timmyfitz 0 #76 November 1, 2009 QuoteHe was not a sniper, he shot people at close range from a concealed position inside the trunk of a car. No sniping occurred. Range/distance does not determine if it was a sniper attack. : to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sniper "A sniper is a highly trained marksman who shoots targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the capabilities of regular personnel. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #77 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI just do not like being part of the club of countries's with the death penalty. I tend to believe a civilized nation can do better. And I'm good with it. Civilize by eliminating the uncivilized is how I look at it. Its not so different in other third world states then... you are in great company... so much for all that BIBLE belt compassion and christianity. Some people cain't seem to practice what is preached. then again most of those on the list with the US are other fundamentalist religious regimes or third world shit holes Death Penalty Permitted •Afghanistan •Antigua and Barbuda •Bahamas •Bahrain •Bangladesh •Barbados •Belarus •Belize •Botswana •Burundi •Cameroon •Chad •China (People's Republic) •Comoros •Congo (Democratic Republic) •Cuba •Dominica •Egypt •Equatorial Guinea •Eritrea •Ethiopia •Gabon •Ghana •Guatemala •Guinea •Guyana •India •Indonesia •Iran •Iraq •Jamaica •Japan •Jordan •Korea, North •Korea, South •Kuwait •Laos •Lebanon •Lesotho •Libya •Malawi •Malaysia •Mongolia •Nigeria •Oman •Pakistan •Palestinian Authority •Qatar •St. Kitts and Nevis •St. Lucia •St. Vincent and the Grenadines •Saudi Arabia •Sierra Leone •Singapore •Somalia •Sudan •Swaziland •Syria •Taiwan •Tajikistan •Tanzania •Thailand •Trinidad and Tobago •Uganda •United Arab Emirates •United States •Vietnam •Yemen •Zambia •Zimbabwe Well, there you have it. Bahamas is civilized and lovely. That should be good enough to convince anyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #78 November 1, 2009 In my experience the Bahamian forces on patrol near Bimini and Andros are fairly corrupt and EXPECT a little "handout" when they "inspect" your boat or it will probably be impounded for a VERY long list of violations. A few greenbacks and all the violations go POOF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #79 November 1, 2009 He was not highly trained Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #80 November 1, 2009 QuoteHe was not highly trained So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #81 November 1, 2009 So every infantryman who uses cover and concealment is a snipe then by your standard. Tell it to someone who will believe you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #82 November 1, 2009 QuoteHe was not highly trained He was concealed. Look at the first definition. Stop grasping. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #83 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI agree. A capital murder case should not ever been decided on witnesses alone. Or any vicious heinous crimes that warrants the death penalty according to the penal code. There needs to be irrefutable proof in evidence. If there is any doubt, but still enough for a conviction, put 'em in prison for life. In that case the penalty depends on the quality of the evidence rather than the heinousness of the crime, which is inappropriate. nonsense - determination of guilt vs innocence is a separate process from determination of punishment. The option to have the death penalty depends on the heinousness of the crime. GIVING the death penalty vs life incarceration on a guilty verdict should (IMO) be based on two additional things - 1 - the likelihood of the criminal to repeat the crime (subjective - indicates little hope of rehabilitation) 2 - the quality of the evidence leading to the guilty verdict (direct) (kind of a beyond 'reasonable' doubt vs beyond 'any' doubt kind of thing - a bit sticky) Item (2) is what I was commenting on. So you agree with my "nonsense". Anyhow, the government of the people by the people for the people should not be in the business of killing the people, no matter how nasty the people may be.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #84 November 1, 2009 >Tell it to someone who will believe you. Apparently that set covers pretty much everyone in the US, since he is universally referred to as the "DC sniper." Indeed, when that title was posted you knew exactly who they were talking about - so apparently you acknowledge it as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #85 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteHe was not highly trained So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #86 November 1, 2009 QuoteSomeone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. 10/10 irony hypocrisy score.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #87 November 1, 2009 http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page It contains gems like this one: "The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #88 November 1, 2009 Quote Quote Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. 10/10 irony score. Shw me where I've used a definition of a word other than the one published. Esp from a guy who wouldn't respond to examples in publication where the catalyst and the cause can be and are sometimes the same. Yet still carried on like they MUST be different. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #89 November 1, 2009 Quote http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page It contains gems like this one: "The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution." LOL. That's a new site. At first I thought it was satire, now I see it's real . That's getting saved to favs when I neeed a laugh. Yea, fossils are overrated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #90 November 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote He was not highly trained So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. What? I do not see it as a neo-con-dictionary-whatever- thing. That's none of my biz. Crouching down in a bush, behind the courtains of an open window, covered in a car - aiming at people filling their car with gaz - shooting at them is that easy, it does not need any highly trained sniper. It's just malicious killing. Sniper killing. Has nothing to do with any political tendency. Man, I'm such a simple mind. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #91 November 1, 2009 QuoteShw me where I've used a definition of a word other than the one published. Here you altered the published definition in order to make it fit your argument.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #92 November 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote He was not highly trained So what? Snipers must not necessarily be highly trained. Key word is the use of a conceiled weapon in an ambush. Someone should publish a neo-con dictionary where all the definitions are left blank, the owner just pencils in what he sees fit. What? I do not see it as a neo-con-dictionary-whatever- thing. That's none of my biz. Crouching down in a bush, behind the courtains of an open window, covered in a car - aiming at people filling their car with gaz - shooting at them is that easy, it does not need any highly trained sniper. It's just malicious killing. Sniper killing. Has nothing to do with any political tendency. Man, I'm such a simple mind. I agree, I was just observing you following the dictionary definition and others morphing that defintion perhaps to that if what their diddy told them. In another forum we were talking about Imperialims and I asserted that teh US is Imperialistic, I provided the dictiuonary definiton and he said he didn't like that definition. So I said the same thing as you guys did here, that you can't change the definition to support your claims, beliefs, teachings, etc. The DC sniper was a sniper by virtue of his acts and their corresponding dictionary defintions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteShw me where I've used a definition of a word other than the one published. Here you altered the published definition in order to make it fit your argument. Yea, I cut-n-pasted: 2. One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences And for clarity I submitted: (causes to happen) after, "precipitates." So it looked like: 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences So in order to alter it I would have had to: to make different in some particular, as size, style, course, or the like; modify: to alter a coat; to alter a will; to alter course. Did I alter the meaning of the word? Any word in the defintion? No, I brought clarity to it and placed it in parenthesis. I would have had to alter the meaning before it's really altered and since I placed my clarification in parenthesis, it didn't effecct part of the defintion anyway. I haven't ever seen you that depserate. EDITED TO ADD: Precipitate: http://www.answers.com/topic/precipitate 2.To cause to happen, especially suddenly or prematurely So I just defined for clarity, not altered. Again, your depseration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #94 November 1, 2009 QuoteAnd for clarity in an act of intellectually dishonest fabrication I submitted: (causes to happen) after, "precipitates." So it looked like: 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences Lest it didn't support your argument.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #95 November 1, 2009 This thread is swelling in its hot, sweaty, turgid, pulsating dumbness. I'm drained. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #96 November 1, 2009 Quote This thread is swelling in its hot, sweaty, turgid, pulsating dumbness. I'm drained. Where's the evil-doer, John Rich? Disappeared, like usual? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #97 November 1, 2009 You stepped on my line. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #98 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd for clarity in an act of intellectually dishonest fabrication I submitted: (causes to happen) after, "precipitates." So it looked like: 2. One that precipitates (causes to happen) a process or event, especially without being involved in or changed by the consequences Lest it didn't support your argument. Because I defined a word by the defintion, didn't change it, but in parenthesis clarified it, that's dishonest? Maybe in your world. I see you totally avoided teh alteration term you brought in. Nice. I didn't alter the word at all, esp in a substantive way, I merely clarified it and placed that clarification in parenthesis, you were fooled by that, called me on it and are doing what you can to misdirect any embarassment you have for it. It's ok, it was a big word, after all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #99 November 1, 2009 QuoteBecause I defined a word in the defintion, didn't change it, but in parenthesis clarified it, that's dishonest? Yes, when you change a definition and subsequently try to pass it off as being from a particular source, that is dishonest, no matter how you try to justify it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #100 November 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteBecause I defined a word in the defintion, didn't change it, but in parenthesis clarified it, that's dishonest? Yes, when you change a definition and subsequently try to pass it off as being from a particular source, that is dishonest, no matter how you try to justify it. So nor we're saying change instead of alter? I, in parenthesis, clarified a word by defining a word within the definition. The defintion of precipitates didn't change the meaning of teh originla word defined and you know it. I see we're going from alter to change, it's a little softer, huh? See, you are the king of petty, semantic arguments, rather than trying to maintain substance, which is why you correct typos, etc. But then when I post scientific articles where they talk about a cause and a catalyst being the same, you run to the hills on that one. I understand your MO with your arguments. ; loud and clear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
