>>46231
So you tell me that the twins are always spared because of their "(d)evilishness"? That would be bad news. Just consider how pleased your audience would be (at least those guys from >>46226 and >46227 ;] ) if the twins "surprisingly" would get in trouble – perhaps because they got tricked into something to "backfire" on each other.

Hehe, I'm good when I'm good, but I'm better when I'm bad.