KSUFans Archives

Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: The Manhatter on December 06, 2009, 11:32:01 AM

Title: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: The Manhatter on December 06, 2009, 11:32:01 AM
embarrassing.

 :lol:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: ksudrew on December 06, 2009, 11:41:09 AM
embarrassing.

 :lol:

and pellini bros as the face of the program - even more embarassing

 :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 12:45:58 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: The42Yardstick on December 06, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Dick Knewheizel on December 06, 2009, 12:52:43 PM
Didn't they play in the NC Game in 2001?  Did they not win the conf that year?  What a joke
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 01:03:21 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 01:08:28 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 01:10:13 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?

Yes it does.

I was born in the 50's In the year 1960. Is it clear now?
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 01:14:06 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?

Yes it does.

I was born in the 50's In the year 1960. Is it clear now?

It was clear before.  Just sounds extremely off.

Holy christ you are incredibly old to be on a KSU bbs.  I think you are like my parents age. 
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: steve dave on December 06, 2009, 01:18:20 PM
I was born in the 50's In the year 1960.

Was the invention of the horseless carriage a big event for you gramps?
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: faultlessfreshcat on December 06, 2009, 01:18:45 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?

Yes it does.

I was born in the 50's In the year 1960. Is it clear now?


You are a mother fracking retard old man

0 AD
1 AD
2 AD
3 AD
4 AD
5 AD
6 AD
7 AD
8 AD
9 AD

That = 10 years so the next decade strated like this

10 AD
11 AD
12 AD
13 AD
14 AD
15 AD
16 AD
17 AD
18 AD
19 AD

Well lookie there another 10 years
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Pett on December 06, 2009, 01:29:06 PM
Yeah Gimmered, you are a complete dumb ass. Stop making NU look even worse then they are. And LOL @ Pelini trying to Dec. 6, 2003 the Horns. :rofl:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 01:42:21 PM
I was born in the 50's In the year 1960.

Was the invention of the horseless carriage a big event for you gramps?

Gramps is right. I have 2 and one on the way.

I also have a daughter 5 weeks younger then my oldest grandson.  :fatty:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 01:45:07 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?

Yes it does.

I was born in the 50's In the year 1960. Is it clear now?

It was clear before.  Just sounds extremely off.

Holy christ you are incredibly old to be on a KSU bbs.  I think you are like my parents age. 

I'm sure I have kids the same age.

I only come here because no one else like it when I make fun of dead people.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: cireksu on December 06, 2009, 01:47:13 PM
they'd probably be embarrassed if they knew how dumb you are.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 01:48:34 PM
Dip crap the decade runs from 1-10. One more year.

Uh......no.

2000-2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009

2010 starts the next decade. Don't be a tard.

Have you ever heard of the year 0 AD?

The decade actually runs 2001-2002-2003-2004-2005-2006-2007-2008-2009-2010

Can't rewrite facts just because you're a wildcat.


Don't really want to get into a big argument about this because it is lamesville but doesn't that mean 2000 was the last year of the 90s?

Yes it does.

I was born in the 50's In the year 1960. Is it clear now?


You are a mother fracking retard old man

0 AD
1 AD
2 AD
3 AD
4 AD
5 AD
6 AD
7 AD
8 AD
9 AD

That = 10 years so the next decade strated like this

10 AD
11 AD
12 AD
13 AD
14 AD
15 AD
16 AD
17 AD
18 AD
19 AD

Well lookie there another 10 years

I may be an old retard but you are wrong. There never was an 00 AD.

God if I' a retard what does that make you? :eek:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 01:50:57 PM
Lonely old people make me sad.  Especially this time of year.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Rick Daris on December 06, 2009, 01:51:32 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: steve dave on December 06, 2009, 01:56:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950s
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: hemmy on December 06, 2009, 01:59:01 PM
My god NU fans are dumb.  Also, 42Yarit is a ku fan, not an EMAW.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:11:23 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_does_the_decade_end
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:12:01 PM
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081101185121AAsHAN3
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: hemmy on December 06, 2009, 02:13:11 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: hemmy on December 06, 2009, 02:14:22 PM
Husker fans are dumb.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:15:05 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:23:39 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_millennium_start
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Perry on December 06, 2009, 02:24:49 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_millennium_start

1960 still isn't in the 1950's :piratewave:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:28:54 PM
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_did_the_millennium_start

1960 still isn't in the 1950's :piratewave:

Ok ya got me on that one. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Boakai on December 06, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
I may be an old retard but you are wrong. There never was an 00 AD.

God if I' a retard what does that make you? :eek:

You are correct that there is no year 0, but the first "decade" if you want to call it that...only lasts 9 years.
Inversely, there is no complete 10 year decade to finish the B.C. era.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: hemmy on December 06, 2009, 02:32:34 PM
Problem is BC years went 9-1, and after that went 1-9.

Its all arbitrary, but only a complete dumb f*ck would think 1960 was in the 50s
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:46:57 PM
I may be an old retard but you are wrong. There never was an 00 AD.

God if I' a retard what does that make you? :eek:

You are correct that there is no year 0, but the first "decade" if you want to call it that...only lasts 9 years.
Inversely, there is no complete 10 year decade to finish the B.C. era.

No the first decade lasted 10 years from 1 AD through 10 AD. A decade can also be from 1905 through 1915 I'm not sure when the DoD was. When did it start and how long did it last?

It has been a decade since Nebraska won the Big XII. But we do have a shot to win it in the first decade of this Millennium. That would be next year.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Catfanatic on December 06, 2009, 02:52:30 PM
glimmer is correct, we went though this in 2000 but most everyone ignored it anyway and everyone decided to celebrate the new millenium on January 1, 2000. Which was not correct. Oh well sometimes arguing with people who have already made up their mind on a subject is pointless anyway. (I find that happens often on this site)

Question to everyone. When you begin counting to 100 what number do you start with???? I was always taught from kindergarden on though my formal education (BS KSU) that it is..... 1,2,3,4.......100. Not 0,1,2,3....100. So, therefore 1 is the first number of the decade, century or millenia. Thus nu has one more year before they are skunked for the first decade of the new millenia ;)

BTW glimmer I was also born in 1960.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Rick Daris on December 06, 2009, 02:58:31 PM
glimmer is correct, we went though this in 2000 but most everyone ignored it anyway and everyone decided to celebrate the new millenium on January 1, 2000. Which was not correct. Oh well sometimes arguing with people who have already made up their mind on a subject is pointless anyway. (I find that happens often on this site)

Question to everyone. When you begin counting to 100 what number do you start with???? I was always taught from kindergarden on though my formal education (BS KSU) that it is..... 1,2,3,4.......100. Not 0,1,2,3....100. So, therefore 1 is the first number of the decade, century or millenia. Thus nu has one more year before they are skunked for the first decade of the new millenia ;)

BTW glimmer I was also born in 1960.

christ. just how many people on this site were born in the 50's? we've go two just in this thread.

also catfanatic, your incredibly flawed logic on why 1 is the first number of the new millenia was fascinating. absolutely fascinating. retardedly stupid, but fascinating none the less.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: The42Yardstick on December 06, 2009, 02:59:41 PM

your incredibly flawed logic on why 1 is the first number of the new millenia was fascinating. absolutely fascinating. retardedly stupid, but fascinating none the less.

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :santachimney:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 02:59:50 PM
glimmer is correct, we went though this in 2000 but most everyone ignored it anyway and everyone decided to celebrate the new millenium on January 1, 2000. Which was not correct. Oh well sometimes arguing with people who have already made up their mind on a subject is pointless anyway. (I find that happens often on this site)

Question to everyone. When you begin counting to 100 what number do you start with???? I was always taught from kindergarden on though my formal education (BS KSU) that it is..... 1,2,3,4.......100. Not 0,1,2,3....100. So, therefore 1 is the first number of the decade, century or millenia. Thus nu has one more year before they are skunked for the first decade of the new millenia ;)

BTW glimmer I was also born in 1960.



NO! NO! NO! I just want to argue. MUST FIGHT WILDCATS!  :D
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 03:01:48 PM
glimmer is correct, we went though this in 2000 but most everyone ignored it anyway and everyone decided to celebrate the new millenium on January 1, 2000. Which was not correct. Oh well sometimes arguing with people who have already made up their mind on a subject is pointless anyway. (I find that happens often on this site)

Question to everyone. When you begin counting to 100 what number do you start with???? I was always taught from kindergarden on though my formal education (BS KSU) that it is..... 1,2,3,4.......100. Not 0,1,2,3....100. So, therefore 1 is the first number of the decade, century or millenia. Thus nu has one more year before they are skunked for the first decade of the new millenia ;)

BTW glimmer I was also born in 1960.

christ. just how many people on this site were born in the 50's? we've go two just in this thread.

also catfanatic, your incredibly flawed logic on why 1 is the first number of the new millenia was fascinating. absolutely fascinating. retardedly stupid, but fascinating none the less.

For god sakes there was a baby boom! Don't you kids learn anything?
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Catfanatic on December 06, 2009, 03:04:16 PM
Dude look it up before you call someone a retard. That is beyond retarded to be wrong and keep arguing. Decades, centuries & millenia begin with 1. This site is great example of public education at it's best :rolleyes:

Wow I am done with this topic. Yep you name callers on this site are right again the millenia truely began on January 1, 2000. ROTFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:  
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Rick Daris on December 06, 2009, 03:14:05 PM
Dude look it up before you call someone a retard. That is beyond retarded to be wrong and keep arguing. Decades, centuries & millenia begin with 1. This site is great example of public education at it's best :rolleyes:

Wow I am done with this topic. Yep you name callers on this site are right again the millenia truely began on January 1, 2000. ROTFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

where did i say that the millenia began on jan 1, 2000? where did i call you a retard? because i surely didn't do either. you seem to have poor reading comprehension and problem solving skills which is sadly all too characterstic of your generation.

i simply (or maybe not so simply in your case) stated that your logic on why, which included counting to one hundred and starting with the number one was flawed. flawed and retarded. this is fact. see if you can figure out why. doubt you can. old people... gmafb.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Catfanatic on December 06, 2009, 03:26:04 PM
http://hypercreations.com/david/2001.html

You can go to numerous sites if one cares to take the time, it explains the reasons for confusion on this matter. I saw several and this is just one link I decided to post on this matter. Like I said I am not going to argue endlessly over a dumb topic anyway. If you use the gregorian calendar (which is what most of the western civilizations uses) then the dates begin with the number 1 :flush:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: WillieWannabe on December 06, 2009, 03:28:11 PM
this has to be the dumbest thread i ever read in my life.... :suicideispainless:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: hemmy on December 06, 2009, 03:31:03 PM
I am software engineer, and almost everything in computers is 0-indexed ;)

So more often than not, I do count starting at 0.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 03:31:57 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 

I thought he was talking about the easy one who got knocked up and created the grand kid.  Either that or your son only scores with sluts.

And baby boomers were close to 10 years old when you were born dipstick.

You desparately need to go back to school.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Catfanatic on December 06, 2009, 03:50:29 PM
I could not agree more willieW and I regret ever posting on this matter :banghead:
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: trumanorme on December 06, 2009, 03:52:56 PM
Actually, if you really think about it, everything would have started on day 1, year 0. There would have to be a full year before you would get to year 1.

That should clear everything up. :D
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 03:57:38 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 

I thought he was talking about the easy one who got knocked up and created the grand kid.  Either that or your son only scores with sluts.

And baby boomers were close to 10 years old when you were born dipstick.

You desparately need to go back to school.


Taught my sons that sex wasn't dirty unless it is done right. What did your dad teach you? Its best alone?

Mom took care or the talks with the girls.

Oldest daughter is still 15. Can't date until 16 house rule for everyone.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 04:00:45 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 

I thought he was talking about the easy one who got knocked up and created the grand kid.  Either that or your son only scores with sluts.

And baby boomers were close to 10 years old when you were born dipstick.

You desparately need to go back to school.


Taught my sons that sex wasn't dirty unless it is done right. What did your dad teach you? Its best alone?

Mom took care or the talks with the girls.

Oldest daughter is still 15. Can't date until 16 house rule for everyone.

So it's dirty when it's done right?  You sound like a fine teacher, no wonder your son knocked up the town slut.

Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Gimmered on December 06, 2009, 04:01:47 PM
I could not agree more willieW and I regret ever posting on this matter :banghead:

I've got to admit I don't think I've ever taken one down this far before. I should be shot. :D
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: faultlessfreshcat on December 06, 2009, 04:09:02 PM
glimmer is correct, we went though this in 2000 but most everyone ignored it anyway and everyone decided to celebrate the new millenium on January 1, 2000. Which was not correct. Oh well sometimes arguing with people who have already made up their mind on a subject is pointless anyway. (I find that happens often on this site)

Question to everyone. When you begin counting to 100 what number do you start with???? I was always taught from kindergarden on though my formal education (BS KSU) that it is..... 1,2,3,4.......100. Not 0,1,2,3....100. So, therefore 1 is the first number of the decade, century or millenia. Thus nu has one more year before they are skunked for the first decade of the new millenia ;)

BTW glimmer I was also born in 1960.

Well ill be your mother fracking retarted as well
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: smurfinator6 on December 06, 2009, 10:31:16 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 

I thought he was talking about the easy one who got knocked up and created the grand kid.  Either that or your son only scores with sluts.

And baby boomers were close to 10 years old when you were born dipstick.

You desparately need to go back to school.

The baby boom was from 1946-1964, so he is, indeed, a baby boomer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom)
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: LimestoneOutcropping on December 06, 2009, 10:48:57 PM
claiming that 1960 is part of the 50's just might be the dumbest thing that i've ever seen written on this website. congrats. also, your daughter sounds like a slut. no offense.

You are calling my 4 year old a slut? How david Letterman of you.


No offense was the problem this year. 

I thought he was talking about the easy one who got knocked up and created the grand kid.  Either that or your son only scores with sluts.

And baby boomers were close to 10 years old when you were born dipstick.

You desparately need to go back to school.

The baby boom was from 1946-1964, so he is, indeed, a baby boomer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom)

But his son still knocked up the town bicycle.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Tulsa Cat on December 07, 2009, 04:54:14 PM
I don't think I have ever seen calender smack before.. I hope I never do again.  This must mean football season is over.  :confused: :frown:

FWIW I was really born in the fifties, 1959.  I married a younger  woman, my girls cant date yet.  :)

All you youngsters can suck it :D

 :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot: :kstatriot:

Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Oklahoma_Cat on December 07, 2009, 10:07:42 PM
JFC, can we have a separate area for the old ballz?

Anyone born between 1900-19(75? That's probably a decent #) GTFO.  No wonder it smells like death around here.
Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: Shank Pushpi on December 07, 2009, 10:16:10 PM
For the husker dumbass:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/decade_s_end_climate

Title: Re: decade #1 of new millineum complete and no NU conf. title...
Post by: vanro031 on December 07, 2009, 10:30:44 PM
See Man-Crapper still has Husker Envy on the brain.  :lol:
Enjoy your bowl game Jr.