The only reasonable explanation as to why they would do such an act is that they wish to give the idea that she was a virgin for Jesus, but that is more than slightly unbelievable given the fact, as you pointed out, as did Dogma, they were married. If I had to guess, it wasn't the case, and what's more, I'm thinking either A, she is sleeping around on ol' Jo, or B, she was sleeping with Jo there and decided to bluff it. I'm guessing A...

At 11/16/08 11:29 PM, Korriken wrote: My advice: plant a garden and learn to hunt. I have a small garden in a series of buckets right outside my apartment. If you got land, you can try planting some fruit trees, they produce free food every year once they begin to bear fruit. There is even a tomato tree. A friend of mine has one and it puts out more tomatoes than he can deal with. he sends me tomatoes each week when its putting out. good stuff.

You heard it here first folks, tomato trees are easy...

Anyway, joking aside, thievery is just that, and to think that stealing is acceptable you are rather foolish, if not an outright idiot. There are various food donation/storage places that can assist, and although they are hardly perfect, and are understaffed, funded, and stocked, they still provide a fair number of meals.

I've lived off of potatoes and ketchup, and less on some occasions, with less money to live off of than most would care to think of after paying my bills, and I can say without any guilt that shoplifting should be treated as the very thing it is, and that ignoring it, or treating it as something less is a smack in the face to all those who are hungry but manage to keep their hands clean.

At 10/28/08 01:13 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 10/28/08 01:09 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: However, I still do think this is just an unfortunate accident, rather than any real negligence involved, at least with the information given.

Oh, yeah, I don't think the parents should go to prison in any way. It was just an accident, after all.

What I'm saying is that I think there should be some regulations preventing eight year olds from firing fully automatic machine guns. :I

As a general unwritten rule eight year old children do not fire weapons at all, at least not on a regular basis, it seems foolish to call in the powers that be to regulate something that is a freak accident. As for fully automatic weapons, they are uncommon enough, at least in all my travels, that I've never even fired one.

It is only going to get worse for her and if she can't handle it now she shouldn't be running, also if you are to call someone a liar it is best to provide sources to back up your claims.

One that is somewhat humorus.

Out of booze on Sunday.

At 9/14/08 10:45 AM, KeithHybrid wrote:

At 9/14/08 01:35 AM, Lookaz wrote: 1. Prostitution

Can't really agree on this one, mostly because of the dangers of catching a disease involved. Twenty bucks for syphalis? No thanks.

I could agree to the idea of prostitution with no real issues under the following conditions.

1. Registered houses for their actions.
2. Regular medical check ups, I'd say once every two weeks for saftey and such. One positive and you are out of there until it is cured. No cure, no return.
3. Each individual who partakes is registered with them so in the event of an illness, they could be contacted and treated. It would also assist in the tracking of individuals with STDs since the regular checkups allow for a timeline of infection.
4. Individuals partaking in services require a clean medical check up no older then two weeks.

That is all that I can think of at the moment, if more needs to be added, please feel free.

2. Marijuana

This is just a case of "Make this legal because I want it".

I'm getting the same feeling about that, but I don't see any reason to ban it as it causes no deaths from its use unless you happen to be a bag of Doritos.

3. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

See above.

I can see nothing good with possibly endorsing this, I have to agree with you 100%.

4. Work Weeks

I can see this working for many blue-collar jobs (though they'd probably have to work had as hell to make up for not working on Friday), but emergency services and food establishments wouldn't be able to work with this change.

Such a work week is impossible to implement without detriment to a large portion of the population. Either there will be longer hours, or the same number of days, and as Hybrid has pointed out, would cripple some industries.

5. Curfew

Sounds like a state/local government matter.

I believe that an overwhelming majority of 16 year olds shouldn't be outside when they are not being watched closely. Most of them can't be trusted to be honest, as most are doing rather foolish things at that age. Hell, even here at the university, the frats regularly prove that age does not equal maturity.

6. Legaly an Adult

See my responses to items 2 and 3.

Again, I must agree with Hybrid for the simple reason that 16 year olds that are well informed about anything are few and far between, and thus it should be left at 18. As for taxes, if you are adult, the full tax should apply anyway as you have all the rights such taxes purchase.

7. Smoking and Drinking Ages

See responses to 2, 3, and 6.

I believe the smoking age should remain 18, but I do agree that 18 for the drinking age makes a fair amount of sense. I can die for my country yet I can't get blitzed in it. Awesome. Granted I can, but that used to be my phrase when I was a wee bit younger. Funnily enough I still don't drink, yet I plan on trying my hand at microbrewing....

8. The Womans Right to Choose

I agree, woman's body, woman's choice. I doubt though, that it would be too healthy for a woman under 18 to have an abortion. If anything, mandate giving the child up for adoption if she's not of age.

I'm not too keen on the forced aboption idea, as it would put a large strain on the already tight budgets of DFS and such.

9. Rating Restrictions

Awww, is someone butthurt because mummy wouldn't let them play GTA?

I've never had issues with these restrictions, as I always viewed them as suggested ages, then again I look a fair bit older then I am.

10. Blood Alchohol Limit
The Blood Alcohol Limit is to be increased from the current "0.0800" to "0.0900" However those under 18 have a strict Blood Alcohol Limit of ".0015".

See answers to items 2, 3, 6, and 7.

"Why bother changing these?" is the first question that comes to mind.

11. True Seperation of Church and State

I agree on this one.

Agreed as well.

12. Jailing and Prison

Some people live beyond 65 years, so once they get out, they could just get back to commiting crime (just not as well as when they were young). Instead, I believe murder should recieve a life sentence by default, mass/serial murder a death sentence, and sexual assault or rape, good ol' chemical casteration.

I'd prefer literal physical casteration with a hammer used by the young lady or gentleman who was harmed, then again I'm hardly a decent judge on the matter since such actions make my blood boil.

13. School and Academics (high school)

It's not the system's fault that you're a punk-ass juvenile who constantly get's in trouble for truancy. You can't be any older than 16, from what I'm gathering from this list...

Agreed, as academics are incredibly important. Proof is easy to provide, as you use a computer, a product of study over decades.

14. LGBT community rights

Agree'd

I agree as well.

15. Right of Anti-Racists

Maybe not shot. Beating the living shit out of them should suffice...and maybe chemical casteration (not like they need to breed, anywho).

To each their own, so long as they don't harm anyone physically, they can spout all the idiotic words they wish. As soon as they incite even a little violence, or raise their hands to do such, then they get the chemical joy killer.

Anyway, if this has been replied to already, my apologies, I stepped away and simply forgot to post it.

At 9/5/08 02:10 AM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 9/4/08 09:11 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 9/4/08 09:05 PM, ZyklonB wrote: people barely raise their children these days anyways so what does parenting have to do with the way you run a country?

Would you elect someone who beats their children?

Absolutely. And I'd hope they use that same technique as the basis of their foreign policy!

I believe this is applicable, if, for nothing else, the laughs. My personal favorite is the 2x4/PVC pipe.

At 8/26/08 01:17 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 8/26/08 10:44 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Secondly... AMERICA HAS A $10 trillion deficit

?????????????????

I want whatever you're smoking.

That number isn't too far off it seems, granted I don't feel like looking for more then one source. That is, if you change deficit to debt which is what I think the person in question probably meant, though I could be wrong.

If he, assuming it is a he, did mean deficit and not debt as I believe the person does then I would like to warn you that you may not want what he is on, lest you tempt the dark gods of economics into smiting you.

At 8/25/08 10:39 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/25/08 01:12 AM, CommanderX1125 wrote: Either it is a crime for all or a crime for none, and I'm willing to put down my life that you have said the word fuck once in public.

False Dilema.

Hardly, the situation I presented is just as valid but resulted in a completely different scenario which you seem to be ignoring. Even if you were to ignore the damned microphone he said a potentially offensive word in a public place, no different then the person in question, yet I don't see you clamoring for his citation.

To make a point that your arguement was a poor one.

The only thing that applied was that first criterion, you wasted a post making a non point refutation of things I points I did not claim to make.

I posted the entirety of the law to prevent you from making the claim that I merely ignored some part, and I fail to see how that is a fault seeing as I pointed out how it does not apply in the situation. You claimed the law without supplying it, twice, I posted the the law and why it would not apply, twice.

He had no control? I will give you that he had no way of stopping her when she said, "Can you fucking believe this, he is arresting me for saying fuck!"

I was referring to the fact that Bush did not have control over wether or not his lapel mike was still on, and by extension could not control the volume of his voice. The woman in question had full control of the situation.

We have nothing to indicate the volume of her voice other then he was within close proximity and heard the intial word. There is nothing to indicate that other individuals were at all bothered, their lives disrupted in any way, and so the laws do not apply.

Also, even in with the situation with Bush, he spoke the word in a public place in front of other individuals who were within even closer proximity. Even if we simply ignore the microphone for the sake of arguement, his situaion is no different. He was within a public place and said a potentially offensive word, no different then Fridge, and I'm willing to bet good money that at least one other person at that rally would have heard him, and that's ignoring the microphone as I've said numerous times.

You are correct in that the outburst did occur after she was being led outside, my apologies, but you are wrong when you say she was detained while he was looking for a record.

"Decker asked for her name, and Fridge said she began to spell it out verbally and in sign language, which angered him. As their confrontation continued, he handcuffed her.

He had no need for her name for she commited no crime. None until after he detained her, and even when she was being rude during her detention to him, that was not a crime either. The entire problem here is the fact, as I've said and as well as others, is that his unreasonable detention of her was the cause of her outburst, thus the outburst would not have occured had he not detained her. Also, I corrected my words in my second post from, " was detained while he was looking for a record" to, "was detained while he was leading her outside to check if she had a record."

Zacherl said the assistant fire marshal did so for his own safety because Fridge was being belligerent and because he had to turn his back to get his ticket book and check on the radio if she had any arrest warrants."

And if her outburst had occured before his unreasonable detention I would be defending him as I am defending her. I'm not saying that while he was checking he should turn his back to her and not pay attention, I'm saying that she should not have been there in the first place by his hand.

The act (or the juridical fact) of withholding from a lawfully entitled person the possession of land or goods, or the restraint of a person's personal liberty against his or her will; detention. Source.

That's what I've BEEN arguing, seeing as how most of the people in this topic have this one track mind and seem to equate detention with arrest when they simply do not.

And I apologized if I had said arrested, and why I use detain as it is the correct term. I will agree that the people clamoring arrest=detention can be quite a bother, and that is partly why I decided to post that tidbit to clear that up so that we could focus more on what is behind something and not semantics. However, the point is that she was in fact detained without good reason on the part of the asst. fire marshal which is the entire issue which lead to the entirety of the reason I'm argueing for her.

You'll pardon me if I don't reply readily since I have to argue with the university over texts that they sold me only a week ago that they just now decided to change editions and even authors without informing me, and then go to my next course so I'll probably pick this up again sometime tomorrow morning.

I would also like to apologize in advance if I seem somewhat rude as I do poorly with conversations in the morning since it isn't my normal time to be awake.

My apologies for the double post but I noticed a partial deletion resulting in an error in my words. " was detained while he was looking for a record" should say, "was detained while he was leading her outside to check if she had a record."

Again, my apologies for the confusion and double post as I'm quite tired right now.

At 8/24/08 10:07 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/24/08 12:01 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

By that very definition of disorderly conduct, any public swearing can be formally charged as a criminal act. That's how this is going to prosecuted, and the woman's swearing after the initial fact is not going to help her case any.

Tell me, have you EVER used a profane word in public? Should we charge you? Either it is a crime for all or a crime for none, and I'm willing to put down my life that you have said the word fuck once in public. Also, please read, it says "it's very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of hte peace."

The only reaction that occured from the word was that of the asst. firemarshal, and besides him there was no reaction whatsoever. It fails on that account.

None of these apply...

Then why did you post them?

To make a point that your arguement was a poor one.

Anyway, your arguement has shifted from disturbing the peace to disorderly conduct and it doesn't apply either and could be argued as entrapment by a skillful lawyer.

Disrupting the peace is covered under disorderly conduct, as the entire point is that you disrupted the general flow of everyday life.

Whose life did she disrupt? Nothing stopped until after he began leading her to his vehicle which was unnecessary.

Even if that is the case however, even assuming that the microphone was an error, his instance is no different.

He had no control over the situation, she did, otherwise he would have been charged with disorderly conduct as such.

He had no control? I will give you that he had no way of stopping her when she said, "Can you fucking believe this, he is arresting me for saying fuck!", however, I wish to point out that he had no right to detain her for the initial use of the word, or her apology which is the entire problem. The incident would not have occured had he not escalated it, there is no denying that.

How many conversations have you overheard while working that are 10 or so feet away?

Loaded Question. The article states that he turned the corner and told her to watch her mouth, which indicates he was on the next aisle or coming out of it, so he was within earshot regardless of how loud they were speaking, wether it was 3 feet, 10 feet, or 15 geet away.

Loaded it may be, but it does not change the point of it. Also, thank you for proving a point, as you now agree that he was within very close proximity to her which lends credence to the idea that it was a conversation, not a loud exclamation on her part. He can't make the claim she was being disruptive if she wasn't being loud, and she wasn't being loud until he was being disruptive.

As for who should be an adult, how do you justify his detainment of her before her outburst to the people outside?

Her outburst occurred before she went outside, she was detained after she left the building WHILE the officer was looking into her criminal record to see if there was any outstanding warrants for her arrest. This makes the umpteenth time I've said this, if I have to explain this again to anybody else then I will assume you are an illiterate product of our miserable public school systems and disregard your post in it's entirety.

You are correct in that the outburst did occur after she was being led outside, my apologies, but you are wrong when you say she was detained while he was looking for a record. She was ordered by him to follow along after being shown cuffs, to go to his vehicle. If she was a willing participant to go to his vehicle, I would agree with you, but to make the claim that she was not detained given the current evidence presented in the article is rather foolish. She attempted to walk away after an apology, more then likely an insincere one, he ordered her back, and then to his vehicle, it was not an act of her will but his.

The act (or the juridical fact) of withholding from a lawfully entitled person the possession of land or goods, or the restraint of a person's personal liberty against his or her will; detention. Source.

I have bolded the applicable part, and she was in fact detained, as it is made clear she wished to leave after the initial apology, granted it is likely insincere on her part. Those who say arrested are being rather foolish, and as I can't remember if I have, or have not, I apologize in case.

I probably won't continue this for a fair while since my courses at the university begin tomorrow morning and I need to get some rest. Anyway, I look forward to furter information after everything is said and done so that we, the forum, can argue over the verdict, assuming it goes to trial.

At 8/24/08 02:19 PM, Creek wrote: The right to bear arms is something that made sense 300 years ago (when the amendment was written). but in today's world it isn't. We need to change that, but it's just another old rule on the book that doesn't want to be taken off because of old conservative bastards.

Please tell me you forget the /s at the end.

The acts that are commited are illegal in and of themselves, so I fail to see how making another aspect of the act illegal is really going to deter anything, though that is just me.

At 8/24/08 11:02 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/23/08 10:14 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Actually, no, it isn't. She was told to watch her mouth, she APOLOGIZED, and tried to walk away.

It was an insincere apology at best, and you know that.

For an act that is not illegal, it is more then sufficient.

Furthermore, when she was led outside, she stated "I can't fucking believe this, he's arresting me for saying fuck". This also is not illegal, because it is not disturbing the peace; a woman being led out of a walmart is far more likely to draw attention then a woman swearing.

"Ultimately, Fridge was released and ticketed for disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor. She can pay a fine or appear in court to contest the citation."

Below is the definition of disorderly conduct according to the Texas Penal code, and I imagine that an overwhelming majority of disorderly conduct laws are quite similar, and so for the sake of laziness on my part since this is getting rather sad, I'm going to use it. Source.

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:

(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

There was no immediate breach of the peace after one excludes the actions of the asst. fire marshal in furthering the incident.

(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

Nothing occured during her detainment by the asst. fire marshal that could be described as an offensive gesture or display unless you wish to make the arguement that sign language is offensive in some form or fashion to the general public.

(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;

Not applicable.

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;

This one applies to the asst. fire marshal when he displayed his cuffs. Cool.

(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;

This one would apply readily had it not been for the fact that she was detained for no reason by the asst. fire marshal, thus causing the incident to occur. Had it not been for that detainment, she would be in violation. The big problem is that she was detained for nothing which places the asst. fire marshal in the wrong from the begining. You can't charge someone for a crime they have yet to commit, and they would not have commited had they not been placed in such a situation.

(6) fights with another in a public place;

No violence occured, thus it does not apply.

(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;

No shootings, so it's all good.

(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

No guns mentioned.

(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;

Again....

(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or

It would certainly make the story more interesting, but nothing of that nature occured.

(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:

(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;

(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or

(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.

None of these apply...

Anyway, your arguement has shifted from disturbing the peace to disorderly conduct and it doesn't apply either and could be argued as entrapment by a skillful lawyer.

The only difference is that George Bush swore because he saw some guy he disliked, whereas the woman swore because there was a storm coming and there weren't any batteries. Both fail to change the legality of swearing.

Except in Bush's case, his swearing being heard was the direct fault of an audio engineer who obviously missed class the day they explained what the "Off" button did, so the situation was out of his control. The woman in question swore loud enough to be heard an aisle away under her power and volition, that was something she was able to control and chose not to.

Is that how the scenario occured? I'm interested in an article on the matter now as I've only seen the video of the instance and they didn't seem all that bothered.

Even if that is the case however, even assuming that the microphone was an error, his instance is no different. He spoke in a potentially offensive manner, an even if the microphone was not there, with all those people there at least one other person, probably more then one unlike the issue with Fridge, and so he is just as guilty in your eyes still.

Anyway, my curiosity aside, I wish to ask something about your return to aisles. Does the asst. fire marshal indicate where in the aisle both he and Fridge were located? They could have been less then three feet apart if they were at the ends of the aisle, or between 5-10 ft elsewhere. Even if we assume, for the benefit of the doubt, that they were at 10 ft away, are you saying that it is without reason to hear a normal conversation at that distance? How many conversations have you overheard while working that are 10 or so feet away?

You admit the swearing was not illegal, which means the officer was asking her to watch her mouth as a civilian.

Swearing itself is not illegal, doing it loudly enough to disrupt the flow of everyday life is. If I walk around Wal-Mart yelling "Free Dick!" or doing my friend's impression of a kid getting beaten, it's not swearing, but it is disruptive and I would get arrested for it.

There is nothing to indicate she was yelling though, or acting in a disruptive manner until after her detainment. The only person who seems to have been bothered by this egregious act was the asst. fire marshal who decided it best to escalate the situation after an undoubtedly insincere apology.

You keep saying she acted like a 2 year old, but besides swearing, no, she didn't.

She did act like a two year old, remember? Drawing attention to herself by swearing aloud after the intial incident, making asl in the air to spell out her name for the guy when it was clear she wasn't deaf to begin with? Those are not the reasonable actions of someone who claims to be an adult.

After her detainment, she did swear aloud to the crowd outside of Wal-Mart, and as has been quoted, "Can you fucking believe this, he's arresting me for saying fuck!" In all honesty, I could see that being a fairly reasonable response since she broke no laws. As for the spelling of her name, who did it harm, whose life was negatively affected?

As for who should be an adult, how do you justify his detainment of her before her outburst to the people outside? No crime had been commited as I've pointed out, and so the asst. fire marshal had no grounds to do so. Actually, before I take too much credit, Elfer has pointed out this question and to my knowledge it remains unanswered, assuming I didn't accidentally look over a post, in which case, my apologies.

At 8/23/08 02:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

[apologizing] For something that is not illegal, pretty often, and even when there is a violation of the law

So her provocative hand-signed apology should've cowed the cop into reversing his decision to issue her a citation in your mind?

I'd like to live in your world.

My apologies for the double post, but if memory serves, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but her hand gestures did not begin until after she was brought outside, not during her apology.

At 8/23/08 02:30 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

[apologizing] For something that is not illegal, pretty often, and even when there is a violation of the law

So her provocative hand-signed apology should've cowed the cop into reversing his decision to issue her a citation in your mind?

I'd like to live in your world.

For something that is not illegal, an apology should be more then acceptable.

At 8/23/08 11:24 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/23/08 02:02 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Swearing, once, isn't 'making a scene' or acting like a two year old. It's also not preventing people from going about their business, so it isn't illegal.

Her swearing was not illegal, that is true, her acting like a two year old and making a scene about being told to watch her mouth is disrupting the peace and is against the law.

I would whole-heartedly agree with you, but that isn't the whole story unfortunately. She was goaded by the asst. fire marshal in question after he ordered her to return after a minor apology was given by her for her actions which was further exacerbated when he brought her outside and cuffed her.

Because the 'context' was the EXACT SAME IN BOTH SITUATIONS.

Oh really?

Cite for me where the fire marshal wrote articles about the woman that showed her in an unfavorable light and would therefore have given her reason to verbally express the idea that he was an asshole. Go on.

You seem to be missing the point of what Cuppa is saying, or at least what I believe him to be saying. The point I believe he is attempting to make is that G.W. calling someone a "major league asshole" where dozens of people more then likely clearly heard the statement, thus making it several times more disruptive.

This woman said fuck in a conversation which was overheard by one individual, the asst. fire marshal, who then proceeded to harass the lady in question after she gave a minor apology for her action, which neither party is denying the apology. The incident didn't even become disruptive until after she was led outside by the asst. fire marshal at which point she then said, "Can you fucking believe this, he's arresting me for saying fuck." This would be quite disruptive, but the problem lies in the fact that the asst. fire marshal caused the situation to occur.

You fail to prove she prevented ANYONE from going about their business.

By swearing? No. By acting like a two year old? Definitly.

Both parties were acting like children, the problem is that one of them is paid to at least act better, which he failed to do.

Lol. Because it's not like she apologised and tried to walk away when he asked her to watch her mouth.

Since when has apologizing to a member of law enforcement ever worked to solve a situation, much less if the apology was an insincere one at that?

For something that is not illegal, pretty often, and even when there is a violation of the law, an overwhelming majority of the law enforcement, which the asst. fire marshal was not part of though he is a civil servant, will overlook a situation if it was unintentional and with no victims to speak of. I fail to see the maliciousness of her actions, or the victims of said "crime", thus an apology should be perfectly acceptable though argueably unwarranted.

At 8/21/08 09:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/21/08 07:19 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Or, you know, the cop could be making the whole thing up. He's obviously a deranged scumbag, so why not?

Why would someone with that much disregard for the civilian populace MAKE UP letters of support if his immediate supervisor is clearly confident he'll get off?

No comment as I have no knowledge or proof one way or the other.

Except swearing isn't a crime.

Disrupting the peace is, and we've already covered that.

I believe I gave a fairly reasonable answer to why disturbing the peace does not apply to the woman in question, taking care to cite the most common interpretation and spirit of the law. It is true, I post rarely, but I don't believe my post was without merit on the matter.

At 8/20/08 01:35 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 8/19/08 01:10 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Proteas the fireman was being a DICK !
There is no other way to paint it.

How loud was she saying the word "FUCK" that she was heard an aisle away in Wal-Mart?

I feel compelled to post suddenly, so hopefully I make a reasonable arguement, or at the very least, a coherent one.

Now then, I ask you this, have you ever sat down within a nice resturant and was bothered by outside conversation a table or two away? Have you possibly bothered people in the same fashion? Would you consider that disturbing the peace?

You can't make the arguement that such an incident, as the one that I've described above is all that different, other then perhaps that it is quieter within the resturant. Other then that the distance is truly not all that different, if nothing else, it is closer within Wal-Mart, the shelves are roughly what? Three feet, perhaps four across? Is it really all that inconcievable that a person could hear something from 4-5 feet away when spoken aloud? I'm not ashamed to say I'm guilty for speaking loudly in both the situation above, or in a Wal-Mart for that matter, all those times without any intention of doing so, it simply occured.

It's a legitimate question that none of the supporters of this woman (you included) have bothered to answer.

Hopefully mine suffices, and if not, I humbly ask that you point the flaws within my arguement.

At 8/20/08 12:43 AM, bcdemon wrote: And if he felt his life was threatened by sign language, then he leads a very paranoid life.

standard operating procedure
-noun
a set of fixed instructions or steps for carrying out usually routine operations. Abbreviation: SOP

The same blade that you cut with cuts your arguement as well. Standard operational procedures for every single manual for any public servant, be it firefighter, police officer, or EMT, there is almost without fail, at least one section devoted entirely to handling situations with civilians, if not more. More importantly, how to prevent situations such as the one that the asst. fire marshal instigated.

He was well within his authority to ask he to speak with a less colorful tongue, but once he ordered her to return after her minor apology, he crossed the line. So how is she at fault for his inability to follow standard procedure which lead to the escalation of the incident?

Comprender engles, senor? Comprendre l'anglais, monsieur? Do you understand the words that coming across your screen? What part of "I handcuffed the woman who was acting like a psycho whilst I checked her arrest record to make sure there wasn't a warrant out for her arrest" do you not get?

There would have been no need for this incident to occur even, assuming he is 100% flawless in his assesment, despite the apparent lack of witnesses, an his previous record for the very same type of power trip if he would have simply not ordered the woman back afer her scant apology for something that required no such thing of her, more the likely anyway.

What would you have done?

In his shoes, given the circumstances for a worse case scenario which is unlikely at its best, that is to say, the woman said fuck loud enough that roughly a half a dozen people heard? I would have settled for the minor humiliation she would suffer from being amongst her peers when I politely ask her to watch her tongue, and the minor apology would simply be the end of it.

That scenario just isn't the one described though, as both the asst. fire marshal, and the lady in question make it fairly clear that a crowd began forming as the incident was unfolding, not from the initial cause of the incident.

As for how I would of acted in her shoes, to be quite honest, I would have stood there after getting cuffed, let it all play out quietly, then crushed him beneath the heel of the legal system so that he would be lucky to be a lowly security gaurd, let alone a public servant ever again, as well as taking restitution for court fees and defamation of my name. There would be nothing left, and after that, I would file suit against the city for allowing such an individual who had a similar incident occur in the past to continue his "service" to the community, seeking no monetary, but instead putting the public eye on the individuals whose purpose is to serve the people, not their own egos. Nothing does more damage to the credibility of those who risk their lives for us then people such as this, and an example will be required to get the point accross.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything in my assesment, or my rebuttal, but if I did, please tell me what so that I may give you a proper reply.

Now then, this isn't directed at you merely something I wish to post to clear up the issue of what constitues "Disturbing the Peace", as it seems to be tossed about on both sides, yet neither truly bothers to see what it means.

1. Make, continue, maintain or cause to be made or continued any excessive, unnecessary, unreasonable or unusually loud noise or any noise in such manner as to annoy, offend, disturb, injure or endanger the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of any reasonable person of normal auditory sensitivity residing in the area. Source.

This is the only definition that fits the possibility of this issue, and even so, it is questionable at best. The key of th ematter is that it is quite clear that it must be maintained, not an isolated incident, and until the asst. fire marshal forced her back, causing the scene, there was no continuing incident. If anything, the asst. fire marshal is in violation of the mandate which he is claiming to enforce. Of course, this is merely my take on the matter, as it is impossible to get the truth in such things, at best we can only guess.

My apologies if I have missed something, misunderstood something, or misread. That should cover me, and so I look forward to the continued firestorm.

At 8/8/08 01:53 PM, DarkSytze wrote:

At 8/8/08 01:42 PM, CommanderX1125 wrote: i'm a gaiafag HURR LULZ

lulz isn't an adjective you miserable cunt.

Someone forget to take their nap? Seriously, if you are attempting to sound cool by being a troll, we have enough of those, though general can appreciate your intellect.

At 8/8/08 01:40 PM, DarkSytze wrote: y2k is bullshit, eon8 is bullshit, all of this 'world-is-going-to-end countdown' bullshit needs to stop. why don't you gullible tools do something useful like chasing each other off a cliff for fucks sake.

Because if they did that the world would have less lulz from them acting in such a fashion. Granted, there would be a surge of lulz briefly as they plummeted to their doom, but besides that, the world would have less lulz.

Well now, I guess I'll try my hand at the laws here.

Although hardly my own idea, I would consider the laws surrounding patents to be invaluable as they help to encourage the creation and implementation of new ideas.

I've also noticed we lack any method of for trying an accused individual of breaking a law, so I also propose that we have courts in a similar fashion as we do now for city, state, and federal levels to minimize congestion.

If you would like me to attempt to word both of these as simple laws, I'm afraid I lack the ability as far as the courts are concerned for the simple fact that they are far too intricate to allow for such a description, though I could wing it for the various patent laws.

At 8/5/08 12:20 AM, WoodenSneakers wrote: I wish I was immortal so I could like, date chicks for a really long time until they died and stuff, and then I could have sex with their dead bodies.

Here you go little buddy. Be free with your own kind.

At 8/4/08 06:53 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 8/3/08 07:21 PM, dySWN wrote:

That's a bit of a loaded question. Many of us theists would argue that existence itself is proof of the action of divinity in everyday life

hmmm
You know I had never thought about that.

The wonder of a baby being born... the amazement at the vastness of space... even atheists have a sense of wonder in the universe, a love of discovery...
We have so many deep feelings of love, bonds of friendship that go right down to our souls...

Yeah I guess Zeus must be real after all.

Screw Zeus, Thor is where it's at. He can throw an edge on your battle axe, get you a cold frosty ale, wenches, all the food you can eat, and combat for the fun of it!

At 8/3/08 05:48 PM, Blasphemare wrote: Im just gonna pop in and embarras my self yet again k?

Doing better then some folks then if you figure you're going to embarrass yourself. Most people who do make asses of themselves are too full of themselves to admit the possibility so it's all good. Stay humble and you'll be fine, but I would suggest more study on your part little buddy.

I practice Ninjutsu, which is (Im probably gonna regret this as you all sureley will think of some black dressed ninja dood) the art of the ninja. Now obviousley we arent running around assasinating people and stuff.

Best to stay on the main topic of your statement, rambling tends to discredit you.

The thing is, that i allso live in Denmark, and as some might now, we were allso wikings once. You mentioned in the start that you wondered how the similarities could have reached out that far. Well heres a little something:
My sensai (9 dan) mentioned, during a conversation, that the viking war art had similarities to Ninjutsu. Some of the stances was allmost identicle. He told us that the art was called "Stav" which is the same word we use for staff in Denmark. Dunno if that has anything to do with it.

Alrighty, interesting, I didn't know the word for staff in Denmark, and I'll have to take your word for the various stances, as it is rarely covered in history texts.

Anywho:
I went home to check it, and i was rather supriced to find, that their system was based on elements just like Ninjutsu, there were more similarities is cant remember.

I'm not trying to be rude, but it helps a lot if you have more then one or two things to think about, as well as sources. No soucres and you leave yourself open to attack then from the less kind folk.

Now this might be more interesting to me than you at the moment, since its combat and not religion. But heres the other part of the story.

As before, staying with a set idea is very important, if you keep going off on tangents your idea may get lost.

When we had to do a project in history, about a subject we chose our selves. I chose Japan, since that obviousely interested me.
Now when i was researching on the timeline, i found that Japan had Tumulus at the same time we had here in Denmark ( they called em "Kofuns" )

They were also most commonly key hole shaped.

Allso, some might think Budism was in Japan from the start, but they had their own religion called
"Shanto" where they belived in Ancestors as semigods. I hadnt researched alot about Shanto when i was doing the project, but i think that there were similarities to Heathenry there aswell.

... Did you mean Shinto? If so, you are more or less in the right area, it could be argued that it is a form of heathenry, as it isn't part of Christianity. Shanto is quite different to say the least. I'm not sure how many people associate Buddhism with Japan outright, as I thought it was fairly well known that Gautama Buddha was from India, but mistakes do happen when it comes to knowledge of some people.

Sry about the language

That is perfectly fine. For future reference, assuming it is a possibility for you, what you could do is type out what you mean in your native tongue, assuming it isn't English, go to a free online translator, and crank it out. Either that or you could type it out in Microsoft Word, do the spell check in English (there are downloads for various language sets if I remember correctly), and post it all at once. People will tend to take your words a fair bit more seriously if you just work on those things.

No, I was not trying to be rude, merely point out possible ways to improve your posts. I'm really too tired right now to give great advice since I just got off work and I have to be in again in roughly ten hours.

Anyway, give us things to discuss, questions that you may have over various religious topics. Telling us some little factoids doesn't do much for us. Once again, sorry if I seem a bit rude, I'm just saying this for future reference.

Good ol' Thomas Jefferson for me. It takes real balls to attack your would be assassin after he pulls a gun on you and all you have is a cane. I also like his policies regarding the limiting of government, but mainly his attitude towards pretty much everyone is a key factor for me.

Because most "green" people have a distinct dislike for most of humanity. At least, that is my personal experience.

At 7/26/08 03:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: Well conversation here seems to be going the way it so often does so I shall ask a question (this is not a mere bump, honest).

We have all come across accounts of 'visionary' experiences in our time; often of a religious nature. Where someone truly claims to have witnessed the miracle of god in all its splendour (I might posit that one could do the same merely by looking out one's window but that is neither here nor there). Is this, to you, proof of the existance of some higher being? Alternatively would you say that these experiences are but hallucinations caused by an unbalanced mind pushed to the edge by enforced discomfort (even to the point of flagellance generally), starvation, dehydration and extremes of climate? Jesus meeting with the devil during his time in the desert for instance.

Something from Dogma comes to mind. "When they're talkin' God, they're talkin' to me... or they're talking to themselves."

Anyway, it can hardly be used as proof of a divine being for the simple reason that there is nothing that can be proven. It could be that some diety or another really did reach down and gave a guy a high five, but short of a limb regrowing or some other nigh impossible circumstance occuring, there is no proof of anything.

Furthermore, if we accept that they are caused by a chemical inbalance of the brain, does that cheapen the experience at all? For that matter if someone had the same experience because they had ingested a psychadelic psychoactive substance (DMT, LSD, 'shrooms etc.) would it be any less worthy for that?

Even if the words of a person normally could be trusted, and in my humble opinion for matters of religion they cannot, I fail to see how it could be credible to any degree. Once again, that isn't to say they are liars, as they may truly believe in what they are saying, but how they can be taken seriously is lost on me. If I had to give a yes or no answer, yes being that they are less credible, and no being that they are just as credible, I'd have to say yes.

My own opinion would be that these are mere delusions and should be accorded the same respect (that is, none), speaking objectively. It is therefore whether they lead to the betterment of the self or others that must denote their worth. Any and all revelations, however, must be understood to come from the individual as it is an internal process.

Basically my thoughts on the matter. I'd offer you a cookie for the bump but it seems I've run out so you'll have to settle for an e-cookie. It isn't as bad for you at any rate...

At 7/22/08 12:47 PM, GunnerX86 wrote: They probably support Obama because they know we won't be a world power anymore with him as president.

Or perhaps it is the fact that he is willing to use diplomacy instead of domination.

At 7/13/08 09:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/13/08 08:07 PM, SolInvictus wrote: pandas are actually suffering a fair bit from the effects of deforestation.

And it's making them too sad to fuck?

Eh, maybe it is hard to get a hard-on when you have no private rooms. I mean, in every instance, the zoo included, everyone is watching. I'd be a little less then enthusiastic with all those folks about.

Granted, this obviously isn't true for all folks, if so, the internet as we know it would cease to exist, at least in an overwhelming majority of entertainment value.