Thread: 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.

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.

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.

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.
==

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

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.

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

"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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

> 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 :-)

clearly, we need to consult stu's lawyer.

your pal,
blake

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

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