Andy9o8

Based on THIS quick Google search, one of the results of which is THIS official website from the UK's Dept of Health, it does not appear that organ donor designation in the UK is done on a presumptive opt-in basis, or "donor by default" as your OP calls it. Rather, it appears that, since ca. July 2011, applicants became required to answer, one way or the other, an opt-in/opt-out question; IOW, they were no longer allowed to simply skip the question. The logical conclusion leads to the presumption that you may have quickly ticked an answer to the mandatory question without realizing or recalling it. (IOW, "Boobies" would have resulted in your application simply not being processed.) It's OK; cognition and short-term memory loss actually begins happening to most people at around age 30, so it's not just you.

All of which does zero to refute, much less even respond to, the information I provided.

I just wanted to say that that is a common misconception. It was not all regions/areas of the Untied States. It was very regional on people of different ethnic backgrounds getting married. But, people don't like to hear that. Well, that's because you are factually and historically incorrect. What Wolfriverjoe is referring to is the US's history of "anti-miscegenation laws" - laws that prohibited interracial marriage, and sometimes interracial sexual relations. In fact, of the 50 eventual states in the US, 42 had anti-miscegenation laws on the books at one time. Many of those states were well outside the Deep South and did not repeal their respective laws until the 1948-1967 time period. (They're the ones in yellow on the map.) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States#Anti-miscegenation_laws_enacted_in_the_Thirteen_Colonies_and_the_United_States

2000 ft lol!!! Yup, and I heard that was after pulling at 1,800. Feet & knees together...

Indeed.

Sorry; fell asleep during the ad and opening credits.

If adultery is banned, only criminals will have adultery.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970210

ah, you're back.

Thus far, gay men can't biologically procreate children with each other, but you have to admire their due diligence. Just putting that out there.

Trying to be funny about the very awkward phrasing in your subject line. Whoosh. I've spent a lifetime trying to hybridize pedantry with standup comedy. It's a lonely enterprise. Noble, but lonely.

Indeed. http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/justice/amish-beard-cutting-trial

What your grandfather does is his own business.

That's not his point. His point is that it was announced on NBC. You see, NBC is MSNBC which is Communist which is Obama which means that the Cyclone must have gotten federal money to open while real Americans are left to rot, bitterly clinging to their guns and bibles, because the Cyclone is located on Coney Island which sounds like Fire Island where all the gays and transsexuals go. Get it now?

What's your preferred method of dealing with the possibility of damage to or loss of the gear while it's being jumped on approval? - cutaway, whatever..?

Regular bathing tends to remove the flavor.

Point taken: rules changed. That being said: the Washington Times? Seriously? a/k/a "All the Fox News that's fit to print"? Yes, Bill Clinton personally put those 13 people in the Ft. Hood morgue. Ann Coulter would be envious of that editorial's slant. ETA: Hey, Marc! You reading? There's your "liberal media" for you.

You left out So'Sn'I. Why do you hate Klingons? That's so racist. http://www.movies-dictionary.org/English-to-Klingon-Dictionary/grandmother

Bwahaha. Truman.

I'm pretty sure (with an open mind) that as a practical matter, you can, and cannot, do that any more or any less in a military court than in a civilian court. In the military, you simply "admit" to your attorney you're guilty, and then say so during your guilty plea colloquy before the judge. I'm only a civilian lawyer, but have done a lot of criminal defense, and I know and have known a lot of JAG lawyers - they assure me that guilty plea bargaining - which includes defendants grudgingly "admitting" to certain charges - occurs all the time in the US military. (DavJohns or Lawrocket, correct me if you disagree.) Technically, it's a violation of most (maybe all?) states' civilian lawyer's ethics codes to participate in your client pleading guilty to a given charge if he flat-out denies to you that he's guilty of it. And in most states, the guilty plea colloquy includes a question like: "Are you pleading guilty to (X) because you are in fact guilty?" and if you don't say "Yes" to that the judge won't accept the guilty plea. My educated guess is that a JAG lawyer would tell his client something like "just so you know, if you tell me you're not guilty, or if I'm certain you're not guilty, my duty requires me to inform the judge, and if I do, he'll probably reject your guilty plea."

Gun free zone? My dad was a marksmanship instructor at Quantico.

http://www.native-net.org/na/native-american-calendar.html

As I began explaining in my earlier thread, it's been enshrined in US law since the Revolution, and was provided-for initially by the Constitution, and almost immediately thereafter by Act of Congress when the country was still in its infancy: History of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice So if one wanted to see the UCMJ revised to reflect this concern, that would take an act of Congress. And if one wanted to eliminate entirely Congress's authority to establish rules and regulations for the military that are separate from what civilians enjoy under the Constitution, it would require amending the Constitution itself to do so.