4,601 Forum Posts by "BeFell"
At 12/16/04 01:12 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: The Americans will maintain world peace while the Europeons get rich by selingl weapons to China and the Canadians kick back and play hockey. Then everyone will criticize America's actions.
I can't help but feel like America is somehow being manipulated.
At 12/16/04 05:28 AM, D0GMA wrote: Days to 50:
0.69 - BeFell
hmm...
*Contemplates skipping accounting final to gain 12 extra b/p points*
OMG J00 L00K GHEY!!!11!2@!21@!!
At 12/15/04 04:32 PM, NotYouZ wrote: We should just delete that awards thread and start a new one. Three categories is not enough, and who really cares about "the best n00b trap"?
You're right, I took the liberty of adding something we really needed.=P
Biggest Whiner:
NotYouZ
At 12/15/04 04:43 PM, FatherVenom wrote:At 12/15/04 04:33 PM, Z17 wrote:Then you obviously didn't read the thread with enough care. I provided a couple of legal avenues.
Nothing realistic.
It seems that they should just wait to figure all of your incomes at once. This is a case of the stupidity of your employer screwing you, not the government.
At 12/15/04 01:16 PM, COLDHARDFACTS wrote: Maus, you’re about as lovable as a homicidal porcupine with a contagious disease.
*bitchslap*
First of all I am the right-wing nutjob asshole around here and
*bitchslap*
lollys do not come into the lounge to flame regs.
*drop kick*
At 12/15/04 01:11 PM, COLDHARDFACTS wrote:At 12/15/04 10:29 AM, FatherVenom wrote:If forced or brought up that way. Maus was right in that you have to let kids learn for themselves...Maus' parents did a great job.
She grew up to become a lesbian.
LOL!
You gotta' be fuckin' kidding me.
And you grew up to be an asshole. There's only so much parents can do.
That is really odd. Is that universal or is the person adding this stuff up for you just an idiot?
SInce you're not likely to change them mind of whoever is adding up your income keep all of the ducumentation that records what you actually made then claim that when you file your income taxes. You will be refunded everything that you were unfairly forced to pay. However, make absolutely positive sure that you keep all of your documents in case you are audited.
At 12/15/04 11:30 AM, TheShrike wrote:At 12/15/04 03:29 AM, I7-I2-E-I7-I7 wrote: but shucks. i didn't get away with it :*- /Do you mean my comment?
*throws rocks at Shrike and Dredd*
This had better not lead to drama.>=(
At 12/15/04 09:53 AM, FatherVenom wrote: For me there's no grey area in this. In the United States you can not record a private message in any way without express consent of the parties. It's been that way since the precedent was set in court and God willing it will always be that way. If the parent is suspicious she could resort to following the child if she's that desperate, but honestly that just shows that you've been shirking your responsibilities as a parent for a prolonged period of time.
At 12/15/04 09:28 AM, BeFell wrote: Something that I've seen a few people ignore is the fact that parents are still responsible for their children's actions until they are over the age of 18.That's where smart parenting comes in.
What if you have a belligerent little bastard that won't do anything you say? Do you lock them in a room. Oh wait that's illegal too.
The legal system has a double standard in stating that you can't control your kids but you are still responsible for what they do.No they don't. They only said that you can't listen to private conversations. That doesn't mean that parents shouldn't be asking their children everything about their lives, especially if they think they can catch them in a lie.
If your children are lying to you and your only means of getting information from them is "asking them questions" how the hell are you going to catch them in a lie?
And you get to pay the court fees, resulting fines, car insurance rate hike, and live with the stigma.My father is made me pay all ensuing fees (including the difference for the added surcharge on the insurance bill) for my accident with their car. It's not unreasonable, but it's a system that works. Chalk it up to good parenting tactics/placing the punishment where it belongs.
What if the fees are higher than the child can afford? You can make them work it off for a few years but that doesn't help much considering you'll have to dull out the amount all at once.
Well obviously infebaled parentsBack up. She never said they were enfeabled. She said she's helping with the bills. I am too. But we're not minors. So I'll resort to the cases of minors I do know who support their parents. I only know of four, but they are examples of what happens in the world.
It is not the norm and besides if your parents aren't paying for everything then that throws the "your using my property argument out the window."
"Hmm... my 14 year old daughter is talking of the phone with that 17 year old punk I told her not to see. She told me it was her little friend Susi. And the police just told me they suspect he was involved in a robery. Is he going to try to get my daughter to do something criminal?"So act upon that. Find out that your kid is lying and punish them for lying. Find some other reason to punish your kid so you can keep tabs on them if you have to. But it's just bad parenting if your children have been rolling with the wrong crowd for a while.
Oh yes, kids do exactly as they are told so if they are hanging out with bad people behind your back it's obviously your fault.
The mother was listening in on the phone call because her daughter wasn't being truthful with her and she did what was neccessary to protect her child.No, she broke a law to protect her child. There are other ways of doing that without breaking the law.
Such as?
I am not saying that parents shouldn't try to talk to their kids and have a good relationship that way but we all know that there are some kids that just will not do what they are supposed to. If a child is constantly lying to their parents and doing things that they shouldn't be doing then a parent should have the right to take extreme measures such as checking in on their phone conversations.
At 12/15/04 09:51 AM, Maus wrote: I was going off what you said, that the police informed the mother of the daughter's dealings with the unsavory character. At that point, the phone goes away. Either that, or she has to sit in the same room with me while she uses the phone.
Ah I understand now. Would you go as far as listening in and taking notes so you could help get him convicted? I certainly would then I would file a restraining order on my daughter's behalf.
At 12/15/04 09:34 AM, Maus wrote:At 12/15/04 09:28 AM, BeFell wrote: And you get to pay the court fees, resulting fines, car insurance rate hike, and live with the stigma. Why not just prevent those kind of things so everyone is happy.Why would I be the one paying anything? It was HIS kids that messed up, not mine in that scenario.
Honestly Maus, I have much more respect for you than that.
Well obviously infebaled parents don't enjoy the same rights but is that really relevent to this conversation? Most of those cases would involve ADULTS.I know, but pox said 'as long as you live with your parents, they own you.' Just pointing out that it isn't always the case.
See above.
If that was my kid, there would be no phone, period. I'm not stupid. If I told my kid to not associate with him, and she continued to do it, the phone would go away, pronto, as well as the modem, and anything else of that nature. If she can't be trusted, don't trust her. Make her earn it back.
How would you know that your daughter was using the phone to do something you didn't want her to do. You're telling me what you would do if you knew but not how you would have found out. If you suspected she was doing something like talking to the guy you told her not to see would you listen in to confirm your suspicions?
Something that I've seen a few people ignore is the fact that parents are still responsible for their children's actions until they are over the age of 18. As with Pox's example if a drunk teen were to smash a car into into a bunch of people who do you think would have to pay for that? If the child is a convicted of a crime and fined who is ultimately responsible for making sure that fine is paid?
The legal system has a double standard in stating that you can't control your kids but you are still responsible for what they do.
As far as this "a trusting parent parent shouldn't have to search" bullshit, obviously the child is not trustworthy if they are hiding drugs or hanging out with felons. Most parents don't willy nilly search their kids stuff every couple of weeks, if the did the kids would probably be smart enough not to hide their stuff there. It is usually on suspicision that parents search and if they find something then who really broke the other's trust?
At 12/15/04 08:49 AM, Maus wrote:At 12/15/04 07:54 AM, -poxpower- wrote: yeah how bout letting my kids drive drunk and smash into your kids.Sure thing. Shit happens, and your kids would have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
LOL MISTAKES LOL.
And you get to pay the court fees, resulting fines, car insurance rate hike, and live with the stigma. Why not just prevent those kind of things so everyone is happy.
Even if you support them? If I'm paying the bills, I don't think so.
I think the parent's win in this case.
As long as you live in the same house as your parents, they OWN YOUR ASS.
obe you over 18 or not.
Well obviously infebaled parents don't enjoy the same rights but is that really relevent to this conversation? Most of those cases would involve ADULTS.
I wasn't saying they didn't have the right to do it, I was only saying that if the mother had to resort to listening in on her daughter's phone calls, some parenting steps were missed. Who the heck lets their 14 year old daughter date a 17 year old guy? And then expects them to be angels?
"Hmm... my 14 year old daughter is talking of the phone with that 17 year old punk I told her not to see. She told me it was her little friend Susi. And the police just told me they suspect he was involved in a robery. Is he going to try to get my daughter to do something criminal?"
The mother was listening in on the phone call because her daughter wasn't being truthful with her and she did what was neccessary to protect her child.
At 12/13/04 11:57 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Best Reg
Skvnk
Worst Reg
That ani-what not-fellow
Biggest Spammer
I want to say skvnk, but I don't want to nominate him for two things, I'll go with Shrike. He has at least 120 posts that consist of "buy a mac."
Biggest Attention Whore
Um... Gooie.
Best n00b trap
Official Bush Topic
At 12/15/04 03:07 AM, Maus wrote: What is BCC's full SN? I wanna look up these posts of his.
*crazy brits*
What the hell is going on? I started a topic about the constitution or something or other and made it as offensively republican as I possibly could and sat back and waited for the fun. Do you know what happened? People actually responded to it to discuss my arguments for its merits and rather than just flaming me they focused simply on the argument and left ad hominen attacks completely out of it. The most disturbing thing of all is a few people actually agreed with me.
There is something terribly wrong with the BBS things, something terribly terribly wrong...
I heard about this on O'Rielly tonight.
SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- Striking a blow for rebellious teenagers, the Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state law prohibits parents from eavesdropping on a child's phone conversations.
The case reached the high court because of a purse-snatching.
A 17-year-old boy was convicted of the robbery, in part on testimony from his girlfriend's mother, who overhead him discussing the crime on the phone with her daughter.
The daughter had taken a cordless phone into her bedroom and closed the door. In another room, her mother pressed the speakerphone button on an extension, listened in and took notes.
The court ruled that the daughter and her boyfriend had a reasonable expectation of privacy on the phone.
Washington state law prohibits intercepting or recording conversations without the consent of all participants.
"The Washington privacy statute puts a high value on the privacy of communications," Justice Tom Chambers wrote in the unanimous opinion.
The boyfriend will get a new trial.
This is fucking bullshit. What kind of stupid ass individuals insists on giving children the same rights that adults enjoy? In case the ACLU isn't aware kids are fucking stupid and need to be monitored. Can you imagine what will happen if kids start suing their parents for looking out for their best interests. "Your Honor, this person violated my privacy and found crack in my bedroom. I think they should be punished."
This whole situation is can only be described as stupid, possibly fucking stupid. This 14-year-old girl who apparently associates with felons should be punished, not pitied because her mother listened in on a phone line she paid for. I mean how can somebody who is completely dependent on someone else for their survival possibly bitch about their person using their own property as a means of monitoring behavior. I know that girl didn't pay for that fucking room, phone line or even phone. Why the hell should she get special use of it? Kids have no right to expect privacy because they are fucking kids. God damn, drug using, MTV watching, Old Navy buying, underage drinking, money sucking, baby aborting kids. They do all of this stupid shit then have the nerve to bitch because someone is looking in on what they're doing.
If these spoiled little bastards don't want somebody snooping around in their shit then they can get a job and buy their own fucking house. Not willing? Then deal with it.
At 12/14/04 10:42 PM, NotYouZ wrote:At 12/14/04 10:42 PM, BeFell wrote: BWS has the same politics as John Kerry?=/You're closer to John Kerry than you are George Bush :D
I suspect the famous people placement on that test is full of shit.
At 12/14/04 10:40 PM, NotYouZ wrote:At 12/14/04 08:36 PM, BeFell wrote: Who has that graph that shows where all of the regs scored on the political compass test?I do.
and BY THE WAY...
BWS has the same politics as John Kerry?=/
At 12/14/04 08:32 PM, Maus wrote:At 12/14/04 07:44 PM, Mr_Biggles wrote: Wait, you're not?Nope. I'm just a skoosh to the Right. In the political compass test we took, my dot was right on Ted Nugent's face, LOL.
Hmm... live and learn. Why where you offended by my use of hippie?
Who has that graph that shows where all of the regs scored on the political compass test?
At 12/14/04 02:55 PM, Spookshow wrote: DEATH TO THE NOOBS! *Slaps on helmet, grabs gun and put on body armor*
Anywho... how's everyone been? Anything interesting happen?
Who the hell are you?
At 12/14/04 02:00 PM, stafffighter wrote:At 12/14/04 01:57 PM, BeFell wrote: Stafffighter enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's comedy?Fuck you. I came up with the idea and wrote all the words myself. And just fuck you on general princible
Jeez touchy I was just wondering if you saw his skit last night and got the idea for this.
Stafffighter enjoys Larry the Cable Guy's comedy?
At 12/14/04 12:20 PM, TheShrike wrote: I just love the way the Political Achievement Awards thread is going.
Apparently I'm an attention whore because people like to make topics about me.
</tongue in cheek>
=]
Now you're being an emo attention whore.=P
At 12/14/04 11:47 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:The most obvious solution would be to give Palestine a (real) bit of land for their own... Not that Israel hasn't offered, but the Palestinians need to make an effort too.And they haven't, hence the wall.
Best point ever.
I still haven't been able to play it.=( When I asked my girlfriend to give it to me for christmas I forgot that she wouldn't give it to me until Christmas.
At 12/14/04 02:11 AM, Damien3003 wrote:At 12/14/04 02:08 AM, BeFell wrote: Damien your philosophical bullshit is annoying. Their is no logical reson for the wall not to be effective.What fucking philosophical, befell? I said a wall is a short term solution to a gigantic sized problem. It's covering the fuck up. Tell me, befell, how building a wall between two war torn countries, both filled up with extremists, is a long term solution?
If they can't physically fight each other eventually they'll stop trying. After a few years of living in forced peace they may grow to like it.
Saying stuff like:
But...it's...just...a wall. What kind of solution is that? Just put up a big barricade, and ignore the real problem at hand? How long is that going to last? Or, to be more realistic, how soon until it stops putting off the problem? Are we just going to have a wall between these two countries FOREVER? Indefinitely? That's what'd have to take. And even then, it'd still be stupid idea.
How about curing the disease, instead of just covering up the symptoms? Is that just crazy talk?
is fucking idiotic because you are trying to appeal to something other than logic and reason. A wall is a realistic solution and there is no real reason why it can't last for as long as the two countries exist. What would you propose, forming a circle and singing Koombaiyah? People have been fighting over this peice of land for most of human history do you think they are suddenly going to reach an agreement and everyone will be happy? Working out their differences is fairy land talk, building a wall is something that will work in the real world.
Hell it's not as if they jumped to this either, Israel has been trying to make peace with its neihbors since its creation in 1949. Would you like to see another half century of failed diplomacy before Israel is able to do something to protect itself?
At 12/14/04 10:51 AM, Mega135816 wrote: *throws up on Befell's lap*
My alt can beat up your alt.=P
