Mo or no?

prajapati 27 November 2010 16

mo

The mo of the above gentleman was disqualified from Movember at King O’Malley’s on unspecified grounds. A violation of the rules? Which rule? We submit the evidence below for perusal of the RiotACT:

A mo as magnificent as this deserves a second opinion. We ask this esteemed assembly: Mo or No?

(PS: no, it’s not mine)

Good for Movember?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
16 Responses to Mo or no?
Filter
Order
Kuku Kuku 10:28 pm 29 Nov 10

Didn’t the guy in Sydney have his moe joined all the way down his chest, stomach and ….eeeeewwwwhhhh, I so don’t want to even think what hair it eventually joined……..

prajapati prajapati 9:42 am 29 Nov 10

I can testify that there was not a hair on his chinny chin chin on December 1

peterepete peterepete 5:27 am 29 Nov 10

Its a thing of beauty whatever the rules of the comp. I’d hate to have to maintain it though – not a job for one person?

Grrrr Grrrr 6:29 pm 28 Nov 10

I say Mo, but he’s only eligible if none of that hair was there on 31 Oct.

Grail Grail 12:53 am 28 Nov 10

There’s an awful lot of mutton chop in that “mo”

Might be a cool piece of beard styling, but that mo is most definitely connected to the side burns. Not to mention the muttons.

willo willo 8:05 pm 27 Nov 10

point is tho….if he hadnt shaved his head and the mo met the head hair….is he still dqued??

grunge_hippy grunge_hippy 7:14 pm 27 Nov 10

shit, I could have shaved my head and made my fem-mo meet up with the aftermath.

fail.

he should have just kept the mo.

willo willo 6:12 pm 27 Nov 10

that IS a mo…and HE IS THE TRUE WINNER…what an outrage….i demand a recount

Punter Punter 2:10 pm 27 Nov 10

If that is no Mo according to Movember rules, is he required to return any collected donations?

Duncan Duncan 1:44 pm 27 Nov 10

That’s no mo, but it is an impressive creative beard/sideburn/mo fusion.

Primal Primal 12:49 pm 27 Nov 10

I would argue that the mo is joined to his “regular hair”, not his sideburns. Mind you I also think the neck hair lets this one down – should have just focused on the facial fluff.

boo boo boo boo 12:31 pm 27 Nov 10

Mr Waffle said :

Hmmm… you MIGHT be able to fail it under the rule “can’t join sideburns (that’s a beard)”, though you could argue that they aren’t sideburns, they’re an extension of the mo…

Or is the mo an extension of the hairline? A mohawk would have topped it off I think.

the-riotact the-riotact 12:28 pm 27 Nov 10

24% of people missed the “mo” button.

JessicaNumber JessicaNumber 12:16 pm 27 Nov 10

I voted “no” because I don’t know if it is a moustache but it makes me want to scream, “Nooooooo!!!!!”

Joe Canberran Joe Canberran 11:51 am 27 Nov 10

“Rule Three: There is to be no joining of the mo to your side burns. That’s considered a beard.”

The above Mo is joined to the sideburns, true via a circuitous route below and behind the ears, but it it is still joined to them and therefore not a Mo.

Mr Waffle Mr Waffle 11:41 am 27 Nov 10

Hmmm… you MIGHT be able to fail it under the rule “can’t join sideburns (that’s a beard)”, though you could argue that they aren’t sideburns, they’re an extension of the mo…

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site