Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

  1. #1
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../14320636.html

    The man was in the middle of his nocturnal emission when he was
    disturbed by a busybody cop.

    Obviously, alcohol makes you less susceptible to suggestions and to
    electrical discharges :-)

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  2. #2
    Stu Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:31:44 -0500, Michel Boucher
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../14320636.html
    >
    >The man was in the middle of his nocturnal emission when he was
    >disturbed by a busybody cop.
    >
    >Obviously, alcohol makes you less susceptible to suggestions and to
    >electrical discharges :-)


    and he was charged with third degree assault, it won't stick.

  3. #3
    Mark Thorson Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    Stu wrote:
    >
    > and he was charged with third degree assault, it won't stick.


    I can't think of anyone less qualified to comment
    on legal matters.

  4. #4
    A Moose In Love Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Jun 9, 4:18*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
    > Stu wrote:
    >
    > > and he was charged with third degree assault, it won't stick.

    >
    > I can't think of anyone less qualified to comment
    > on legal matters.


    The barbs stuck for a bit; so the charges obviously only stuck for a
    bit.

  5. #5
    Roy Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Jun 9, 2:21*pm, A Moose In Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > On Jun 9, 4:18*pm, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
    >
    > > Stu wrote:

    >
    > > > and he was charged with third degree assault, it won't stick.

    >
    > > I can't think of anyone less qualified to comment
    > > on legal matters.

    >
    > The barbs stuck for a bit; so the charges obviously only stuck for a
    > bit.


    ==
    And how does this apply to food or cooking? Geez.
    ==

  6. #6
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:256728a6-8c2b-4a18-b83f-
    [email protected]:

    > And how does this apply to food or cooking? Geez.


    It doesn't which is why it is marked OT: (Off Topic

    If you don't want to read OT material, be sure to add it to your
    filter. But I must warn you, you will be bore out of your tree, if
    you do.

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  7. #7
    David Harmon Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:33:51 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Michel Boucher
    <[email protected]> wrote,
    >Roy <[email protected]> wrote in news:256728a6-8c2b-4a18-b83f-
    >[email protected]:
    >
    >> And how does this apply to food or cooking? Geez.

    >
    >It doesn't which is why it is marked OT: (Off Topic


    If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.

    Putting OT in the subject line doesn't somehow magically make it On
    Topic.



  8. #8
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    David Harmon <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    >>> And how does this apply to food or cooking? Geez.

    >>
    >>It doesn't which is why it is marked OT: (Off Topic

    >
    > If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.
    >
    > Putting OT in the subject line doesn't somehow magically make
    > it On Topic.


    If you know something is Off Topic because the subject line says
    so, DON'T READ IT if you don't want to see what's in it.

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  9. #9
    Lew Hodgett Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs


    "David Harmon" wrote:
    > If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.

    --------------------------------
    Take your meds and go back to bed.

    You'll feel better in the morning.

    Lew



  10. #10
    sf Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:39:54 -0700, David Harmon <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > Putting OT in the subject line doesn't somehow magically make it On
    > Topic.
    >

    Set your filter to delete anything marked OT and you'll never be
    bothered by a clearly marked OT again.

    --
    Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

  11. #11
    blake murphy Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:18:11 -0700, Mark Thorson wrote:

    > Stu wrote:
    >>
    >> and he was charged with third degree assault, it won't stick.

    >
    > I can't think of anyone less qualified to comment
    > on legal matters.


    there is that.

    your pal,
    blake

  12. #12
    blake murphy Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 19:13:30 -0700, Lew Hodgett wrote:

    > "David Harmon" wrote:
    >> If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.

    > --------------------------------
    > Take your meds and go back to bed.
    >
    > You'll feel better in the morning.
    >
    > Lew


    medical advice is not On Topic.

    your pal,
    blake

  13. #13
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    blake murphy <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:986x3f7rwoii.10yqfsui2hmgc$.[email protected]:

    >>> If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.

    >> --------------------------------
    >> Take your meds and go back to bed.
    >>
    >> You'll feel better in the morning.
    >>
    >> Lew

    >
    > medical advice is not On Topic.


    But medical advice on Off Topic posts *might* be :-)

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  14. #14
    A Moose In Love Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Jun 10, 2:26*pm, Michel Boucher <alsand...@g.mail.com> wrote:
    > blake murphy <blakepmNOTT...@verizon.net> wrote innews:986x3f7rwoii.10yqfsui2hmgc$.[email protected]:
    >
    > >>> If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. * Geez.
    > >> --------------------------------
    > >> Take your meds and go back to bed.

    >
    > >> You'll feel better in the morning.

    >
    > >> Lew

    >
    > > medical advice is not On Topic.

    >
    > But medical advice on Off Topic posts *might* be :-)
    >
    > --
    >
    > "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    > is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    > govern."
    >
    > * * * * * * * * Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005


    And what about a government that tells you what you can and cannot put
    into your body?

  15. #15
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    A Moose In Love <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]
    s.com:

    > And what about a government that tells you what you can and
    > cannot put into your body?


    What about it?

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  16. #16
    A Moose In Love Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Jun 10, 8:54*pm, Michel Boucher <alsand...@g.mail.com> wrote:
    > A Moose In Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote innews:[email protected]
    > s.com:
    >
    > > And what about a government that tells you what you can and
    > > cannot put into your body?

    >
    > What about it?
    >


    Read your bottom quote. It shows the hypocrisy of Harper. He comes
    across as being all gaga about freedom except the freedom to put into
    your body what you wish.

    > --
    >
    > "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    > is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    > govern."
    >
    > * * * * * * * * Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005



  17. #17
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    A Moose In Love <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]
    s.com:

    >> > And what about a government that tells you what you can and
    >> > cannot put into your body?

    >>
    >> What about it?

    >
    > Read your bottom quote. It shows the hypocrisy of Harper. He
    > comes across as being all gaga about freedom except the
    > freedom to put into your body what you wish.


    Ok, but that is just a non sequitur to the subject line AND the
    topic under discussion to which you were supposedly responding. If
    you want to discuss that, start a thread.

    And yes, Harper is a hypocrite, the worst kind even, and that is
    why I put the quote there. He has to be seen to be a hypocrite at
    every opportunity. But this thing about "freedom to put into your
    body what you wish" is not a political freedom. It's one of these
    wishywashy "personal" freedoms which are neither here nor there.

    What are you talking about, anyway? Sausages? Rocks? Illegal
    substances?

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

  18. #18
    blake murphy Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:26:06 -0500, Michel Boucher wrote:

    > blake murphy <blakepmNOTT[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:986x3f7rwoii.10yqfsui2hmgc$.[email protected]:
    >
    >>>> If you know something is off topic then DON'T POST IT. Geez.
    >>> --------------------------------
    >>> Take your meds and go back to bed.
    >>>
    >>> You'll feel better in the morning.
    >>>
    >>> Lew

    >>
    >> medical advice is not On Topic.

    >
    > But medical advice on Off Topic posts *might* be :-)


    clearly, we need to consult stu's lawyer.

    your pal,
    blake

  19. #19
    A Moose In Love Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    On Jun 11, 9:21*am, Michel Boucher <alsand...@g.mail.com> wrote:
    > A Moose In Love <parkstreetboo...@gmail.com> wrote innews:[email protected]
    > s.com:
    >
    > >> > And what about a government that tells you what you can and
    > >> > cannot put into your body?

    >
    > >> What about it?

    >
    > > Read your bottom quote. *It shows the hypocrisy of Harper. *He
    > > comes across as being all gaga about freedom except the
    > > freedom to put into your body what you wish.

    >
    > Ok, but that is just a non sequitur to the subject line AND the
    > topic under discussion to which you were supposedly responding. *If
    > you want to discuss that, start a thread.
    >
    > And yes, Harper is a hypocrite, the worst kind even, and that is
    > why I put the quote there. *He has to be seen to be a hypocrite at
    > every opportunity. *But this thing about "freedom to put into your
    > body what you wish" is not a political freedom. *It's one of these
    > wishywashy "personal" freedoms which are neither here nor there.
    >
    > What are you talking about, anyway? *Sausages? *Rocks? *Illegal
    > substances?
    >


    Good question. Right now illegal substances. I don't take any. But
    that legislation can change for the worse. ie. In NY City there is a
    law against serving trans fats in restaurants. Also, I believe that a
    person has the right to self medicate. The docs have taken over the
    prescription pharmacutical racket and force you to come in to them for
    a script. etc. I could go on, but I hope that you get the picture.
    I hope I don't have to spell out that 'getting up one morning and
    deciding that you have high cholestral and buying anti-high-cholestral
    dope without talking to anyone' is irresponsible. But should you be
    forced to? NO.


    > --
    >
    > "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    > is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    > govern."
    >
    > * * * * * * * * Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005



  20. #20
    Michel Boucher Guest

    Default Re: OT: Police in WA state will soon get rep as voyeurs

    A Moose In Love <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]
    s.com:

    > But
    > that legislation can change for the worse. ie. In NY City
    > there is a law against serving trans fats in restaurants.
    > Also, I believe that a person has the right to self medicate.


    Doctors who think they know best and self-medicate often end up
    as addicts. Of course, if what you are saying is that you have a
    right to become an addict, then I suggest you put a wad of cash
    aside for your subsequent care. Especially in the US.

    > The docs have taken over the prescription pharmacutical racket
    > and force you to come in to them for a script.


    I cannot purchase my medication without a prescription.

    > I could
    > go on, but I hope that you get the picture. I hope I don't
    > have to spell out that 'getting up one morning and deciding
    > that you have high cholestral and buying anti-high-cholestral
    > dope without talking to anyone' is irresponsible. But should
    > you be forced to? NO.


    Should you be forced to what? Buy anti-cholesterol medication?
    You are free to refuse, but would it be the smart thing to do? I
    was prescribed Lipitor long after my first heart attack but I
    stopped taking it at one point. Eight years later I had another
    heart attack and I now take my medication (Crestor) every day.
    That was over seven years ago and my cholesterol is under control
    now. Don't need to tell me twice.

    --

    "When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
    is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
    govern."

    Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32