mistercwood

I've said it before - I really can't tell if Ron believes everything he posts or is just the most masterful troll to grace these forums. Because you guys sure do bite... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Yes. I'm glad I'd already finished breakfast before this, or you'd owe me a new keyboard... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

The Super Tuesday primaries in CO were a clusterfuck: http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/03/02/colorado-caucuses-presidential-primary/ That's because everyone in CO was - um - wait what? Hungry. Everyone was hungry... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

When this is said in such a general fashion like this it really pisses me off. If you'd say - "I object to someone that would want to change the country based on a fanatical viewpoint, or a hard religious bias" I be just fine. But just any "muslim" is a crock - we have lots of religions in this country and most all are represented by people that are able to keep their fundamental religion out of their exercise of power. I can't stand how posters here just go on personal attack as their first option - but this particular thread......... I still genuinely can't tell if Ron is actually as batshit crazy as his posts make out, or if he's the most brilliant troll to ever grace this forum... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I was willing to allow that it was an innocent - though monumentally stupid - oversight... Right up until the spokesperson went on the offensive rather than admitting it was in incredibly poor taste (intentional or not). You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

If you don't mind my asking... The last I followed any DP discussion here you were vehemently Pro (I didn't know the full background but understood you had some strong personal reasons for your stance). Has the change come since then, or were you formerly Anti and then changed to Pro? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Disappointing. You don't dispute a legal ruling by doing illegal things... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I've had time to do a bit more research, from the link you provided especially. I even read all 150 pages of Dassey's "confession" (the 3rd one, I think), after someone on the "guilty" side of the fence linked to it. I still don't consider the evidence that the doc left out to be iron clad. Much of it isn't evidence at all, it's hearsay or incredibly easy to explain away logically. I do believe it's still possible that Steven killed her. There is, however, no way in hell it happened the way Brendan described it, and his "confession" was a cornerstone of the State's case against Steven. The case was mismanaged from the get-go, and when people questioned the cops/prosecution they doubled down on their belief that they had the right guy. There was reasonable doubt, and no matter how much of a creep Steven actually is (and even if he killed her), he should not have been convicted on the evidence presented. Brendan is guilty of being dumb, nice enough, and believing everything he's told. That's about it in terms of the case. It's terrifying that the "confession" dragged out of him could actually be admissible in court. Finally on a side note - I'm glad to see that Boobies has maintained their rightful high position in the poll... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Thanks, I'll need to read it later after work. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I was expecting/hoping someone on here may have been local. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Steven is any kind of saint, but a few burglary convictions don't necessarily mean he's ready to make the leap to homicide (nor does it mean he's not). The link you've given is actually one of the ones I found myself - I went looking for articles that still maintained his guilt, for what was left out of the series. To be honest, I'm still not seeing anything damning to my mind. A few of the repeated elements I've found discussed elsewhere, with clarifications that make them less weighty. A few examples (please let me know if you've got finer details on any of these): - The bullet that (allegedly) had JA's blood on it being tied forensically to Steven's rifle. I can't find anything that indicates it was actually type-matched from rifling or anything, as the fragment was too small to be reliable - only that it was a .22 round, and his rifle was also a .22. - The fuzzy handcuffs. No DNA from Teresa was found on these, and I believe there's no way Steven could clean them that thoroughly and still leave them in as good a condition as they were. They also don't match Dassey's "confession" of how she was tied up - he said ropes and chains. - The 2 allegations of sweat DNA - once on the car key and once on the hood latch of Teresa's car. The accounts I've come across are that refining it to "sweat" was an embellishment from Katz, and that there was simply contact DNA. This is easily (and often inadvertently) transferred e.g. on an investigator's glove. The car key situation is weirder, because it has Steven's DNA on it, but not Theresa's. How the hell does that happen? More on the key later. - The "false name" allegation when booking Teresa to take the photos of the truck. He used his sister's name, who was the one actually owned the truck. This doesn't seem as odd as people are making it out to be. The main points that still for me just haven't been explained to a reasonable degree (or at all): - The key turning up magically in Steven's bedroom, found by Lenk practically in the open, despite numerous searches having missed it previously. Also why just that key, would she not have her house keys etc on a single fob or lanyard? - Lenk's conflicting testimony on the timeline for arriving at the crime scene. He wasn't off by a little bit, he said it was around 6-7pm the first time then 2pm the second. That's not an error - one of those statements (under oath) was a flat out lie. - Sgt Colborn calling in the license plate, and stating the year and model without prompting, while Teresa was still missing. - The ex-boyfriend "guessing" Teresa's phone account password while trying to "help" and see if there was anything useful in there, combined with the clear evidence that messages were deleted after she had disappeared. The fact that he wasn't looked at more closely is bizarre to me. - How the hell did the pelvis fragments end up in the quarry? Why would you burn most of the body in your backyard, then take a couple tiny pieces down the road and leave the bulk outside your house? It defies all logic. - The total lack of physical evidence tying Teresa to either of the alleged murder locations, either the garage or the bedroom. The only piece was the bullet fragment, and the DNA analysis on that was compromised. The circumstances of its discovery are less than pristine, also. - How Dassey's confession could even be admissible. It's blatant coercion of a kid who is, to be blunt, dumb as shit. Even if you think Steven did it, Brendan deserves a retrial at the bare minimum. He was NOT provided with an adequate defence, by any stretch of the imagination. I guess I just don't get the disconnect between Steven being supposedly smart and skilled enough to remove every trace of blood and DNA from the bedroom and garage (after multiple stab wounds, a cut throat, a head-shot and dismemberment??), but so dumb as to "hide" the car at the front of the lot rather than crush it and hide it deeper, and still leave his blood in it, and leave the car key in his bedroom. After killing a woman who people are going to come looking for at his house first. That's the crux of why I don't think he did it. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_a_Murderer I searched everywhere and couldn't find an existing thread, apologies if this has been discussed previously. My partner and I have just finished watching this recent Netflix series, about the trial of Steven Avery and his nephew Brendan Dassey for the murder of Theresa Albach, and the defence's contention that he was being set-up by the local Sheriff's department. *SPOILERS BELOW* Anyone on here seen it or familiar with the case? I'm of the opinion he didn't do it, while still allowing that I could be wrong and he may in fact be the killer. What I don't get is that regardless of that, how on earth a jury could have come back with a Guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt? The prosecution's case was RIDDLED with holes, speculation, coercion and all around gross misconduct on the part of prosecutors and several of the LEO's involved. Even after searching around online, the additional incriminating evidence that apparently was left out of the series doesn't seem sufficient to remove all doubt. Very interested in hearing from lawyer's and LEO's on this one (do Andy or Lawrocket still pop in here?). You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

It was in fact mandatory. Rush's statement of "what they won't tell you" seems a bit pointless, it's not like any of this is a great secret. Weapon's of type "x" became illegal, there was an amnesty period and during that time you could hand your weapons in and get compensated financially. Some people went the route of buying lengths of pvc pipe and end caps and doing some digging in the backyard, most took the cash. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

May have been some changes - while there's no date on the article, the comments are several years old and those are all saying that banks aren't doing it without an account. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Does even the Bible say anything about Satan doing that? Or is that just another trite saying? I think he's being funny - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgSL3hY5iPE You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Watched the video. How this wasn't charged as flat-out attempted murder is beyond me. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

I only give a shit when people try to legislate with those beliefs. If you want to go to church on Sunday and pray at night and follow your beliefs in a way that has zero impact on me - knock yourself out! Sadly however there are some who get into politics who then use their beliefs to make laws that will impact on me. That's where I and others have an issue. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Not only is that one of the more obnoxious statements I've seen in SC for a while, it's also patently false. The US does not have a monopoly on courage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Bingo. So much truth in those paragraphs... You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Dude. You don't like religion (with you on that) but you really hate Islam. We GET it. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Would it make you feel better about it if these people had a reason? My point was that the poster to whom I was responding was already calling for the deportation of Muslims, without any Muslim group claiming responsibility nor any official word that this was an act of Islamic extremism. It was knee-jerk bigotry, and I was calling it out. And I'm annoyed I'm having to explain this, you're smart enough to not need that. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Why? See attached as reminder of what a tiny fraction of Islam is tied to these sorts of acts - hell, has there even BEEN any sort of official confirmation of the motive for these attacks?? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

He knows where it's been and doesn't have gloves handy...? You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

Bit of a Catch 22 there isn't it, though? As a hypothetical: Let's presume the CDC was actually going to be impartial in this scenario. They do their study, and let's say the study objectively concludes that guns (in their current mode of availability) are causing more harm than good. So now it could be argued that the conclusion alone (without any additional recommendations) would be "promoting" gun control. At which point there's now some explaining to do about the funding that was inadvertently used to do a thing it's now expressly not allowed to do. I get the concern that there was an existing bias for what results would come from CDC research. However, the language for the Dicky Amendment you've quoted in and of itself shows a clear bias - that it would be impossible for the CDC to objectively reach the conclusion that guns are a health concern. It's no different to people saying the NRA are *only* about putting firearms in the hands of as many people as possible at any cost - it's not true, and prevents meaningful discourse. IMHO You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

In this thread and the Instructor's one, you keep deliberately making statements that are incredibly semantic, and remove the context of Skydiving. Followed by gems like: Pick a side, you don't get to actively remove context and then bitch when people do the same. If you can, that would be dumb, dumb, DUMB. What other sports have you done this in? You mentioned kayaking at one point didn't you? If you actively forget about the GoPro on a jump, you forget about the snag hazard. That goes for your lines, your jump-buddies handles etc. Hitting it on the door and having your attention away from your exit. If you forget it's there, you are forgetting about the actual risk posed by the physical presence of the object and not taking precautions against that. Your argument has been that a person could theoretically turn on and forget. You are absolutely 100% correct. My argument is that forgetting about your camera on a jump is - in my noob opinion - more dangerous than awareness. Serious question (no-one seems to be taking you up on this option): Does the GoPro setup you use in any of your other activities have a non-freak chance of killing you or someone else? Please give details either way. Side Note: Based on your response in the other forum, I don't believe you're qualified to give advice about videography full stop. The information you gave was a copy-paste from the manual, was 100% accurate as a description of a feature, and 100% useless for the practical usage being discussed. You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.