For some reason, I think LJT's gonna win this one

"Nice tits."

As all my co-writers will attest, in my youth I was occasionally prevented from participating in certain activities due to punishment. I'm speaking, of course, about LJT's annual Fourth of July pool parties. There everyone would be, playing pool-basketball and diving to the bottom in search of a rock or whatever; and there I would be -- sitting on some chair, trying my hardest to act casual as I (pitifully) tried to explain:

SIDE BAR: Open Bar, what're you doing? Get in the pool.

OPEN BAR: Nah, don't feel like swimming.

LJT: You don't feel like swimming? It's like 104 degrees.

OPEN BAR: Really? 'Cause, like, it doesn't feel that hot--

SIDE BAR: Did you beat up your brother again?

OPEN BAR: No. It's nothing. I just--

LJT: Okay, so you're grounded. Again. Don't steal anything from my house.

OPEN BAR: What?! I -- I'm just gonna go play some Nintendo.

And I would leave all the fun, go inside, head to the basement, and drown my sorrows in Pepsi, Super Mario Bros., and cookies (that I stole).

Anyway, the point is that I would sometimes get into some trouble for beating up my little brother. Most of this happened when I was between the ages of 9-12 or so, meaning my bro was about 5-8 years old. It was a dick thing to do, and I look back upon it with shame.

I don't know why I had that violent streak. When I stopped, I stopped cold turkey. No more attacking toddlers. (My parents couldn't have been prouder!)

But there's something I've wondered for quite some time now. I've posed this question numerous times to friends, usually in group-drinking environments, and I've heard so many different responses that I feel somewhat justified in having wondered about it so long. It's not something I've ever considered in a realistic way, more of a fun "What if..." vibe. And it's funny -- some people get it right away (that I'm not posing a serious question, and therefore I won't take your answer literally), while some people are so morally offended at the mere premise that they either refuse to answer or, worse, get all huffy-puffy and hate me.

Apparently, though, I'm not the only one who's thought about this (as I will demonstrate in just a moment). Without further adieu, the question is:

How many 5-year-olds do you think you could take in a fight?

Seriously. Think about it: There is a massive swarm of toddlers coming at you, attacking fearlessly. To give you a few parameters that I've usually included when I ask it:

1. No weapons. (For you or them.)
2. You're in an enclosed area, so running away when you get tired isn't an option.
3. You don't need to kill them; knocking them out is fine.

Again, this is merely an exercise. No one is judging your morals. We're not talking about trying to set up an event next weekend and trying to see if you'd be "cool" with it. Just use your imagination. You know, like you did when you were 5.

(Incidentally, another variation I've used is, rather than 5-year-olds, substitute octogenarians. Is your answer higher or lower?)

Okay, now that you have your guess, I present the actual test. Click on the link below (it's safe for work), and please, allow me to quote Count Rugen: "This is for posterity, so, be honest." (It really is no fun if you cheat.)

How many 5-year-olds could you take in a fight?

And when you finish, please post your scores in the poll!