It was related by Brandon that Brent related to Chad the Younger who related to Brad that Chet (all props be unto him) was oft heard to remark, "He who harshes a mellow is no good fellow."
Verily, these words ought be repeated among the brothers.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
A narration worth repeating
This is from the Collection of Brandon:
Verily, these words ought be repeated among the brothers.
Verily, these words ought be repeated among the brothers.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Confronting Icing Traditions of Spurious Origin
All praise to the Broseph Stalin, and may the memory of Chet (all props be unto him) enlighten us.
At the annual Brothing, some brojudicators and jurists of high standing in the brommunity raised the issue of several practices now making the rounds among the brothers. These misguided brahs will frequently cite spurious narrations in support of these practices. What distressing times these are, my brothers.
Therefore, the Brothing has bronounced the following perfections incumbent upon every brah, bro, and broseph:
What glory there is in brotherhood, my brahs! Props be unto you, and ice uprightly.
At the annual Brothing, some brojudicators and jurists of high standing in the brommunity raised the issue of several practices now making the rounds among the brothers. These misguided brahs will frequently cite spurious narrations in support of these practices. What distressing times these are, my brothers.
Therefore, the Brothing has bronounced the following perfections incumbent upon every brah, bro, and broseph:
- to recognize those traditions substantiated by juridical authority and clear chains of narration.
- to exalt the Collection of Chad Son of Broseph Son of Brah as the Great Unblemished Source, for every tradition therein has a sure and unbroken chain of transmission from Chad back to Chet.
- to revile any tradition whose chain of narration includes Matt formerly of ΣΝ, who was an accursed liar and never iced uprightly in his poisonous life.
What glory there is in brotherhood, my brahs! Props be unto you, and ice uprightly.
Some Answered Questions in Icing Jurisprudence
All praise to the Primal Point of Brotherhood, the Broseph Stalin, may He return to us from occultation with an ice in His hand.
Q: Would one ice shield suffice for two or more simultaneous challenges?
A: No. One ice shield suffices for one ice. In the past it was sometimes the custom for a bro to utilize one shield against two or more simultaneous challenges, as in this report in the Collection of Chad Son of Broseph Son of Brah:
Unfortunately, the report does not specify the manner in which Chet (all props be unto him) deflected the challenges while remaining blameless in the eyes of his bros. Per the second Pillar of Icing, [COMMENTARY: The second pillar of icing is commonly repeated as: "If you are Iced by a fellow bro you can Ice block. When presented w/ an Ice, you pull out an Ice of your own and reverse the Ice on your bro." This has commonly been interpreted in practice to mean that the challenger kneels (per the third pillar) and consumes both the ice of his challenge and the ice shield provided by the challenged bro. Certain bros maintain that a blocked bro need only consume the ice of his challenge, but this opinion is considered outside of the common practice of the brotherhood and is declared anathema by the Judge of the Bros. When the author refers to the second pillar, he is implicitly referring to the majority interpretation.] the failed challenger must consume both his ice and the ice shield offered by the victorious bro. If a bro is challenged by two bros simultaneously and blocks them, how can his single shield suffice for two bros? To split the ice may have been the solution of Chet (all props be unto him), but without an explicit narration relating this, to split the ice may in fact be innovation, which is certainly anathema to the practice of icing and to the brotherhood itself, may its brahs be lifted unto the heavens themselves.
It is clear that an ice shield is sufficient for only one challenge. All praise to the Broseph Stalin.
Q: Is it necessary to kneel upon the right knee specifically or will the left knee suffice? [COMMENTARY: The questioner is referring to the third pillar of icing which specifies that "Ice must be consumed while on one knee"; the pillar does not specify which knee.]
A: This is a point of great contention among the brojudicators. Some maintain that the knee should follow the political orientation of the Broseph of the Time, but this itself raises a problem because a bro must show deference to the Broseph Stalin in all his broly activities--in 2001-2008 the Broseph of the Time was universally agreed to be President George W. Bush (all props be unto him from whose essence all ice doth flow), a man so strong in brotherhood that He has given His name to the brotherhood's supreme position of secular power, the Dubyate. Yet He was a man of the right and the Broseph Stalin was a man of the left, and yet both were strong in the ways of brah, bro, and broseph; yea, they verily manifest the Way. This demonstrates as well that the brotherhood knows no earthly politics: the croosh of brotherhood is the broness itself, my brahs.
It is my studied opinion, then, that the knee upon which one kneels is wholly unimportant to the practice of icing. Nevertheless, I must warn that the practice of certain wandering brahs to kneel on both knees is innovation and thereby anathema. Let no bro offer comfort to such a brah.
Q: May a ho ice a bro?
A: Most emphatically not. Bitches and hos can never ice bros. Such would be a clear violation of the maxim of brotherhood: bros before hos. All praise to the Primal Point.
Q: Would one ice shield suffice for two or more simultaneous challenges?
A: No. One ice shield suffices for one ice. In the past it was sometimes the custom for a bro to utilize one shield against two or more simultaneous challenges, as in this report in the Collection of Chad Son of Broseph Son of Brah:
- It was related by Chad that Brent related to Adam who related to Brad that Chet (all props be unto him), who was simultaneously iced by two brahs in good standing, did fend off the challenges with a single ice shield and remained a bro without opprobrium. All props to the brah man.
Unfortunately, the report does not specify the manner in which Chet (all props be unto him) deflected the challenges while remaining blameless in the eyes of his bros. Per the second Pillar of Icing, [COMMENTARY: The second pillar of icing is commonly repeated as: "If you are Iced by a fellow bro you can Ice block. When presented w/ an Ice, you pull out an Ice of your own and reverse the Ice on your bro." This has commonly been interpreted in practice to mean that the challenger kneels (per the third pillar) and consumes both the ice of his challenge and the ice shield provided by the challenged bro. Certain bros maintain that a blocked bro need only consume the ice of his challenge, but this opinion is considered outside of the common practice of the brotherhood and is declared anathema by the Judge of the Bros. When the author refers to the second pillar, he is implicitly referring to the majority interpretation.] the failed challenger must consume both his ice and the ice shield offered by the victorious bro. If a bro is challenged by two bros simultaneously and blocks them, how can his single shield suffice for two bros? To split the ice may have been the solution of Chet (all props be unto him), but without an explicit narration relating this, to split the ice may in fact be innovation, which is certainly anathema to the practice of icing and to the brotherhood itself, may its brahs be lifted unto the heavens themselves.
It is clear that an ice shield is sufficient for only one challenge. All praise to the Broseph Stalin.
Q: Is it necessary to kneel upon the right knee specifically or will the left knee suffice? [COMMENTARY: The questioner is referring to the third pillar of icing which specifies that "Ice must be consumed while on one knee"; the pillar does not specify which knee.]
A: This is a point of great contention among the brojudicators. Some maintain that the knee should follow the political orientation of the Broseph of the Time, but this itself raises a problem because a bro must show deference to the Broseph Stalin in all his broly activities--in 2001-2008 the Broseph of the Time was universally agreed to be President George W. Bush (all props be unto him from whose essence all ice doth flow), a man so strong in brotherhood that He has given His name to the brotherhood's supreme position of secular power, the Dubyate. Yet He was a man of the right and the Broseph Stalin was a man of the left, and yet both were strong in the ways of brah, bro, and broseph; yea, they verily manifest the Way. This demonstrates as well that the brotherhood knows no earthly politics: the croosh of brotherhood is the broness itself, my brahs.
It is my studied opinion, then, that the knee upon which one kneels is wholly unimportant to the practice of icing. Nevertheless, I must warn that the practice of certain wandering brahs to kneel on both knees is innovation and thereby anathema. Let no bro offer comfort to such a brah.
Q: May a ho ice a bro?
A: Most emphatically not. Bitches and hos can never ice bros. Such would be a clear violation of the maxim of brotherhood: bros before hos. All praise to the Primal Point.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)