peacefuljeffrey

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy; minorities are supposed to be protected against abuse and tyranny by the majority. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Well? If I am robbed, or stabbed, and they catch the guy, and I FORGIVE him, and ask the court to drop the charges against him, should the court still prosecute him, on the basis that he committed a crime against society's laws, not just against me, and they have a responsibility to protect the public from him, not just me? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Ok, this probably belongs in another thread but anyway.... IF the rapist attacks a woman and she winds up enjoying it should he be prosecuted? No, if the woman doesn't consider it to be rape then it isn't, it's consensual sex. And then you're leaving him to do that again, to a person who (unlike the aberrant rape-enjoying previous victim) does not wish to be raped. You know, it's still a crime if you shoot me, even if I ask you to shoot me. If I ask you to "rape" me, it's not rape. If a person goes and forces sex on someone without a prior arrangement and agreement to engage in sexual activity, and then the victim actually says she doesn't mind, after the fact, a rape was still committed -- particularly where the perpetrator was concerned. And he's still a danger to society. I do not, personally, want forgiving victims (of all sorts of crimes, not just rape) to determine whether we put their attackers in jail or not. Some people will forgive the criminal who murdered their spouse and then ask a court for leniency on his behalf. Should we all have to suffer a murderer in our midst because one person is really (absurdly) forgiving? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

She already said she didn't feel sexually assaulted. Your opinion of what happened doesn't trump the way she feels about it. Sorry. rl So if a woman is raped and then later says it was no big deal and she's over it, the state should not prosecute the man who raped her? Lucky for HIM, she didn't feel sexually assaulted, because what he did would meet a legal standard to be sexual assault. WTF are you thinking? And you're a woman?! Who gives a fuck if she didn't dislike what he did to her? The next woman might. And you condone it because a victim was willing, or at least "imperturbed"? And WTF again -- are you just following me around to start shit about everything I say in every thread? Just leave me alone, already. Christ, you're acting like a stalker! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Who says we men are deprived of rimming? It may not happen at a strip club, but... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You didn't offer consent to an act that you even knew was coming. I'd say it measures up to sexual assault. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Your attitude toward minorities is appalling. Do you maintain that there were zero gun owners who DID want to be able to keep their guns, who were basically trodden upon by the majority getting its way? I'm sure there are a lot of anti-gay people in the U.S. and elsewhere who would love to hear that they can just say Fuck You to any minority that wants to insist on having its rights uninfringed. You callously act as though no one was forced to abide by a law that they didn't feel was right -- a bigoted statement based simply on the fact that you couldn't give a shit about gun ownership. May you one day find yourself pressed by a law that others wanted, because they had no sympathy for something YOU wanted to be allowed to legally do. Maybe then you'll understand. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

By Jove, you're right! Instead, I can bitch about your atrocious grammar and sentence structure! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Are you Brits still allowed to own scepters? You could hurt someone with those things. Not the commoners. Only the elite lords and ladies are still permitted CCS (concealed-carry scepters). LOL!! But no it won't, because then the thugs will just find angled sticks, paint them black (or silver), and rob people with those... until a law is passed banning sticks painted black (or silver). Of course, then they'll just carve soap... But what I hear is in Europe there's not much call to ban soap, since it's hardly ever used anyway. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

You gotta be fuckin' kidding me. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If a 10 ton weight dropped from a crane, that's "enough to squash a little old lady flat and kill her." But if the weight falls from the crane 112 feet away from where she's standing and doesn't kill her, the fact that she didn't die is not a miracle. If these miners were in a shaft that collapsed, but no in the part that did the collapsing; and they had enough air to last them til they were dug out; then it's not a "miracle" that they survived -- it's lucky, and it's fortunate, but it's due to the fact that the actual events did not transpire in such a way as to kill them. No miracle here. Just good fortune for the majority of the miners. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's not increasing as fast as the crime rate. And that would only be a factor on the absolute numbers, anyway. It has no bearing on the crime rate, which is a percentage per 100,000 population. Isn't it amazing when people try to make you look foolish or wrong, but the only reason they think they're right is a fundamental failure to understand something crucial to the discussion? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

It's maddening how some of you people just won't get this. The plane's jets are pushing against the AIR. The wheels don't matter unless something locks them. Once the jets start moving the plane forward, the wheels will roll forward. If the conveyor belt were to run toward the tail of the plane, the wheels would speed up their revolutions but the plane would move freely forward (impeded only by the friction of the wheels on their axles and other wheel-related friction). If the belt ran toward the nose of the plane, it would keep the wheels from moving at all if it matched the jet-powered accelleration of the plane; slower, the wheels would appear to roll forward at some speed slower than the plane's jet-powered progress; faster, and the wheels would appear to roll backward. Is there some definitive, "this-is-what-the-book-in-which-this-question-appeared" answer to this thing forthcoming? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If we were concerned about the right to bear arms only for Americans, we'd be accused of being hypocrites -- especially since we assert that the right to defensive arms is a human right. I'm concerned, yes, for the Brits who had their property forcibly confiscated under penalty of imprisonment for failure to surrender their guns. The policy does not -- CANNOT -- make a society safer. It's a huge lie. What we're "worried" about is that stupidity from your society can be exported, and some in this country appear ready to welcome the infectious idiocy that is British gun control (which doesn't seem to be controlling a fuck of a lot except for law-abiding peoples' guns, which they weren't going to use against anybody criminally anyway). -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

He's made some major missteps in becoming "wise beyond his years." I never liked him. And there's one thing in particular that he did many years ago--I can see short clips of the news reports in my head, but I can't remember the topic...whatever it was, he sucked. As for colds...cold does not cause a cold, but becoming chilled weakens one's immune system, making one more susceptible to cold germs. Also, I really loved the one about how money doesn't buy happiness. There are many more people in this world with incomes below $30k (much less $50k) than there are above. How friggin' elitist can you get? I don't have time for every criticism I'm inclined to make, but I think he's mostly full of shit. rl LMFAO!! -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Could be the fact that people (there and here) are trying to foist their kind of gun ban on us here -- and trying to convince our people to support and embrace it as a crime/violence/homicide reduction solution. And it's a bullshit solution that is making things worse. And we don't want to see it gain a foothold here where we still have our right to self defense. Sorry, John, didn't mean to speak for you... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Agreed, it's better news than many had hoped for. Miraculous, yes. Miracle? No. I don't believe in actual "miracles." What is thought of as a miraculous survival is really just the balance of the weight of all the circumstances. If circumstances had been bad enough to cause the death of the other 12, then guess what -- they would have been killed. Their survival simply means that as bad as the disaster was thought to be, it wasn't enough to kill all 13 people. It's kind of a tautology. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Isn't he known as kind of a libertarian or something? He's the fly in the ointment of the bullshit-spewers on network news and other major media. He tells the fuckin' TRUTH. I think I've seen articles by him, or at least mentioning him, in Reason magazine; if I'm not mistaken, that's why I think he is associated with libertarianism. Confirm? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Nope, the armchair skybox ticketholder has the best view. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I hope you're not kidding. One died, but 12 alive? Wait, what was the total missing again? -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

And then you descended into personal attacks because we presumed to question your critique of her actions. And you lost me as an audience. I was going to get into a discussion with you about it, too... I don't think I want to discuss anything with someone who gets as nasty as quickly as I just witnessed you doing. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Believe me, as a private pilot, I understand that. I just read one of the more recent posts (top of this page) and as I understand it, we're now supposed to think of the conveyor belt as rolling in the same direction as the wheels, so as to nullify the forward travel of the plane relative to the rest of the surroundings. This is tricky, but won't happen. The thrust is coming from the prop/jet. The plane will start to roll forward relative to the environment. The conveyor belt will start to roll with the wheels, but cannot stop the plane from pushing itself forward. This is because the forward travel of the plane is NOT dependent on [I]drive from the wheels. This is not the same as a car that has all four wheels on a conveyor belt or dynamometer. All the conveyor belt will do is slow the plane's acceleration by the same figure as the friction of the wheel assembly is responsible for producing. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Must have been really creepy/weird/sick to design and/or build such an airplane. I know that their culture is utterly different from ours, but imagine an American worker in a factory working on a plane that he and everyone else knew was intended to be a death machine piloted by a living human who was intentionally going to crash and die. People say you can't judge a culture from within your own, and outside of theirs. I say HELL YES you can, and that's one friggin' sick culture. I guess they're "different" nowadays, though. -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

If I understand the problem, the plane is going to be accelerating via its engines, but the wheels won't spin on their axles because the conveyer is going to move in the direction of takeoff as fast as the wheels would want to roll? Sure, the plane would get airborne. What the wheels are doing doesn't enter into it. Now, to read the rest of the thread that followed the first three posts, to see how much this has been hashed out... -Jeffrey -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"