27 November 2010

Mo or no?

| prajapati
Join the conversation
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 ...

Join the conversation

16
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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……..

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

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?

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

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.

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

grunge_hippy7:14 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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

24% of people missed the “mo” button.

JessicaNumber12:16 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 Canberran11:51 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.

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…

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.