> >eliminate #3, because of the
>>hair, and Shakes making fun
>>of Icecats locks. >Oh, I wouldn't put it past
>him...
You are right, it sounds just like something he would do, I have to say though, he doesn't look very lawyerly.
>>That leaves #1, 5, and 8.
>
>Well now...I posted my guess as
>#1, and I have dissed
>#5 & 8.
I need to add, the picture with the contestants dining does include someone who could be # 5 or # 8, I'm leaning toward it being #5, but it is in profile, and not very clear. I can clearly identify #2 in the background, and #7 (hard to confuse the short blond hair) Sorry to confuse things.
>May I officially back-peddle here and
>state that I am sure
>that #5 & 8 are
>very handsome, sexy men (and
>apparently twins separated at birth)
>and that this photo most
>certainly does not do them
>justice (#5 is no doubt
>standing in a hole) and
>that any previous mention of
>"geekiness" in connection with these
>contestants was said with my
>well-known far-too-subtle sarcasm and of
>course actually meant "studly eye-candy".
Don't feel bad, this is not a very flattering photo.