in order to serve effectively as a dedicated lawyer are all evident in the career of Tenzil “Trust Me, I’m A Senator!” Kem – member of the Legion of Super-Heroes, defeater of Pulsar Stargrave, destroyer of the Miracle Machine, three-time winner of the Bismollian Mita-Yum Toxic Baking Championship, voted “5817th Most Sexy Humanoid” by Playfem magazine and, lest we forget, an actual honest to god lawyer person.And what is the Kem school of legal thought?

1.) International Law Is Easer Than You Think It Is.

2.) Always Have Your Court Strategy Thought Out Ahead Of Time.

3.) Exclaim! With Exclamation Marks! And Point At People! And Always Make Sure Everything You Say Makes Your Client Look Less Guilty!

4.) When In Doubt, Go With The Insanity Defense.

5.) When The Insanity Defense Doesn’t Work, Trick The Evil Judge!

and most importantly

6.) Lawyers Get Maaaaaaaad Booty.

How can I go wrong?

4 comments

20

Aug

I Wish This Did Not Compute

Posted by MGK  Published in Law Skool

The law school guide says that a good guideline for study is two hours for every hour of class the day before you study.

This is great, except that on Tuesdays I have seven hours of class.

(Six on Mondays, so loading up over the weekend is going to be happening a lot, I guess…)

6 comments

17

Aug

Tales From The Bar (The One Where You Drink, Not The Legal One)

Posted by MGK  Published in Bad Comedy, Conversations, Law Skool

SCENE. A bar. With drinks. And law students entering the Osgoode Hall class of 2010.

PROSPECTIVE LAW STUDENT: God, I am so sick of being called an “untouchable.”
ME: Those Hindus and their castes. Wacky.
PROSPECTIVE: No, I mean the Friedman thing.
ME (who knows what he’s talking about, but is enjoying his Strongbow, so why not let him exposit): The Friedman thing?
PROSPECTIVE: There was this book or article or something Thomas Friedman wrote about how lawyers were “untouchable.” Because of globalization. Being a lawyer is a skilled profession, it doesn’t cross-migrate. This country may not need call centre people at some point because they’ll all live in India, but it’ll always need lawyers.
ME: Right. So?
PROSPECTIVE: So lawyers aren’t the only untouchables. So are skilled tradesmen. Plumbers are “untouchable” too, because you can’t outsource fixing your sink to Singapore.
ME: I still don’t get why you’re up in a bunch about this.
PROSPECTIVE: Because in all these speeches at the orientation things. You know?
ME: Nope.
PROSPECTIVE: They all talk about how going to law school is an investment, because now you’ll be “untouchable.” But if that’s what you care about, why not save sixty thousand dollars and just become a plumber instead?
OTHER PROSPECTIVE LAW STUDENT (who has been listening in): I think the money has something to do with it.
ME: I dunno. A good plumber can make high five figures, easy.
PROSPECTIVE: Right. If I said “fuck the law, I’m gonna fix leaky pipes” right now, I could go do my apprenticeship – during which I would be making money rather than paying it out – for three years, and there you go.
OTHER PROSPECTIVE: Ah, but a lawyer can make so much more money.
PROSPECTIVE: Can, but very likely won’t. I mean, look around at the people here in this bar. Most of them aren’t going to be wearing fancy Italian suits and going “Denny Crane!” into the mirror in ten years’ time.
ME: Is that all their name?
PROSPECTIVE: Boston Legal?
ME: Oh, right. I’m older than you, so my TV reference for lawyering is The West Wing.
PROSPECTIVE: But my point is – I mean, you read those “so you’re going to law school” books, right? Only a tiny minority of lawyers practice high-hat corporate law and make an unholy shitload of money.
OTHER PROSPECTIVE: But the possibility exists that you can. Whereas, if you’re a plumber, there’s no such thing as fancy corporate plumbing.
PROSPECTIVE: You buy a lot of lottery tickets? I’m just asking.
OTHER PROSPECTIVE: Okay, say I accept your suggestion that lawyering isn’t that much more lucrative than plumbing is. Surely there’s also the benefit of prestige?
PROSPECTIVE: Meaning?
ME: I think he means that plumbers don’t generally get invited to fancy parties for charities and the like.
PROSPECTIVE: Quick quiz: would you rather go to a fancy dress ball or to a sports bar to eat chicken wings and drink beer?
ME: Now there’s a good point.
OTHER PROSPECTIVE: But lawyers get to change the system. Surely the attraction of altering and fixing law as you see fit –
PROSPECTIVE: Oh, come on. Firstly, your odds of becoming a judge are worse than your odds of becoming a rich corporate lawyer. And secondly, say you go into public policy. You’re not going to change anything. Liberals won’t let you because anything you might actually change could hurt the spotted owl or make gay people feel bad about themselves.
ME: In fairness, conservatives won’t let you because before they were elected they sold tires, so clearly nobody knows more about how the government should operate than they do.
PROSPECTIVE (waving his hands to concede the point): Exactly. So, again, I ask: why not be a plumber instead? Less stress, there’s still a lot of money in it, you get to work with your hands…
A pause as this is mulled over.
ME: I think we seriously have to consider how much we’re willing to pay to lessen the chance of coming into contact with poop as a part of our job.
Another pause.
PROSPECTIVE: Right, so are you guys gonna get a locker at Osgoode, or what?

8 comments

Search

"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more."
-- Popcrunch.com

"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization."
-- Jenn

Contact

mgk@mightygodking.com

MGKontributors

  • Andrew Foley
  • Dan Solomon
  • Elizabeth Graham
  • Jaime Weinman
  • Justin Zyduck
  • Karen Whaley
  • Matthew Johnson
  • Will Entrekin
  • Wendy White

The Big Board

  • Bad Comedy
  • Books
  • Comics
  • David Suzuki Says You're Bad
  • Flicks
  • Gaming
  • I Should Write Dr. Strange
  • I Should Write The Legion
  • Intellectual Property
  • It's The Youtube
  • Law
  • Muzak
  • Nothing Else Fit
  • Photoshopp'd
  • Politics
  • The Internets
  • The Miscellaneous Sciences And Crap Like That
  • TV
  • Writering
  • WTF

MGKlassics

  • A Handy Introduction (Read This First!)
  • About Christopher Bird
  • I Don't Need Your Civil War
  • I Should Write The Legion (The Original 30)
  • Same Old, Same Old: Teen Titans#24
  • Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, So You Don't Have To Read It
  • Very Naughty Edition: Ultimate Power #2

Blogroll

  • ‘Aqoul
  • 4th Letter
  • Andrew Wheeler
  • Balloon Juice
  • Basic Instructions
  • Blog@Newsarama
  • Cat and Girl
  • Chris Butcher
  • Colby File
  • Comics Should Be Good!
  • Creekside
  • Dave’s Long Box
  • Dead Things On Sticks
  • Digby
  • Enjoy Every Sandwich
  • Ezra Klein
  • Fafblog
  • Galloping Beaver
  • Garth Turner
  • House To Astonish
  • Howling Curmudgeons
  • James Berardinelli
  • John Seavey
  • Journalista
  • Kash Mansori
  • Ken Levine
  • Kevin Church
  • Kevin Drum
  • Kung Fu Monkey
  • Lawyers, Guns and Money
  • Leonard Pierce
  • Letterboxd – Christopher Bird - Letterboxd – Christopher Bird
  • Little Dee
  • Mark Kleiman
  • Marmaduke Explained
  • My Blahg
  • Nobody Scores!
  • Norman Wilner
  • Nunc Scio
  • Obsidian Wings
  • Occasional Superheroine
  • Pajiba!
  • Paul Wells
  • Penny Arcade
  • Perry Bible Fellowship
  • Plastikgyrl
  • POGGE
  • Progressive Ruin
  • sayitwithpie
  • scans_daily
  • Scary-Go-Round
  • Scott Tribe
  • Tangible.ca
  • The Big Picture
  • The Bloggess
  • The Comics Reporter
  • The Cunning Realist
  • The ISB
  • The Non-Adventures of Wonderella
  • The Savage Critics
  • The Superest
  • The X-Axis
  • Torontoist.com
  • Very Good Taste
  • We The Robots
  • XKCD
  • Yirmumah!

Donate

Paypal

Archives

  • August 2023
  • May 2022
  • January 2022
  • May 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • June 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • October 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • February 2007

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Subscribe in a reader

Tweet Machine

  • No Tweets Available

Recent Posts

  • Server maintenance for https
  • CALL FOR VOTES: the 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling Awards
  • CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: The 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling Awards (the Theszies)
  • The 2020 RSPW Awards – RESULTS
  • CALL FOR VOTES: the 2020 Theszies (rec.sport.pro-wrestling Awards)
  • CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: The 2020 Theszies (rec.sport.pro-wrestling awards)
  • given today’s news
  • If you can Schumacher it there you can Schumacher it anywhere
  • The 2019 RSPW Awards – RESULTS
  • CALL FOR VOTES – The 2019 RSPW Awards (The Theszies)

Recent Comments

  • Sean in Server maintenance for https
  • Ethan in CALL FOR VOTES: the 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling A…
  • wyrmsine in ALIGNMENT CHART! Search Engines
  • Jeff in CALL FOR VOTES: the 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling A…
  • Greg in CALL FOR VOTES: the 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling A…
  • DragoMaster009 in Grading Every Country's National Anthem, Part Four…
  • DragoMaster009 in Review: The League of Regrettable Superheroes
  • DragoMaster009 in MGK Ranks Every Live-Action Marvel Movie Since 199…
  • DragoMaster009 in CALL FOR VOTES: the 2021 rec.sport.pro-wrestling A…
  • DragoMaster009 in Meanwhile, in good comics (part II)
© 2025 Mightygodking dot com
Valid XHTML | Valid CSS 3.0
Powered by Wordpress